Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs, 78486-78511 [2010-31189]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78486-78511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31189]



[[Page 78485]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / 
Notices

[[Page 78486]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket ID ED-OS-2010-0011]
RIN 1894-AA00


Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for 
discretionary grant programs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education announces priorities and 
definitions to be used for any appropriate discretionary grant program 
in fiscal year (FY) 2011 and future years. We take this action to focus 
Federal financial assistance on expanding the number of Department 
programs and projects that support activities in areas of greatest 
educational need. We are establishing these priorities on a Department-
wide basis. This action permits the Department to use, as appropriate 
for particular discretionary grant programs, one or more of these 
priorities in any discretionary grant competition. We also announce 
definitions of key terms used in these priorities.

DATES:  Effective Date: These priorities and definitions are effective 
January 14, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margo Anderson, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W311, Washington, DC 20202-
5910. Telephone: (202) 205-3010 or by e-mail at: Margo.Anderson@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Background: The President has set a clear goal for our education 
system: By 2020, the United States will once again lead the world in 
the proportion of citizens holding college degrees or other 
postsecondary credentials. To support the national effort to meet this 
goal, the Secretary has outlined an ambitious, comprehensive education 
agenda that includes early learning programs that help ensure that 
children are ready to succeed in school, elementary and secondary 
schools that keep children on track to graduate from high school with 
the knowledge and skills needed for success in college and careers, and 
a higher education system that gives every individual the opportunity 
to attend and graduate from a postsecondary program. To ensure that the 
Department's discretionary grant programs effectively spur innovation, 
promote the development and implementation of effective and sustainable 
practices, and support adoption and implementation of necessary 
reforms, the Secretary announces priorities in three key areas: 
advancing key cradle-to-career educational reforms, addressing the 
needs of student subgroups, and building capacity for systemic 
continuous improvement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reminder of Accountability Requirements: We remind potential 
applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant 
competition, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the Secretary may consider 
the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous 
award, such as the applicant's use of funds and its compliance with 
grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the 
applicant failed to submit a performance report or submitted a 
report of unacceptable quality.
    Under 34 CFR 74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary may impose special 
conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially 
stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial 
or other management system that does not meet the standards in 34 
CFR part 74 or 80, as applicable; has not fulfilled the conditions 
of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.
    In making a continuation award, the Secretary may consider, 
under 34 CFR 75.253, the extent to which a grantee has made 
``substantial progress toward meeting the objectives in its approved 
application.'' This consideration includes the review of a grantee's 
progress in meeting the targets and projected outcomes in its 
approved application, and whether the grantee has expended funds in 
a manner that is consistent with its approved application and 
budget. In making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also 
requires various assurances and, in making a continuation award, 
considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with its 
current assurances, including those under applicable Federal civil 
rights laws and the regulations in 34 CFR parts 100 through 110 that 
prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal 
financial assistance from the Department of Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities and definitions (NPP) 
for the Department in the Federal Register on August 5, 2010 (75 FR 
47284). That notice contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the particular priorities and definitions. The Department 
has made several significant changes from the NPP. We explain these 
changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in 
this notice.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 
approximately 150 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities 
and definitions. We discuss substantive issues that pertain to all of 
the priorities generally under a ``General Comments'' section. We 
discuss substantive issues that are specific to a particular priority 
under the title of the priority to which those issues pertain. 
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes or 
comments that are outside of the scope of the proposed priorities and 
definitions.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities and definitions since publication of 
the NPP follows.

General Comments

    Comment: We received a number of comments that appeared to reflect 
that commenters may have misunderstood the purpose and intended use of 
these priorities. One commenter stated that it was unclear how the 
priorities would ``interact'' with current and future discretionary 
grant programs. Another commenter asked whether the Department intended 
for these priorities to supersede authorizing language that establishes 
the purpose, eligibility, and use of funds that Congress typically 
includes in legislation. Some commenters asked whether the 
discretionary grant programs funded under Part D of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) would be superseded by the 
priorities and argued that the IDEA Part D programs should remain as 
separate discretionary grant programs to ensure that the unique needs 
of students with disabilities are met. Other commenters asked how the 
Department would select the programs that would be subject to these 
priorities.
    Discussion: We want to be clear that the focus of any discretionary 
grant program is established by its authorizing legislation. Congress, 
through its actions, determines how funds are to be used, and the 
Department develops application notices and awards grants in a manner 
consistent with the authorizing statute and Congressional intent. 
Within the parameters of the authorizing statute, the Department often 
has flexibility in shaping the uses of funds for a specific 
discretionary grant program or in targeting funds for specific entities 
or needs and may, and often does, exercise that discretion by choosing 
to issue regulations for an individual program. The Department also has 
the flexibility under its general rulemaking authority to establish 
more general priorities that could apply to a number of different 
programs, and the Department has chosen to take that path with the 
establishment of these priorities. In any given discretionary program, 
the Department may decide to include one or more of these priorities in 
a notice inviting applications for a grant competition, but only if 
doing so is consistent with the program statute and applicable 
regulations. When a priority includes several priority areas, the 
Department may choose to include all of the priority areas or select 
those that are most appropriate and

[[Page 78487]]

applicable, consistent with the program statute and applicable 
regulations. For example, Priority 1 (Improving Early Learning 
Outcomes) includes the following five priority areas: (a) Physical 
well-being and motor development; (b) social-emotional development; (c) 
language and literacy development; (d) cognition and general knowledge, 
including early numeracy and literacy development; and (e) cognition 
and general knowledge, including numeracy and early scientific 
development. The Department could select all or some of the priority 
areas (a) through (e) to include in a given notice, assuming that doing 
so would be consistent with the program statute and applicable 
regulations.
    These priorities will not supersede the discretionary grant 
programs authorized under Part D of the IDEA. Rather, in administering 
competitions for particular discretionary grant programs, including 
those authorized under Part D of the IDEA (e.g., teacher preparation 
programs, technical assistance programs), the Department may use one or 
more of these priorities to focus the competition on a particular area 
consistent with the overall intent and the applicable statutory 
parameters of the program. The Department will select the programs that 
will use these priorities based on this framework.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification regarding how 
the Department decides whether to designate a priority as an absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational priority.
    Discussion: Under the Department's regulations (34 CFR 75.105), the 
Department has the authority to select the programs that would be 
subject to these priorities and to designate each priority as an 
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority, consistent 
with the authorizing statute that establishes the program. The 
Department considers the relative importance, appropriateness, and 
significance of a priority in determining whether to consider only 
applications that meet the priority (i.e., an absolute priority); to 
award additional points to an application meeting the priority or to 
select an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (i.e., a competitive 
preference priority); or to encourage applications that address the 
priority, but to give no preference to applications that do so (i.e., 
an invitational priority).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that issuing these 
priorities as final would preempt the opportunity for the public to 
comment on how the priorities will be used in particular programs and 
urged the Department to clarify whether there will be opportunities for 
the public to comment on how the priorities will be used on a program-
by-program basis. Several commenters expressed concern that the 
priorities appear to effectively create and implement education policy 
outside of the legislative process and without the involvement of 
stakeholders and elected officials. One commenter recommended that 
there be a more complete and open review of the proposed priorities and 
that Congressional hearings be held to review the notice before it is 
finalized; absent such hearings, the commenter recommended that the 
Department provide Congressional committees with periodic reports or 
appear at oversight hearings to review the impact of these priorities 
and definitions on education.
    Discussion: As stated in the NPP, the purpose of establishing these 
priorities is to permit the Department to use, as appropriate for 
particular discretionary grant programs, one or more of these 
priorities in any discretionary grant competition. Establishing these 
final priorities will permit the Department to include one or more of 
them in a notice inviting applications without having to go through a 
public notice-and-comment process each time the Department wishes to 
use one or more of these priorities in a discretionary grant program. 
This action, therefore, generally will allow the Department to conduct 
grant competitions and make awards in a timelier manner and thereby 
better serve States, districts, institutions, and other grantees. The 
Secretary is not establishing these priorities outside of the 
legislative process but rather pursuant to his general authority to 
promulgate regulations (20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474).
    We disagree that stakeholders have not had the opportunity to 
provide sufficient input. Approximately 150 commenters offered feedback 
and recommendations on the proposed priorities. We received valuable 
input from the public and took commenters' recommendations into account 
in drafting these final priorities and definitions. Indeed, as 
explained elsewhere in this notice, we are making several changes to 
the final priorities and definitions to address commenters' feedback, 
as well as adding several priorities in response to comments received.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: We received several comments from individuals who 
construed the priorities to be part of the Department's Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization proposal and objected to 
what they believed was the consolidation and conversion of existing 
formula grant programs into competitive grants.
    Discussion: These priorities will provide flexibility for the 
Department to include one or more of these priorities in a notice 
inviting applications for existing competitive grant programs if doing 
so is consistent with the program statute and regulations. With these 
priorities, we do not intend to consolidate or convert existing ESEA 
formula grant programs into competitive grant programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that projects 
proposing to serve students with disabilities were not proposed as a 
separate priority. Other commenters stated that the needs of students 
with disabilities should be addressed in all of the proposed 
priorities, not just in a few.
    Discussion: These priorities serve all students, including students 
with disabilities. Additionally, students with disabilities are 
specifically referred to in several of the priorities. For example, new 
Priority 9 (proposed Priority 6) (Improving Achievement and High School 
Graduation Rates) specifically focuses on projects that accelerate 
learning and help improve high school graduation rates and college 
enrollment rates for students with disabilities. New Priority 10 
(proposed Priority 7) (Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
Mathematics (STEM) Education) specifically refers to individuals with 
disabilities as one of the groups that are traditionally 
underrepresented in STEM careers and for which this priority could be 
used to increase the number of such students that have access to 
rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM and are prepared for 
postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM. In addition, we 
have included a specific reference to students with disabilities in the 
definition of high-need children and high-need students, which is used 
in Priority 1 (Improving Early Learning Outcomes), new Priority 8 
(proposed Priority 5) (Increasing Postsecondary Success), and new 
Priority 9 (proposed Priority 6) (Improving Achievement and High School 
Graduation Rates). In sum, we believe that we have included specific 
references to students with disabilities where such references are most 
appropriate and would be most helpful in targeting funds on activities

[[Page 78488]]

that would improve services to, and outcomes for, such students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that only Priority 1 
(Improving Early Learning Outcomes) included a focus on literacy. The 
commenter stated that literacy instruction is a fundamental 
instructional priority for elementary and secondary students and 
recommended that literacy instruction and professional development be 
added as a separate priority or integrated throughout the priorities.
    Discussion: We agree that literacy is essential to students' 
success in school. Although literacy instruction is not specifically 
referenced in every priority, the purpose of these priorities is to 
help improve student achievement and ensure that all children are ready 
to succeed in school and are on track to graduate from high school with 
the knowledge and skills needed for success in college and careers. 
Thus, we think that literacy instruction is encompassed within the 
priorities. We, therefore, do not believe that a separate priority with 
a specific focus on literacy instruction is needed.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about using any of the 
priorities for the Federal TRIO Programs authorized by Title IV of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The commenter 
recommended that these priorities be incorporated into separate, 
specialized competitions that would provide supplemental funds to 
currently-funded TRIO grantees. The commenter stated that imposing 
these priorities could potentially deny services to students who are 
otherwise eligible to participate in TRIO programs and that the 
legislative history of TRIO clearly rejects the use of any priorities 
other than those that promote continuity of student services through 
the consideration of the prior experience of grant applications in 
successfully providing TRIO services.
    Discussion: These priorities are not intended to replace the 
priorities applicable to the TRIO programs under Title IV of the HEA. 
As mentioned earlier, this action will provide flexibility for the 
Department to include one or more of these priorities in a notice 
inviting applications if doing so is consistent with the authorizing 
statute. We do not agree with the commenter's suggestion that these 
priorities should not be applied to the TRIO programs. The Department 
has the authority to establish appropriate priorities for the TRIO 
programs and has done so in the past. We believe that certain of these 
priorities are fully consistent with and will contribute to achieving 
the goals of the TRIO programs and accordingly may apply the priorities 
to one or more of the TRIO programs, as appropriate.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that new Priority 11 (proposed 
Priority 8) (Promoting Diversity), which focuses on projects that are 
designed to promote student diversity, including racial and ethnic 
diversity, will provide significant educational benefits to all 
students. However, the commenter expressed concern about the absence of 
a priority on achieving gender equity.
    Discussion: We agree that all students should have equal access to 
high-quality education programs and have made this explicit in new 
Priority 10 (proposed Priority 7) (Promoting STEM Education), which 
specifically refers to groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM 
careers, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and 
women. Given this priority and new Priority 11 (proposed Priority 8) 
(Promoting Diversity), we do not believe it is necessary to have a 
separate priority on gender equity.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: We received a number of recommendations to add other 
priorities to this notice. One commenter recommended including in all 
of the priorities a requirement that applicants use ``universal design 
for learning'' in their projects. Another commenter stated that the 
priorities lack a substantive focus on the arts, history, social 
science, and physical education. One commenter recommended adding a 
priority that focuses on increasing and protecting the rights of young 
people by ending domestic and dating violence.
    Discussion: While we appreciate the commenters' recommendations for 
additional priorities, we believe that the priorities included in this 
notice have the greatest potential to significantly improve student 
achievement and student outcomes, and to ensure that the Department's 
discretionary grant programs effectively spur innovation and promote 
the development and implementation of effective and sustainable 
practices. In addition, we believe these priorities support adoption of 
the reforms needed to meet the President's goal for the U.S. by 2020 to 
once again lead the world in the proportion of citizens holding college 
degrees or other postsecondary credentials.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Department did 
not provide sufficient time for public comment on the proposed 
priorities. This commenter also stated that because the Department 
published the proposed priorities at the beginning of the school year, 
school leaders and educators did not have enough time to provide 
meaningful feedback on the proposed priorities. The commenter requested 
that the Department provide an additional 30 days for comment on the 
proposed priorities.
    Discussion: As we stated earlier, we believe the 30-day comment 
period was sufficient to ensure timely and meaningful comment on the 
proposed priorities. We understand that the timing of Department 
notices may not always be optimal for all education stakeholders. The 
Department strives to balance the needs of our stakeholders with our 
desire for public input. In addition, we take into consideration our 
need to publish discretionary grant notices in a timely manner so that 
applicants have sufficient time to prepare their applications and the 
Department has sufficient time to conduct a thorough peer review of 
those applications. We decline to provide an additional 30 days for 
public comment because to do so would limit our ability to use these 
priorities in our notices inviting applications for discretionary 
grants as early as possible in FY 2011, while also making timely 
awards.
    Changes: None.

Priority 1--Improving Early Learning Outcomes

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that Priority 1 could be 
used for projects that are focused solely on children in the early 
elementary years rather than on projects that address the needs of 
early learners from birth through third grade. Another commenter stated 
that rather than focusing on the entire birth-through-third grade 
continuum, the priority should focus on distinct age groups within the 
continuum (i.e., infants and toddlers, three- and four-year old 
children, and primary-grade children).
    Discussion: Our intent is to use this priority across a number of 
different programs. Therefore, we do not want to unnecessarily limit 
its focus by requiring all projects to address the entire birth-
through-third grade continuum. We are adding language to make this 
clear.
    Changes: We have added the parenthetical, ``(or for any age group 
of high-need children within this range)'' following ``birth through 
third grade.'' The introduction to Priority 1 now reads: ``Projects 
that are designed to improve school readiness and success for high-need 
children (as defined in this notice) from birth through third

[[Page 78489]]

grade (or for any age group of high-need children within this range) 
through a focus on one or more of the following priority areas.''
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the priority's option 
for projects to address one or more of the priority areas (e.g., 
physical well-being and motor development, social-emotional 
development, language and literacy development), rather than requiring 
projects to address all of the priority areas. The commenter stated 
that projects focusing on only one of the priority areas might not 
improve school readiness for high-need children.
    Discussion: The focus of each of the Department's discretionary 
grant programs is determined by the program's authorizing statute that 
directs, and generally determines, how funds can be used. For example, 
there are discretionary grant funds that can only be used to support 
literacy activities but cannot be used for activities focused on 
physical well-being and motor development. We intend to ensure that 
Priority 1 can be used in a range of Department programs. Therefore, we 
have chosen to allow programs to select one or more of the priority 
areas under Priority 1 and decline to make the change requested by the 
commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that Priority 1 include 
topics that are the subject of other proposed priorities. One commenter 
recommended adding a focus on improving the effectiveness of teachers 
who teach young children. Another commenter recommended adding a focus 
on the needs of young children with parents who are serving in the 
military. One commenter recommended including a focus on improving and 
aligning State standards in all early learning domains and ensuring 
that curricula and instructional assessments are consistent with expert 
recommendations. Another commenter recommended including a focus on 
effective collaboration, coordination, and data-based decision-making.
    Discussion: The priority does not preclude applicants from 
proposing the projects suggested by the commenters, so long as the 
proposals address one or more of the priority areas identified and 
comply with the applicable statute and program regulations. We believe 
that it is unnecessary to add a focus in Priority 1 on areas that are 
the same as those covered in other priorities because the Department 
can use more than one priority for a particular discretionary grant 
program competition. For example, if the Department wishes to focus a 
competition on improving the effectiveness of teachers who teach young 
children, it can include both Priority 1 (Improving Early Learning 
Outcomes) and Priority 3 (Improving the Effectiveness and Distribution 
of Effective Teachers and Principals) in its notice inviting 
applications. On the other hand, in some competitions it might not be 
appropriate or legally allowable to focus Priority 1 on specific issues 
or populations; framing the priority in a flexible manner, as we have 
done, would allow the Department to use it in such a context.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that language be added to 
the priority to emphasize meeting the diverse needs of children, 
including those who exhibit early signs of disabilities or giftedness. 
Another commenter stated that Priority 1 should address the special 
needs of English learners.
    Discussion: Priority 1 focuses on high-need children from birth 
through third grade. As defined in this notice, the term high-need 
children and high-need students includes children and students at risk 
of educational failure, and specifically refers to English learners and 
children and students with disabilities as examples of high-need 
children. As written, the definition would also encompass children who 
are gifted if those children are at risk of educational failure. 
Therefore, we have concluded that it is unnecessary to include the 
additional language suggested by the commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended replacing ``education'' with 
``early learning and education'' to emphasize the importance of 
improving the quality of education from ``cradle to career.''
    Discussion: In this priority, we believe ``education'' broadly 
includes ``early learning'' and, therefore, decline to make the change 
suggested by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that children participating in camp 
programs show significant growth in such areas as self-esteem, 
independence, and leadership, and recommended that outcome-based camp 
programs be deemed eligible recipients of funds under any of the 
Department's discretionary grant programs that use Priority 1. Another 
commenter stated that Priority 1 should be an absolute priority or a 
competitive preference priority in all Department discretionary grant 
programs in order to emphasize the importance of investments in young 
children. One commenter recommended that reviewers of proposals 
submitted in competitions that apply Priority 1 should include 
professionals with expertise in each phase of child development, 
including the development of infants and toddlers.
    Discussion: This notice does not address the issue of who is 
eligible to apply for particular grants or whether a priority is 
designated as an absolute priority, competitive preference priority, or 
invitational priority. Those decisions are determined by the 
authorizing legislation and by the Department in announcing individual 
competitions. In addition, it would not be appropriate to apply 
Priority 1 to every Department competition as many of our competitive 
programs (such as those in the areas of higher education and vocational 
rehabilitation) have no real connection to early learning. Similarly, 
we will not address the peer review process here, other than to 
reassure the commenter that as part of the Department's competitive 
grant process, the Department selects reviewers based on their 
expertise in the area or areas to be addressed in each discretionary 
grant program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding ``creative arts'' to the 
priority areas included in Priority 1. The commenter stated that 
engaging children in creative arts can improve their learning in other 
developmental areas. Another commenter recommended including a priority 
area that focuses on curricula that encourage communication and 
reasoning and provide children with an ``atmosphere of respect, 
encouragement, and enthusiasm for learning.''
    Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to make the changes 
requested by the commenters because the priority areas in Priority 1 
already include ``approaches toward learning,'' which refers to a 
child's disposition over a range of attitudes, habits, and learning 
styles, including the capacity for invention, creativity, and 
imagination. These are demonstrated through all domains, including 
creative arts. Priority 1 could, therefore, be used to fund projects 
that use creative arts or other curricula in order to improve school 
readiness and success for high-need children, provided such a focus was 
supported by the program statute and regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add ``early 
career exploration'' as a priority area to Priority 1. The commenter 
stated that it is important to expose children to role models early in 
life and to avoid

[[Page 78490]]

the development of biases and stereotypes that could possibly evolve 
into barriers for students' success in their careers and life in 
general.
    Discussion: We believe that adding language on early career 
exploration to Priority 1 would unnecessarily limit the focus of the 
priority. However, a project that focuses on early career exploration 
for high-need children from birth through third grade could be 
responsive to priority area (d) if the project used early career 
exploration as an approach to learning that would improve school 
readiness and success for high-need children, and if such a focus was 
authorized by the program statute and regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended revising Priority 1 to emphasize 
alignment and coordination with existing early childhood programs that 
are serving infants, toddlers, and young children (e.g., programs under 
the IDEA).
    Discussion: While we agree that early childhood programs should 
coordinate with each other, we decline to make the suggested change 
because the priority focuses on the outcomes to be achieved--improving 
school readiness and success--rather than on the specific strategies 
that an applicant may choose for attaining an outcome.
    Changes: None.

Priority 2--Implementing Internationally Benchmarked, College- and 
Career-Ready Elementary and Secondary Academic Standards

    Comment: We received several comments regarding the content and 
nature of the academic standards supported by projects under this 
priority. One commenter expressed concern that the priority would 
support projects using only academic standards developed under the 
Common Core State Standards initiative; this commenter recommended that 
the Department use the priority to support implementation of other 
rigorous academic standards commonly used in States, such as standards 
for Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses. Two 
commenters suggested that the Department revise the priority to include 
support for projects using academic standards that are rigorous but 
might not be common among multiple States; one of these commenters 
expressed concern that, with this priority, the Department is 
advocating for national academic standards that might not be suitable 
in all States or regions of the country.
    Discussion: The Department does not require that any specific 
academic standards be supported to meet this priority, only that they 
be internationally benchmarked, ensure that students graduate from high 
school college- and career-ready, and be held in common by multiple 
States. While we are not mandating the use of specific academic 
standards, and will not apply Priority 2 to restrict applicants to 
using only one set of standards, the Department believes strongly that 
adoption of common K-12 academic standards by States will provide a 
foundation for more efficient and effective creation of the assessment, 
instructional, and professional development resources needed to 
implement a coherent system of teaching and learning. The Department 
intends to use this priority to support the implementation of academic 
standards that are common among multiple States and are adopted 
voluntarily by States and their local educational agencies (LEAs).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters recommended that the Department 
revise the priority to include support for projects advancing the 
implementation of a broader range of standards. Commenters recommended 
standards in the following areas: social, emotional, cultural, 
vocational, physical skills, civics, and health and sexuality. In 
addition, one commenter recommended that the Department revise the 
priority to include support for ``21st Century skills'' standards, 
including critical thinking and other skills relating to employment. 
Some of these commenters argued that mastery of these standards is also 
needed if students are to be career-ready.
    Discussion: The Department recognizes that development of standards 
in many of the areas mentioned by the commenters is important, and we 
commend the work that States and other stakeholders may be undertaking 
to develop common and rigorous standards in these areas. This priority 
could be used to support implementation of those standards as well, if 
they are internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready, and 
held in common by multiple States.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: We received several comments recommending that the 
Department provide greater specificity in terms of the projects that 
the priority could support. One commenter recommended that the 
Department revise the priority to mention specifically that projects in 
career and technical education may support the implementation of 
college- and career-ready standards. Another commenter suggested that 
the Department revise paragraph (a) of the priority to support the 
development and implementation of specific types of assessments 
including: Longitudinal assessments (i.e., assessments that measure 
student growth over time); assessments that include performance tasks; 
portfolio assessments; and assessments that incorporate classroom-based 
observations. Another commenter recommended that the Department revise 
paragraph (c) of the priority to specify the types of professional 
development or preparation programs that may be used to meet the 
priority; the commenter recommended that only programs that are 
research-based and include clinical experiences (such as teacher 
residency programs) be permitted under the priority.
    We also received several comments recommending that we provide 
greater specificity on the types of student subgroups that projects 
under the priority should serve. Several commenters recommended that we 
revise the priority to include a focus on projects implementing 
college- and career-ready academic standards for students with diverse 
learning needs, including gifted, talented, and other advanced 
students, as well as students with disabilities. Another commenter 
recommended that we revise the priority to include a focus on projects 
implementing standards for highly mobile students.
    Discussion: We decline to revise the priority in the manner 
recommended by the commenters as such changes could unnecessarily limit 
the applicability of the priority across Department programs. We note 
that the types of projects mentioned by the commenters would not be 
prohibited under this priority and that, in a program using the 
priority, such projects may be allowable provided they comply with 
applicable program statutes and regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise 
paragraph (a) of the priority to support the development and 
implementation of assessments that are both aligned with college- and 
career-ready academic standards and designed to improve teaching and 
learning. The commenter asserted that this revision would help clarify 
that assessments can be used for instructional improvement as well as 
for accountability purposes.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the importance of 
supporting projects that improve instruction and learning. To promote 
this goal, we are revising the priority so that the goal of improved 
instruction

[[Page 78491]]

and learning applies to all projects covered by the priority.
    Changes: We have revised the introduction to Priority 2 by adding 
``and to improve instruction and learning'' following ``held in common 
by multiple States.'' With this revision, the introduction reads as 
follows: ``Projects that are designed to support the implementation of 
internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready academic 
standards held in common by multiple States and to improve instruction 
and learning, including projects in one or more of the following 
priority areas.''
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise 
paragraph (b) of the priority to include support for the development 
and implementation of curricula as well as instructional materials. The 
commenter asserted that more attention should be paid to the 
development of curricula aligned with new college- and career-ready 
standards.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter and are revising this 
paragraph of the priority to include support for the development and 
implementation of curricula aligned with college- and career-ready 
standards.
    Changes: We have added ``curriculum or'' before ``instructional 
materials'' in paragraph (b) of this priority. With this revision, 
paragraph (b) reads as follows: ``The development or implementation of 
curriculum or instructional materials aligned with those standards.''
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise 
paragraph (d) of the priority to include support for ongoing school-
level support systems, as well as strategies that translate standards 
into classroom practice. The commenter asserted that more attention 
should be paid to the support structures needed to implement new 
college- and career-ready academic standards with fidelity.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concerns; however, we do 
not believe we should specify the strategies that may be used under 
paragraph (d) as this could limit the applicability of the priority 
across Department programs. Further, we believe that implementing 
school-level support systems is a strategy for translating standards 
into classroom practice and, therefore, is already covered under the 
priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise the 
priority to include an additional paragraph promoting equity of 
conditions and resources for implementing college- and career-ready 
academic standards across schools.
    Discussion: We believe that funding projects through programs using 
this priority promotes equity in schools' abilities to implement 
college- and career-ready academic standards and, accordingly, that the 
revision recommended by the commenter is unnecessary.
    Changes: None.

Priority 3--Improving the Effectiveness and Distribution of Effective 
Teachers or Principals

    Comment: Several commenters recommended that we revise this 
priority to include preparation, recruitment, retention, professional 
development, and increasing salaries as ways of improving teacher and 
principal effectiveness or ensuring the equitable distribution of 
teachers and principals. Other commenters suggested more specific 
methods for improving the effectiveness of teachers and principals, 
such as: Providing teachers with opportunities to mentor each other to 
prevent isolation; training teachers and principals to identify and 
address unique learning needs; supporting professional development 
programs; providing teachers with a daily planning period; supporting 
teacher preparation programs; and requiring teachers to acquire 
different credentials for different geographic areas.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that improving the preparation, 
recruitment, retention, and professional development of teachers and 
principals, and improving their compensation systems can be effective 
methods for improving teacher and principal effectiveness and the 
equitable distribution of teachers and principals. We also believe that 
improving the evaluation of teachers and principals and implementing 
performance-based certification and retention systems can improve the 
effectiveness and distribution of teachers and principals. Therefore, 
we are revising the priority to include these activities as examples of 
methods that a project might use under this priority. However, we do 
not believe it is necessary to reference the more specific activities 
suggested by the commenters as this level of specificity may 
inadvertently limit the focus of the priority. We note that this 
priority would not preclude an applicant from focusing its project on 
these specific activities, provided such a focus was authorized by the 
program statute and regulations.
    Changes: We have added ``improving the preparation, recruitment, 
development, and evaluation of teachers and principals; implementing 
performance-based certification and retention systems; and reforming 
compensation and advancement systems'' as examples of the types of 
methods that might be used to improve teacher and principal 
effectiveness.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that we revise the priority 
to clarify how States and school districts should evaluate teachers and 
principals. A number of these commenters expressed concern that student 
test scores would be the only evaluation measure that would be 
supported under the priority. One commenter recommended that continued 
and sustained growth in student achievement is the best way to evaluate 
teachers and principals. Several commenters suggested that the 
Department provide more flexibility in the definitions of effective 
teacher and effective principal to take into account different State 
and local contexts. Other commenters suggested that the Department 
revise the priority to include the use of positive learning conditions 
as an example of a supplemental evaluation measure.
    A number of commenters expressed concerns regarding the proposed 
definitions of effective principal, effective teacher, highly effective 
principal, and highly effective teacher. Several commenters objected to 
assessing principal and teacher effectiveness based in significant part 
on student achievement on standardized tests and questioned the 
validity and reliability of ``value-added'' measures. Others stated 
that measures of growth in student achievement have not been adequately 
studied for the purposes of evaluating teachers and principals and 
expressed concerns about implementing such systems in a manner that is 
fair, reliable, and valid.
    Discussion: We agree that the priority should take into account the 
varied contexts of States and districts, including the fact that some 
States have made great strides toward establishing high-quality teacher 
and principal evaluation systems that take into account student growth, 
in significant part, along with multiple measures of effectiveness, 
while other States have not yet progressed to that point. Thus, to 
clarify the Department's intent, we are revising the priority to ensure 
that the priority is applicable to States and districts that have in 
place high-quality teacher and principal evaluation systems, as well as 
States and districts where such systems are not yet established. The 
new language focuses on measuring teacher and principal effectiveness 
using data that include

[[Page 78492]]

student growth in significant part, but does not require student 
achievement or student growth data to be the only measure of teacher or 
principal effectiveness; other measures, such as those proposed by the 
commenters, could be included as measures of effectiveness under this 
priority. Given these changes, the definitions of effective principal, 
effective teacher, highly effective principal, and highly effective 
teacher are no longer needed and we are removing them from this 
priority.
    Changes: We have revised Priority 3 to read as follows: ``Projects 
that are designed to address one or more of the following priority 
areas:
    (a) Increasing the number or percentage of teachers or principals 
who are effective or reducing the number or percentage of teachers or 
principals who are ineffective, particularly in high-poverty schools 
(as defined in this notice) including through such activities as 
improving the preparation, recruitment, development, and evaluation of 
teachers and principals; implementing performance-based certification 
and retention systems; and reforming compensation and advancement 
systems.
    (b) Increasing the retention, particularly in high-poverty schools 
(as defined in this notice), and equitable distribution of teachers or 
principals who are effective.
    For the purposes of this priority, teacher and principal 
effectiveness should be measured using:
    (1) Teacher or principal evaluation data, in States or local 
educational agencies that have in place a high-quality teacher or 
principal evaluation system that takes into account student growth (as 
defined in this notice) in significant part and uses multiple measures 
that, in the case of teachers, may include observations for determining 
teacher effectiveness (such as systems that meet the criteria for 
evaluation systems under the Race to the Top program as described in 
criterion (D)(2)(ii) of the Race to the Top notice inviting 
applications (74 FR 59803)); or
    (2) Data that include, in significant part, student achievement (as 
defined in this notice) or student growth (as defined in this notice) 
data and may include multiple measures in States or local educational 
agencies that do not have the teacher or principal evaluation systems 
described in paragraph (1).''
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department revise the 
priority to identify other types of educational support staff, such as 
administrators, therapists, and early learning practitioners.
    Discussion: We agree that a wide array of educators and school 
personnel is critical to student success. However we have decided to 
focus this priority on improving the effectiveness of classroom 
teachers and principals because of their critical importance in raising 
student achievement.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority be revised to 
take into consideration applicable negotiated labor agreements and 
other legal obligations.
    Discussion: It is the responsibility of each applicant to ensure 
that its proposed project under this or any other priority takes into 
consideration any applicable Federal, State, or local legal 
obligations. It is also the responsibility of each applicant to ensure 
that its proposal abides by any applicable labor agreements.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: In reviewing the proposed priorities, we noticed that 
paragraph (b) of this priority regarding the retention and equitable 
distribution of teachers or principals who are effective should have 
included a reference to the retention of such teachers and principals 
in high-poverty schools. We are including this reference in the final 
priority.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (b) of the priority to 
add,``particularly in high-poverty schools (as defined in this 
notice),'' after the word ``retention.''

Priority 4--Turning Around Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools

    Comment: A number of commenters recommended that we revise the 
priority to include specific strategies to turn around persistently 
lowest-achieving schools. Many commenters recommended that the priority 
mention expanded learning time, including after-school and summer 
programs, as an acceptable approach to turning around schools. One 
commenter recommended revising the priority to provide support for 
career and technical education as a strategy to improve student 
achievement and increase graduation rates. Another commenter suggested 
that the Department revise the priority to encourage the use of 
technology to increase the capacity of schools to improve student 
achievement and graduation rates. One commenter expressed concern that 
the proposed priority did not mention ``response to intervention'' as a 
successful strategy for improving results for at-risk students. Another 
commenter recommended that the Department add language to specify that 
services be aligned with the efforts of other agencies in order to 
create a coordinated system of supports.
    Discussion: We appreciate commenters' suggestions of promising 
strategies to turn around persistently lowest-achieving schools, but we 
are intentionally allowing flexibility in the possible approaches that 
could be used under this priority. Therefore, we decline to include the 
recommended strategies in this priority. This priority would not 
preclude an applicant from including in its proposal the suggested 
strategies provided that such strategies are authorized by the 
applicable program statute and regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that the four turnaround 
models required under the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program would 
be required in order for an applicant to meet this priority. These 
commenters recommended that a fifth option be added to provide more 
flexibility on the strategies that can be used in turning around 
persistently lowest-achieving schools.
    Discussion: Priority 4 does not require implementation of the four 
SIG models (i.e., school turnaround, school transformation, school 
closure, restart), nor does it specify any strategies that must be used 
for turning around persistently lowest-achieving schools. As noted 
previously, this priority is focused on the outcomes listed in the 
priority, not on prescribing specific strategies for achieving those 
outcomes.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise the 
priority to include support specifically for school turnaround efforts 
that are sustainable. The commenter stated that this change would help 
ensure that successful turnaround efforts will be rewarded with 
additional funding.
    Discussion: We decline to make the change recommended by the 
commenter because the likelihood that a particular model or strategy 
would be sustainable in a given school is a factor that school 
officials must necessarily consider in making decisions about the model 
or strategies to implement in a school in need of improvement. It is 
unclear how selecting a sustainable model or strategies would 
necessarily lead to additional funding, as stated by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department add a focus in 
Priority 4 on providing services to support military-connected 
students.

[[Page 78493]]

    Discussion: Priority 4 is focused on the outcomes listed in the 
priority, not on specific subgroups of students. Therefore, we decline 
to make the change requested by the commenter. We note that new 
Priority 12 (proposed Priority 9) specifically focuses on support for 
military-connected students and their families.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority be revised to 
require projects to focus on narrowing achievement gaps for all 
subgroups of students in persistently lowest-achieving schools. The 
commenter stated that the success of the whole school relies on the 
achievement of all students.
    Discussion: We agree that narrowing the achievement gap for 
subgroups is an important goal for all schools, including persistently 
lowest-achieving schools. However, we decline to revise the priority 
because we believe that in persistently lowest-achieving schools, which 
are among the lowest-achieving schools in each State, the primary focus 
should be on improving student achievement for all students in the 
school.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise 
paragraph (b) of this priority to include a focus on increasing 
graduation rates of students with disabilities. The commenter also 
recommended that the Department revise paragraph (c) to ensure that 
services provided to students are available and adequate for students 
with disabilities.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important to include a focus on 
improving student achievement and increasing the graduation rates of 
students with disabilities. For this reason, we included a specific 
provision in new Priority 9 (proposed Priority 6) (Improving 
Achievement and High School Graduation Rates) that focuses on projects 
that accelerate learning and help improve high school graduation rates 
and college enrollment rates for students with disabilities. However, 
we decline to modify Priority 4 in the manner suggested by the 
commenter because the focus of this priority is on improving student 
achievement for all students in persistently lowest-achieving schools.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that this priority's 
focus on schools meeting the definition of persistently lowest-
achieving schools is too narrow. The commenters recommended that the 
priority be expanded to include support for other low-performing 
schools and for schools at risk of becoming low performing.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern about serving 
low-performing schools other than those that are persistently lowest-
achieving. However, our intention with this priority is to focus 
specifically on the schools most in need of improvement, which are the 
persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined in this notice. 
Accordingly, we decline to expand the scope of this priority.
    Changes: None.

New Priority 5--Improving School Engagement, School Environment, and 
School Safety and Improving Family and Community Engagement

    Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that the Department modify 
the proposed priorities to include support for projects that create 
safe and supportive schools and engage communities and families to 
improve student achievement.

Safe and Supportive Schools

    Many commenters expressed support for the Department's discussion 
of school culture and climate in the background for proposed Priority 4 
(Turning Around Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools), and proposed 
Priority 10 (Data-Based Decision Making). Several commenters suggested 
that the Department add a separate priority that would support projects 
designed to improve school climate. For example, numerous commenters 
noted that a positive and supportive school climate and culture can 
help to improve students' academic achievement, especially for those 
students most at risk of not succeeding academically and for students 
attending persistently lowest-achieving schools. Several commenters 
articulated concerns about the negative impact that bullying and 
harassment can have on students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 
transgender (LGBT) students, and these students' ability to achieve 
academic success. Commenters noted that bullying and harassment can 
lead to poor learning environments where students feel unsafe or in 
danger of physical harm, negatively affecting a student's ability to 
successfully complete high school and pursue postsecondary education. 
Multiple commenters cited research demonstrating that school 
environments influence student achievement. For example, one commenter 
described evidence showing that bullying, harassment, and unduly harsh 
disciplinary practices have serious academic consequences, including 
decreased interest in school, increased absences, decreased 
concentration levels, lower grades, and higher dropout rates. Multiple 
commenters also noted how important school climate is for military-
connected students and, in particular, the need for schools to provide 
mental health support for students with deployed parents.

Family and Community Engagement

    Numerous commenters urged the Department to establish a separate 
priority for projects that would focus on enhancing family engagement 
in students' learning. Commenters cited research showing that family 
engagement is a significant factor in student success, including in 
ensuring that students meet high academic standards and are college- 
and career-ready when they graduate from high school. Several 
commenters also noted how important it is to support parents' 
involvement in their children's education, particularly for children 
from low-income families, young children who participate in early 
learning programs, and children with disabilities. Multiple commenters 
emphasized the importance of engaging families as key partners in their 
children's education, working hand in hand with them in schools and 
ensuring that parents and families understand data and information on 
student performance. Another commenter recommended that if the 
Department establishes a priority focusing on family engagement, the 
priority should include support for projects that provide technical 
assistance to families of high-need students to support higher 
education and postsecondary success.
    Multiple commenters suggested that the Department add a new 
priority that would support projects designed to promote community 
engagement in students' education. One commenter observed that family-
led and community-based organizations can play a key role in 
implementing education reforms. Another commenter stated that for 
education reforms to be successful, there needs to be a strong 
relationship among communities, schools, and families at the very 
beginning of the reform process. Specifically, the commenter stated 
that community schools are the best vehicles to encourage and ensure 
high school completion and postsecondary success. These commenters also 
provided definitions for ``community engagement'' and ``family 
engagement'' and recommended that definitions of these terms be added 
to the final notice along with the new priority.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that safe and supportive schools 
are

[[Page 78494]]

critical to improving students' learning and enhancing teacher 
effectiveness. Students learn best when they are in a school 
environment with, among other things, positive relationships between 
adults and students; the absence of violence, bullying, harassment, and 
substance abuse; and readily available physical and mental health 
supports and services. The Department has been clear that preparing 
students for success requires learning environments that help all 
students to be safe, healthy, and supported in their classrooms, 
schools, and communities. For example, on July 9, 2010, the Department 
published a notice inviting applications for the Safe and Supportive 
Schools program to support statewide measurement of, and targeted 
interventions to improve, conditions for learning, and provided 
definitions of ``school engagement,'' ``school environment,'' and 
``school safety'' (see 75 FR 39504). The Department also has been clear 
that bullying and harassing students, including LGBT students, is 
damaging to those students and unacceptable (see the guidance the 
Department provided on October 26, 2010, available at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf).
    Similarly, the Department is committed to improving family and 
community engagement as part of its comprehensive approach to improving 
student achievement. Preparing students for success requires greater 
opportunities to engage families in their children's education and 
strengthening the role of schools as centers of communities. For 
example, the Department's Promise Neighborhoods program encourages 
robust development and implementation of a continuum of effective 
community services, strong family supports, and comprehensive education 
reforms to improve education and life outcomes for children and youth 
in high-need communities. In addition, in May, 2010, the Department 
proposed doubling funding (through the ESEA reauthorization) for 
activities promoting family engagement from 1 percent to 2 percent of 
Title I dollars and proposes to ask LEAs to use these funds in a more 
systemic and comprehensive way.
    Based on the many informative comments we received and our strong 
belief in the need to promote safe and supportive school environments 
and enhanced family and community engagement in students' learning, we 
are adding a priority that would support projects designed to improve 
school environment and safety, and projects designed to improve parent 
and family and community engagement. We are establishing a separate 
priority rather than modifying each individual priority to ensure that 
there is appropriate focus on these important issues. We also believe 
this priority will be broad enough for many of our programs to use 
within the parameters of their authorizing program statutes and 
regulations and, thereby, will support many of the types of strategies 
and supports mentioned by the commenters. Programs also will be able to 
use this priority in conjunction with one or more of the other 
priorities established in this notice.
    Changes: The Department has added a new priority, Priority 5--
School Engagement, School Environment, and School Safety and Family and 
Community Engagement, that reads as follows:
    ``Projects that are designed to improve student outcomes through 
one or more of the following priority areas:
    (a) Improving school engagement, which may include increasing the 
quality of relationships between and among administrators, teachers, 
families, and students and increasing participation in school-related 
activities.
    (b) Improving the school environment, which may include improving 
the school setting related to student learning, safety, and health.
    (c) Improving school safety, which may include decreasing the 
incidence of harassment, bullying, violence, and substance use.
    (d) Improving parent and family engagement (as defined in this 
notice).
    (e) Improving community engagement (as defined in this notice) by 
supporting partnerships between local educational agencies, school 
staff, and one or more of the following:
    (i) Faith- or community-based organizations.
    (ii) Institutions of higher ed