Final Priorities, Requirements, and Selection Criteria-Comprehensive Centers Program (CFDA Number: 84.283B), 33574-33594 [2012-13739]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33574-33594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13739]



[[Page 33573]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 109

June 6, 2012

Part III





Department of Education





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





Final Priorities, Requirements, and Selection Criteria--Comprehensive 
Centers Program (CFDA Number: 84.283B); Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / 
Notices

[[Page 33574]]



DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket ID ED-2012-OESE-0004]
RIN 1810-AB14


Final Priorities, Requirements, and Selection Criteria--
Comprehensive Centers Program (CFDA Number: 84.283B)

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
announces priorities, requirements, and selection criteria under the 
Comprehensive Centers Program. The Assistant Secretary may use one or 
more of these priorities, requirements, and selection criteria for 
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2012 and later years. We take this 
action to focus Federal technical assistance on identified State-led 
reforms. We intend these priorities, requirements, and selection 
criteria to increase the relevance and usefulness of Comprehensive 
Center technical assistance.

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, and selection 
criteria are effective July 6, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fran Walter, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3W115, Washington, DC 20202, 
Telephone: (202) 205-9198 or by email: fran.walter@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Program: The Comprehensive Centers program supports the 
establishment of no fewer than 20 comprehensive technical assistance 
centers to provide technical assistance to State educational agencies 
(SEAs) that builds their capacity to support local educational agencies 
(LEAs or districts) and schools, especially low-performing districts 
and schools, improve educational outcomes for all students, close 
achievements gaps, and improve the quality of instruction.
    Program Authority: Title II, section 203, of the Education 
Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA).
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and 
selection criteria (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on 
January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3242). The NPP contained background information 
and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, requirements, 
and selection criteria.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 59 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
and selection criteria. We used these comments to revise, improve, and 
clarify the priorities, requirements, and selection criteria. We group 
major issues according to subject and discuss other substantive issues 
under the title of the item to which they pertain. Generally, we do not 
address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not 
address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to 
the proposed priorities, requirements, or selection criteria.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments 
received, and any changes to the priorities, requirements, and 
selection criteria since publication of the NPP, follows.

General

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the U.S. Department of 
Education (the Department) increase teacher awareness of culturally and 
linguistically gifted students by using the Comprehensive Centers to 
develop a cadre of teacher trainers with expertise in culturally 
relevant gifted education practices.
    Discussion: While we do not identify specific initiatives related 
to gifted students, the requirements for both the Regional Centers and 
the Content Centers focus on increasing the capacity of SEAs to support 
their LEAs and schools in improving outcomes for all students. For this 
reason, we do not believe it is necessary to specifically identify 
initiatives for gifted students in the final priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that in order to meet the 
educational needs of all students and achieve better outcomes, our 
overall strategy should focus on removing barriers for students and 
teachers and moving from what the commenter characterized as a deficit-
based instructional system toward one based on student growth.
    Discussion: We have committed the resources of the Comprehensive 
Centers program to help SEAs build their capacity to implement State-
level initiatives and support district- and school-level initiatives 
that will close achievement gaps and improve the quality of 
instruction. Further, in the requirements for all centers, we specify 
that the centers will help SEAs build organizational capacity to 
support district- and school-level implementation of effective 
practices to improve student outcomes. For example, the centers will 
help SEAs work collaboratively and productively with districts and 
schools, identify and implement a continuum of support and 
interventions to address districts' and schools' specific needs, and 
support the implementation and scaling up of innovative and effective 
strategies. We believe these capacity-building approaches will 
contribute to removing barriers to learning for both students and 
teachers. A center's support for the implementation and scaling up of 
innovative and effective strategies could include support for 
strengths-based instruction, which focuses on student potential and 
growth.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we support States' data 
collection efforts, specifically in the management and use of 
longitudinal data systems and the Integrated Postsecondary Education 
Data System.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter and support States' efforts 
to effectively collect and use data. As stated in this notice, all 
Regional Centers are required to work with SEAs to build their capacity 
to use data-based decision-making to improve instructional practices, 
policies, and student outcomes and to address the demands of 
implementing their longitudinal data systems. In addition, the Center 
on Innovations in Learning will provide technical assistance to 
Regional Centers and SEAs that focuses on using State and local data 
systems to identify specific areas of student need and evaluate the 
effectiveness of specific strategies that support innovations in 
learning. These efforts will support the States' management and use of 
their statewide longitudinal data systems and other data sets as 
appropriate.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the final notice include the 
funding available for each Center.
    Discussion: In the notice inviting applications (NIA) published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we identify the 
funding available for each of the Regional and Content Centers.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned that the Comprehensive Centers 
program may violate State law, contract law, privacy rights, and the 
right of citizens to vote on governance and tax issues.
    Discussion: The ETAA authorizes awards to Comprehensive Centers to 
provide training, technical assistance, and professional development to 
SEAs, LEAs, regional educational agencies,

[[Page 33575]]

and schools in the administration and implementation of programs under 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria in this notice are 
consistent with the ETAA and, in adopting them, the Department followed 
the laws and regulations that govern rulemaking. We do not believe that 
the Comprehensive Centers program violates Federal or State law, and 
nothing in this notice requires grantees to act contrary to the law or 
usurps the rights of citizens to vote on governance or tax issues. 
Additionally, all Federal and State privacy and contract laws apply to 
potential Comprehensive Center grantees.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted that although the Department's 
oversight for the Comprehensive Centers program is essential, States 
might be uncomfortable providing adequate feedback to inform that 
oversight. The commenter suggested that we provide support for States 
to work through a common entity to identify and share challenges and 
routinely communicate with the Department to ensure that Federal 
oversight of the Comprehensive Centers is effective and focused on the 
right issues.
    Discussion: Although we strongly agree with the commenter about the 
importance of State feedback to the Department on the Comprehensive 
Center program, we decline the suggestion to establish an entity to 
serve as an intermediary between States and the Department. As part of 
the Department's grant monitoring and oversight activities, we review 
feedback from SEA staff provided in each grantee's annual performance 
report and annual evaluation. We also welcome direct feedback from SEA 
staff.
    As described in the application requirements, all applicants must 
provide a plan to assess the progress and performance of the center in 
meeting the educational and capacity-building needs of SEAs. The plan 
must include a description of the methods that will be used to monitor 
progress and make mid-course corrections as needed. Each applicant must 
also provide a plan to collect and use formative and summative data 
throughout the grant period to inform and improve service delivery. 
Finally, the ETAA requires ongoing independent evaluations of the 
Comprehensive Centers program by the Institute of Education Science's 
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. We 
believe these established processes and requirements ensure adequate 
feedback from States on the progress and performance of the centers.
    We also have established an option to allow an SEA flexibility to 
indicate to the Department in the second fiscal year of the cooperative 
agreement, and in each subsequent fiscal year, its desire to affiliate 
with a different Regional Center, regardless of the location of that 
center. Together with our program-monitoring efforts, we believe that 
the requirements and flexibility described in this notice will ensure 
effective oversight of the program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter, while strongly supporting the Department's 
focus on State-led reforms, urged us to ensure that the centers respond 
to the full range of State-led reforms, some of which were not 
mentioned in the NPP.
    Discussion: The priority for Regional Centers identifies seven key 
State-led reform areas within which the centers will work to build 
State capacity. The priority is clear that this is a non-exhaustive 
list and does not preclude a center from working with SEAs on 
initiatives in other key State-led reform areas. Further, in 
partnership with the SEAs, Regional Centers are required to develop a 
plan of technical assistance based on each SEA's unique context, 
challenges, and current capacity, which will address specific State-led 
reform initiatives. Content Centers will work to increase State 
capacity in identified key topic areas.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the Center on School Turnaround 
would focus its attention on issues related to the most persistently 
low-achieving schools, even though SEAs are responsible for the 
improvement of all of their districts and schools. The commenter 
expressed concern that no center would be devoted to providing 
assistance to SEAs in managing differentiated supports and 
interventions for the larger number of districts and schools in need of 
improvement that are not the lowest-performing districts or schools.
    Discussion: While there is not a specific center that focuses on 
providing assistance to SEAs in managing differentiated supports and 
interventions for districts or schools in need of improvement, the 
purpose of the Comprehensive Centers program is to provide technical 
assistance to SEAs that builds their capacity to support districts and 
schools, especially low-performing districts and schools; improve 
educational outcomes for all students; close achievement gaps; and 
improve the quality of instruction. We believe the centers described in 
this notice focus to a significant extent on students in districts and 
schools in need of improvement and decline to make any change.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters noted that increasing the number of 
Content Centers without additional funding for the program will lead to 
a reduction in the resources available for all centers, at a time when 
the centers are likely to receive increased requests for services from 
States experiencing budget reductions. One commenter also noted the 
increased cost to Regional Centers of coordinating and collaborating 
with a larger number of Content Centers.
    Discussion: We currently support 16 Regional Centers and 5 Content 
Centers; we plan to support 15 Regional Centers and 7 Content Centers 
under the Comprehensive Centers 2012 competition. We acknowledge that 
at current funding levels, increasing the total number of Comprehensive 
Centers by one will decrease the amount of funding available for each 
center. We also recognize the value of the Regional Centers, as 
evidenced in our expectations for their work.
    However, we believe that the benefit of establishing two additional 
Content Centers to help the Regional Centers address challenging and 
high-priority topics outweighs the minimal reduction in funds to the 
other Comprehensive Centers. Five of the Content Centers will help 
build SEA capacity in key reform areas where work in many States is 
already underway: Creating and implementing high-quality standards and 
assessments, ensuring college- and career-readiness and success for 
students, addressing early learning, ensuring great teachers and 
leaders, and turning around the lowest-performing schools. The two 
additional centers will help SEAs and Regional Centers focus 
specifically on improving SEA infrastructures, management processes, 
and innovative approaches to teaching and learning that we believe will 
support the achievement of the identified reforms.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that reducing the number of 
Regional Centers would result in less service for smaller, more rural 
States if they are placed in a larger region with more densely 
populated States.
    Discussion: We currently support 16 Regional Centers and 5 Content 
Centers; we plan to support 15 Regional Centers and 7 Content Centers 
under the Comprehensive Centers 2012 competition. We recognize an 
opportunity with this competition to foster strong collaborative 
relationships

[[Page 33576]]

between Regional Centers and the Institute for Education Sciences' 
Regional Education Labs (RELs) by aligning the geographical areas 
served by both, since both work with States to address their needs. 
Therefore, in the NIA published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register, we establish one to two Regional Centers in each REL region. 
This structural change is designed to increase both the coherence of 
the Department's technical assistance and collaboration between 
Comprehensive Centers and RELs. It will better use resources to benefit 
States, including smaller, more rural States.
    Changes: None.

Priorities

Priorities--General

    Comment: Two commenters asked that the Department give priority 
consideration to small businesses or unemployed educators as 
Comprehensive Center applicants.
    Discussion: Entities eligible to apply for Comprehensive Center 
grants, as identified in the ETAA, include research organizations, 
institutions, agencies, institutions of higher education, or 
partnerships among such entities, or individuals, with the demonstrated 
ability or capacity to carry out required activities. We encourage all 
eligible applicants to apply, including small businesses and educators 
with the demonstrated ability or capacity to carry out the requirements 
and activities of the program, but the statute does not provide 
priority consideration for them. Therefore, we decline to provide 
priority consideration as requested.
    Changes: None.

Priorities for All Centers

    Comment: One commenter suggested an absolute priority requiring 
communication and collaboration across the Content Centers and the 
RELs, and across priority areas, to support a comprehensive approach to 
technical assistance. The commenter further suggested that the 
Department support a national organization to facilitate this 
communication and supplement the needs identified by individual States 
with a national perspective.
    Discussion: We do not agree that there is a need for an absolute 
priority requiring communication and collaboration or to support a 
national organization to facilitate communication. We believe the 
statutory requirements under section 203(f)(2) of the ETAA and the 
requirement that all centers coordinate and collaborate with other 
Comprehensive Centers (as described under the heading ``Requirements 
for all Centers'' in this notice), other Department-funded technical 
assistance providers, and other technical assistance providers to 
address SEA needs sufficiently address the importance of communication 
and collaboration among the States and centers. Additionally, all 
Content Centers are required to address national needs as well as the 
needs of individual regions and States. For these reasons, we decline 
to take the suggestions.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Commenters supported our proposal that all Regional and 
Content Centers address the needs of special populations, including 
English Learners and students with disabilities. One commenter urged 
the Department to include all subgroups defined in the ESEA as 
priorities for the Regional and Content Centers. The commenter 
recommended adding racial and ethnic minorities and students in poverty 
into each of the sections in the notice where categories of students 
are identified.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support of the commenters and 
strongly agree that the needs of all students must be addressed through 
the work of the Comprehensive Centers program. To be clear about our 
interest in addressing the needs of all students, including multiple 
subgroups of students, we have revised the language in the 
requirements, where applicable, to use the term ``high-need children 
and high-need students,'' and we have included its definition from the 
Department's notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions 
published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78486), 
and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637). Under this definition, 
``high-need children and high-need students'' mean children and 
students at risk of educational failure, such as children and students 
who are living in poverty, who are English Learners, who are far below 
grade level or who are not on track to becoming college- or career-
ready by graduation, who have left school or college before receiving, 
respectively, a regular high school diploma or a college degree or 
certificate, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, 
who are homeless, who are in foster care, who are pregnant or parenting 
teenagers, who have been incarcerated, who are new immigrants, who are 
migrant, or who have disabilities.
    Changes: We have revised the language in paragraphs II(B)(1)(e); 
II(C)(1)(c); II(F)(4); and II(G)(1) of the requirements section to 
include the term ``high-need children and high-need students,'' as 
applicable. We have also revised the requirements to specify the 
definition of this term.
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that school climate issues 
facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) 
students and teachers were not identified as priorities for the 
Comprehensive Centers.
    Discussion: We are committed to making sure all students feel safe 
and secure in school, and are collaborating with other Federal agencies 
in an effort to combat harassment and promote supportive and welcoming 
school climates. Since 2010, the Department has issued two ``Dear 
Colleague'' letters that clarify for SEAs and LEAs their civil rights 
obligations and their responsibilities under the Equal Access Act as 
they relate to LGBTQ students. These two guidance documents explain 
that when students are subjected to harassment on the basis of their 
sexual orientation or gender identity, they may also be subjected to 
forms of sex discrimination prohibited under Title IX. The guidance 
documents also clarify that gay-straight alliances, which can play an 
important role in creating safer, more welcoming school environments 
for LGBTQ students, must be afforded the same opportunities as other 
non-curricular student organizations to form, to convene on school 
grounds, and to access resources.
    In addition to this legal guidance, we currently fund two technical 
assistance centers, the Safe and Supportive Schools Technical 
Assistance Center (SSSTAC), and the Technical Assistance Center on 
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in addition to 10 
Equity Assistance Centers that provide educators with the tools to 
improve school climate, support student mental health, and prevent and 
reduce harassment. SSSTAC provides training, tools, and resources to 
help educators assess risk and protective factors influencing student 
health and safety within school settings and to develop strategies to 
improve outcomes. More information about the SSSTAC is available at 
https://safesupportiveschools.ed.gov. PBIS provides schools with 
capacity-building information and technical assistance for identifying, 
adapting, and sustaining effective school-wide disciplinary practices. 
More information about PBIS is available at https://www.pbis.org.
    The 10 regional Equity Assistance Centers focus more specifically 
on civil rights issues, including the elimination of harassment or bias 
based on race, sex, or ethnicity. These centers respond to requests for 
assistance from schools,

[[Page 33577]]

districts, and States and provide at no charge training, resources, and 
materials specifically tailored to the needs of the requester. More 
information about the Equity Assistance Centers is available at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/equitycenters/. Because we currently 
fund centers that provide States with the support they need to create 
safe school environments for LGBTQ students, we have not added a 
priority that specifically focuses on LGBTQ issues.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters recommended that school safety be a 
priority for the Comprehensive Centers program. One commenter stressed 
that classroom management and safety can negatively affect student 
engagement and instructional opportunities for all students. Another 
commenter recommended including a firm anti-bullying focus.
    Discussion: We agree that a safe, well-managed school environment, 
free from bullying and violence, is a critical foundation for providing 
every student the opportunity to graduate ready for college and a 
career. Further, when educators do not have sufficient capacity and 
expertise to effectively promote positive behavior, student academic 
and health outcomes suffer. Students face a higher likelihood of 
victimization or are deterred from learning by frequent classroom 
disruptions by their peers.
    We have revised the requirements for the Center on Great Teachers 
and Leaders to include a technical assistance focus on building teacher 
and leader capacity to create safe, productive school environments and 
increase academic engagement for all students. It is our intent to 
strengthen educator capacity to preserve instructional time by 
addressing student behavior in the classroom, and, in doing so, 
encourage the use of effective alternatives to disciplinary practices 
that remove students from the classroom but do not resolve their 
disruptive or threatening behavior (e.g., suspension, expulsion, and 
school-based arrests).
    With regard to bullying prevention in particular, the Department 
has worked with several Federal agencies to develop a Web site, 
www.stopbullying.gov, to provide students, parents, and educators with 
useful information and approaches to address bullying in their 
communities. In addition, as previously discussed, we fund the SSSTAC 
and 10 Equity Assistance Centers, which provide educators with tools to 
improve school climates and prevent and reduce harassment. Because we 
currently fund centers that provide States with the critical support 
they need to create safe school environments, we decline to make the 
suggested change.
    Changes: We have added a requirement to the Center on Great 
Teachers and Leaders to provide technical assistance to Regional 
Centers and SEAs that focuses on building teacher and leader capacity 
to create safe, productive school environments and increase academic 
engagement for all students.
    Comment: One commenter noted that if effective Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education is a priority need in the 
United States, then STEM should be articulated specifically in each 
priority. The commenter states that high-quality STEM education must 
begin early, as early as pre-K and elementary grades.
    Discussion: We agree that STEM education is of primary importance 
and have included in the requirements for the Center for College and 
Career Readiness and Success that it will provide to Regional Centers 
and SEAs technical assistance that focuses on high-quality STEM 
instruction. Although we have not chosen to require technical 
assistance on STEM for other Content Centers or the Regional Centers, 
nothing in the requirements or the priority language will preclude 
other centers from working with SEAs on specific initiatives related to 
STEM. While we would encourage this work, we believe it is important to 
allow centers the flexibility to be responsive to State needs.
    Changes: None.

Priorities for Regional Centers

    Comment: A number of commenters, noting States' accomplishments in 
working with the current Regional Centers, asserted that developing and 
maintaining strong relationships and successful partnerships with their 
SEAs should be a top priority for Regional Centers. One suggested that 
the requirements be revised to better reflect the value of a 
partnership approach. Others urged us to take current partnerships into 
account in evaluating and scoring new proposals or, at a minimum, to 
require applicants to describe how they intend to develop an 
understanding of, and establish continuity with, work currently being 
done.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support expressed for the work of the 
Regional Centers and agree that productive partnerships between center 
and SEA staff are crucial to the success of their efforts. We believe 
the priority and requirements for the Regional Centers will foster a 
partnership approach and reflect the value of such an approach.
    For additional clarity, we have strengthened the Regional Center 
requirements to emphasize the importance of partnerships between 
Centers and SEAs by now requiring the Center to work to ensure a mutual 
commitment by both SEAs and Regional Centers to devote the necessary 
time, leadership, and personnel to achieve specific goals.
    Further, Regional Centers are required to assess State needs and, 
in partnership with the SEAs in their regions, develop an annual work 
plan that addresses the needs of each SEA based on its unique context, 
challenges, and current capacity. This requirement is intended to 
ensure that the Regional Center understands each State's priorities, 
which might include a desire to continue work that began with the 
current Comprehensive Centers.
    Our goal is to provide SEAs with the highest quality technical 
assistance possible by selecting high-quality grantees. The 
Department's discretionary grant competition process is structured to 
ensure that each application is reviewed and scored based on the 
strength of its written proposal. We did not choose to propose a 
competitive priority or other preferential treatment for current 
grantees because providing additional points to current grantees could 
unfairly advantage them in a new competition. Therefore, we decline the 
suggestion that these relationships be taken into account when 
considering applications.
    Changes: We have modified the Regional Center application 
requirements to require that applicants articulate an approach to 
securing an SEA's commitment to devote the time, leadership, and 
personnel needed to achieve specific goals, which may include a 
memorandum of understanding or similar agreement that contains 
timelines and benchmarks to ensure that the work stays on track to 
achieve these goals. We have also added the response to this 
requirement as a consideration under the selection criterion that 
addresses the overall quality of the technical assistance plan.
    Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of the proposed 
priority for Regional Centers. Specifically, the commenter expressed 
concern that these centers will be expected to track student outcomes.
    Discussion: We do not expect centers to track student outcomes. The 
priority and requirements for all Regional Centers address the 
provision of high-quality technical assistance that focuses on key 
initiatives and builds the

[[Page 33578]]

capacity of SEAs to implement, support, scale up, and sustain 
initiatives statewide and to lead and support their LEAs and schools in 
improving school outcomes.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed priority 
for the Regional Centers but stated that literacy should be mentioned 
specifically.
    Discussion: The priority for the Regional Centers states that they 
will provide capacity-building technical assistance that helps States 
implement, support, scale up, and sustain key initiatives aimed at 
improving student outcomes. While we agree that literacy is essential 
to students' success in school, we think that literacy instruction is 
encompassed within this priority and do not believe that specific 
mention of literacy is necessary.
    Changes: None.

Content Centers--General

    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department place a 
greater emphasis on parent, family, and community engagement, 
suggesting that there be a Content Center specifically devoted to this 
topic.
    Discussion: We agree that strong family and community engagement is 
important in the education of all students. All centers will be 
required to provide SEAs with high-quality technical assistance that 
increases SEA capacity to support their LEAs and schools in improving 
student outcomes. Building organizational capacity might include 
helping SEAs develop ways to involve key stakeholders--including 
parents--in State-, district-, and school-level decision-making that 
affects the schooling of their children. While we would encourage a 
focus on family and community engagement, we believe it is important to 
allow centers flexibility to be responsive to State needs. Therefore, 
we have not proposed an additional Content Center to specifically 
address parent, family, and community engagement.
    Changes: None.

Priority for Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we define preschool ages and 
suggested that the priority explicitly define ``preschool'' as ``birth 
through grade three'' to be consistent with the emerging emphasis on 
continuity across the early childhood span.
    Discussion: We do not define the term ``preschool'' in this notice 
because the term is used in different Federal and State programs to 
encompass varying age ranges. However, the priority for this center 
expressly states that the center is to help SEAs increase the number of 
children from birth to third grade who are prepared to succeed in 
school. While we decline the suggestion to specify an age range with 
respect to preschool education, we are revising the priority to 
describe early learning systems generally rather than as ``preschool to 
third grade'' systems.
    Changes: We have revised the priority to reflect a recognition that 
early learning systems may encompass a broad range of ages by deleting 
the phrase ``preschool to third grade early learning systems'' and 
replacing it with the phrase ``early learning systems.''

Priority for Center on Great Teachers and Leaders

    Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to recognize the 
unique roles and responsibilities of pupil and related-service 
providers, such as speech-language pathologists and audiologists. The 
commenter suggested including these educators in the center's efforts 
to support effective instruction and leadership.
    Discussion: As described in the priority, the Center on Great 
Teachers and Leaders will provide technical assistance that will help 
SEAs support their districts and schools in improving student outcomes 
by supporting effective instruction and leadership. We agree that all 
educators and leaders, including related-service providers, play 
important roles in this effort. While we do not explicitly mention 
these educators in the priority or requirements, the Center on Great 
Teachers and Leaders will work with SEAs and Regional Centers seeking 
technical assistance to support effective instruction and leadership of 
all educators. However, as there are many educators within schools who 
are integral to raising student achievement, we decline the suggestion 
to identify specific types of educators in the priority.
    Changes: None.

Priority for Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity

    Comment: One commenter expressed the opinion that the description 
of the Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity lacked a 
clear purpose and was focused too narrowly on implementing and scaling 
up practices rather than addressing all important aspects of SEA work 
to support districts and schools. The commenter also stated that 
building SEA capacity should be the job of all the centers in the 
Comprehensive Centers program, not one.
    Discussion: Under the program requirements for all centers, each 
center must provide technical assistance to help SEAs build their 
capacity to implement State-level initiatives and support district- and 
school-level initiatives that improve educational outcomes for all 
students, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of 
instruction. Additionally, the Center on Building State Capacity and 
Productivity will, like other Content Centers, provide technical 
assistance in its specific area of expertise to Regional Centers and 
SEAs. We do not agree that the requirements and expertise of the Center 
on Building State Capacity and Productivity are vague or too narrow. We 
believe that there are components of SEA capacity-building that require 
specialized knowledge and expertise, and we have identified those areas 
in the requirements for the Center on Building State Capacity and 
Productivity.
    Changes: None.

Requirements

Requirements for All Centers

    Comment: Two commenters asked the Department to clarify the client 
base for the Comprehensive Centers. Specifically, the commenter 
requested clarification about whether centers could work only with SEAs 
or whether they could also work directly with school districts, 
schools, and other State agencies.
    Discussion: The primary clients for the Regional Centers are the 
SEAs. The centers help build the capacity of the SEAs to better support 
their districts and schools. We expect that center staff will at times 
work alongside the SEA staff to assist in addressing district and 
school issues, but the center's efforts should enhance and not replace 
those of the SEA. Therefore, any work with individual school districts 
and schools must involve a high leverage strategy (reach a large number 
or proportion of districts or schools; respond to a need identified by 
the SEA; and be planned, coordinated, and executed in concert with the 
SEA). The centers are not required to, but may, interact with other 
State agencies but only to support their work with SEAs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification about whether the 
proposed requirement that all centers use a common online portal to 
share and exchange information meant the online portal would replace 
individual center Web sites.
    Discussion: It does not. Coordination and collaboration among 
technical

[[Page 33579]]

assistance providers are important and we require both activities for 
all centers. A key component of this coordination is providing easy and 
efficient access to technical assistance expertise, materials and other 
resources to a variety of potential users. We intend to facilitate the 
sharing of information by maintaining a common portal, but this does 
not preclude an individual center from establishing and maintaining its 
own Web site. Detailed requirements for the use of the portal by the 
Comprehensive Centers will be established in the centers' cooperative 
agreements with the Department.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the requirement 
that all centers make their materials and products freely available.
    Discussion: All Comprehensive Centers are required to make all 
training materials, rubrics, manuals, presentations, and other 
materials developed during the grant period available to the public at 
no cost through the online portal described in paragraph II(A)(3) of 
the requirements section of this notice. Centers may also publish 
materials and products on their own Web sites or through other means.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the requirement 
that centers identify, track, and assess innovative approaches and 
promising practices. Specifically, the commenter requested 
clarification on how and in what ways the Content Centers will be able 
to assess the value of the promising practices and innovative 
approaches that they will be expected to identify, synthesize, and 
disseminate.
    Discussion: We encourage applicants, when identifying and assessing 
the value of promising practices, to look, for example, to the evidence 
standard of a reasonable hypothesis as used in the Department's 
Investing in Innovation program. Relying on the reasonable hypothesis 
standard, the approach or reported practice should suggest the 
potential for efficacy for at least some participants and settings. The 
center should consider whether the proposed practice, strategy, or 
program, or one similar to it, has been attempted previously, albeit on 
a limited scale or in a limited setting, and yielded promising results 
that suggest that more formal and systematic study is warranted. The 
center should also consider whether there is a rationale for the 
proposed practice, strategy, or program that is based on research 
findings or reasonable hypotheses.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter supported the focal areas for the proposed 
Content Centers but wanted to ensure that all of the centers focus on 
students.
    Discussion: The purpose of both Regional and Content Centers is to 
help build the capacity of States to better lead and support their LEAs 
and schools in improving student outcomes. We believe the priorities, 
requirements, and selection criteria are consistent with this purpose 
and thus will ensure that all of the centers focus on students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: In order to clarify that all Comprehensive Centers must 
establish an advisory board, the Department has added a specific 
reference to the statutory citation.
    Changes: Under the requirements for all centers to coordinate and 
collaborate, the Department has added a specific reference to section 
203(g) of the ETAA and its requirement that all Comprehensive Centers 
establish an advisory board.

Requirements for All Regional Centers

    Comment: One commenter proposed amending the language of the 
priority and requirements for all Regional Centers so as to require 
those centers to identify related-service providers in addition to 
teachers and leaders when discussing Regional Center technical 
assistance to SEAs. Doing this would ensure that these providers are 
included in overall efforts related to education professionals.
    Discussion: We agree that related-service providers play a key role 
in supporting student achievement and that schools and districts face 
many of the same issues in recruiting, developing, and retaining 
related-service providers as they do for classroom teachers and other 
school professionals, such as guidance counselors and librarians. While 
we do not explicitly mention these educators in the priority or 
requirements, the Regional Centers have the flexibility to work with 
SEAs seeking technical assistance to support effective instruction and 
leadership of all educators. Therefore, we decline the suggestion to 
identify specific categories of educators in the priority or 
requirements for the Regional Centers.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that all Regional Centers should 
possess the same knowledge and understanding that is required of 
applicants for the Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity, 
asserting that Regional Centers able to draw on their own expertise in 
this area will have a significant advantage over those that will need 
to rely entirely on this Content Center. The commenter suggested 
revising the requirements for all Regional Centers to clarify that a 
grantee must provide technical assistance that draws on the expertise 
of the Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity as well as on 
its own research and experience conducted in non-education sectors and 
industries.
    Discussion: We agree that the work of building SEA capacity must be 
the responsibility of all Comprehensive Centers and acknowledge that 
experience in providing this type of technical assistance is valuable. 
Applicants for Regional and Content Centers must have knowledge and 
understanding of research-based practices, emerging promising 
practices, and specific expertise in providing high-quality, relevant 
technical assistance to States or multiple districts. We believe that 
possessing this knowledge and expertise will enable an applicant to 
provide high-quality technical assistance specifically related to 
building SEA capacity. Therefore, we decline to include an additional 
requirement for Regional Center applicants as suggested in the comment.
    Changes: None.

Requirements for All Content Centers

    Comment: One commenter inquired whether the Content Centers could 
develop new content, noting that Regional Centers may not.
    Discussion: The Content Centers are expected to develop high-
quality publications, tools, and other resources as described in the 
Requirements for All Content Centers section of this notice.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted that it appeared that of all of the 
Content Centers, only applicants for the Center on School Turnaround 
would be required to address any of the affective dimensions related to 
student outcomes. The commenter suggested that applicants for every 
center should be required to specify how they will assure that relevant 
equity issues are addressed.
    Discussion: As stated previously, the purpose of the Comprehensive 
Centers is to provide technical assistance in identified priority areas 
to help SEAs build their capacity to improve educational outcomes for 
all students, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of 
instruction. Nothing in this notice would prevent a Regional or Content 
Center from working with an SEA to address the affective dimensions of 
student achievement including

[[Page 33580]]

relevant equity issues in order to address one of these priority areas.
    Changes: None.

Requirements for Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the center be required to 
address the needs of at-risk young children and to work on 
strengthening the transitions, cross-sector collaborative care, and 
education of pre-school children.
    Discussion: As described in the program requirements, the Center on 
Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes will provide technical assistance to 
Regional Centers and SEAs that supports coordinated statewide systems 
that promote young children's success in school and helps SEAs align 
policies and resources to increase the successful transitions of 
children and to close the achievement gap, particularly for high-need 
children as they enter kindergarten. As these suggestions are reflected 
in the original language, we decline to make the recommended changes.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter, while expressing support for the creation 
of a Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes, recommended expanding 
the intended audiences for the center's technical assistance beyond 
SEAs, to include agencies that oversee early learning programs in the 
States, such as Early Learning Councils and Head Start Collaboration 
Offices. The commenter stated that this expansion would be especially 
important in States with new agencies that oversee early learning and 
where the SEA does not have major responsibilities for early learning 
programs.
    Discussion: The ETAA authorizes the Comprehensive Centers to 
provide training, technical assistance, and professional development to 
SEAs, LEAs, regional educational agencies, and schools only. We 
therefore cannot expand the types of entities receiving services under 
this program. However, the Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes 
may interact with other State agencies, such as those mentioned by the 
commenters, where appropriate to support their work with SEAs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Center on Enhancing Early 
Learning Outcomes specifically assist those States that have received 
Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) funds and those that 
have successfully developed plans to increase access to high-quality 
early learning systems, especially for high-need children. The 
commenter also recommended including additional requirements for this 
center that are aligned with the RTT-ELC program and that focus on 
addressing effective instructional practices, developmentally 
appropriate learning environments, State capacity to use data, and 
effective governance structures.
    Discussion: By statute, grantees under the Comprehensive Centers 
program must provide technical assistance to all States. Therefore, we 
are requiring this center to support all States, including States that 
have received RTT-ELC grants. Under the requirements in this notice, 
the Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes must provide technical 
assistance on using assessment data and other information to improve 
the quality of instruction in early learning programs and to increase 
the capacity of SEAs to implement comprehensive and aligned early 
learning systems. This technical assistance may include the areas 
suggested by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters suggested a variety of additional 
areas deserving the attention of the Center for Enhancing Early 
Learning Outcomes: Addressing the needs of young English Learners, 
implementing STEM curricula and instructional strategies, supporting 
the extension of standards related to multiple domains of child 
development, analyzing costs of alternative policies and practices, 
ensuring that parents and caregivers understand data, and providing 
quality pre-service and in-service professional development for 
teachers and related service providers.
    Discussion: We agree that there are many topics that the Center for 
Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes could address in order to help 
increase the number of children who are prepared to succeed in school. 
We note that while the requirements for this center do not list each of 
the areas identified above, they also do not limit the early learning 
issues that might be addressed in the work plans developed by the 
center in collaboration with Regional Centers and SEAs. Again, we 
believe it is important to allow centers flexibility to be responsive 
to State needs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the center's first priority 
should be expanding existing programming and increasing access for more 
students.
    Discussion: We strongly agree that increasing young children's 
access to high-quality early learning environments is critical. In this 
regard, the Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes will help SEAs 
increase the quality of early learning systems and thereby provide more 
opportunities for children to learn in high-quality environments. 
However, the purpose of the Comprehensive Centers program, consistent 
with the ETAA, is to provide technical assistance to SEAs, not to take 
actions that directly result in expanded programming or increased 
participation in early learning programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked the Department to clarify how the 
center will coordinate and collaborate with other federally funded 
early childhood technical assistance centers to avoid duplication of 
effort.
    Discussion: All centers will be required to collaborate with other 
technical assistance providers to address SEA needs and to develop 
strong relationships and partnerships with leading experts and 
organizations nationwide, including other federally funded technical 
assistance centers. The Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes 
must provide technical assistance to Regional Centers and SEAs that 
focuses on integrating and aligning resources and policies across State 
agencies and programs in order to support a coordinated statewide 
system that promotes young children's success in school.
    Changes: None.

Requirements for the Center on School Turnaround

    Comment: One commenter suggested modifying the requirements for the 
Center on School Turnaround to require an emphasis on parent support, 
including on helping parents understand data on low-performing schools.
    Discussion: The Center on School Turnaround must provide technical 
assistance to help increase the capacity of SEAs to support their 
districts and schools in turning around their low-performing schools, 
and these turnaround efforts often include increasing parent and family 
involvement. The overwhelming majority of schools identified under the 
School Improvement Grants program are implementing turnaround models 
that include engagement activities such as increasing the involvement 
and contributions of parents and community partners. All centers may 
provide technical assistance that builds the capacity of SEAs to 
improve family and community engagement, if SEAs identify this as a 
high-priority need. For these reasons, we have decided that it is not 
necessary to add an additional

[[Page 33581]]

requirement for the Center on School Turnaround.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested amending the requirements for the 
Center on School Turnaround to recognize the communication needs of 
students with disabilities as a non-academic factor that affects 
student achievement.
    Discussion: We recognize the need for the lowest performing schools 
to meet the needs of all students by addressing both academic and non-
academic factors that affect student achievement. While we identify 
some non-academic factors (social, emotional, and health needs) in the 
requirements for the Center on School Turnaround, we do not present 
them as an exhaustive list. Our identifying certain non-academic 
factors will not preclude the center from addressing additional non-
academic factors with SEAs, and we don't believe that attempting to 
identify all those factors is necessary. Therefore, we decline to amend 
the requirement.
    Changes: None.

Requirements for the Center on Innovations in Learning

    Comment: A number of commenters recommended that the Center on 
Innovations in Learning focus on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 
and cited the need for technical assistance in UDL for SEAs and 
Regional Centers and professional development in UDL for educators.
    Discussion: The purpose of the Center on Innovations in Learning is 
to provide technical assistance to help SEAs identify and implement a 
broad array of policies, strategies, and practices that significantly 
improve, or have the potential to significantly improve, student 
outcomes. These strategies may include UDL, which is an effective 
framework for engaging learners with different abilities, backgrounds, 
and motivations. However we decline to require the inclusion of UDL 
because we believe it is important to allow centers flexibility to be 
responsive to State needs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter proposed amending the requirements for the 
Center on Innovations in Learning to specify classroom amplification 
systems as an example of technologies that support the personalization 
of learning. Discussion: While recognizing the value of classroom 
amplification systems for certain students, the requirement to help 
SEAs select and implement technologies that support the personalization 
of learning is intended to apply to all students, whether or not they 
have hearing impairments. The Center is required to help SEAs identify 
and implement policies, strategies, and practices that encourage the 
identification and scaling up of new teaching and learning strategies, 
approaches, processes, or tools that have the potential to 
significantly improve student outcomes. Classroom amplification systems 
may be essential to meeting the learning needs of some students, and, 
if so, those requirements would be detailed in that student's 
Individualized Education Program. Therefore, we decline to make the 
requested change.
    Changes: None.

Requirements for the Center on College and Career Readiness and Success

    Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of how the Center on 
College and Career Readiness and Success will work with the Regional 
Centers on its areas of focus.
    Discussion: The Content Centers will work to increase the depth of 
knowledge and expertise available to Regional Centers and SEAs on key 
topic areas and complement the work of the Regional Centers by 
providing information, publications, tools, and specialized technical 
assistance based on research-based practices and emerging promising-
practices. The Content Centers will identify, organize, and communicate 
key research and best practices through publications, tools, and direct 
technical assistance. They may also create opportunities for SEAs and 
Regional Centers to learn from researchers and other experts about 
practical strategies for implementing reforms related to their focal 
areas. The Center on College and Career Readiness and Success will 
engage in these tasks in its area of focus as described in the priority 
and program requirements.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the extent 
to which the Center on College and Career Readiness and Success could 
collaborate directly with institutions of higher education (IHEs) and 
systems or facilitate SEA collaboration with them.
    Discussion: We acknowledge that some technical assistance 
activities listed under the requirements for the Center on College and 
Career Readiness and Success, such as implementing accelerated learning 
strategies or developing rigorous career and technical education 
programs, might necessitate substantive collaboration between SEAs and 
IHEs. However, other areas of activity might not. However, in order to 
provide technical assistance on some of the activities, we acknowledge 
that the Center might facilitate SEA collaboration with IHEs. We choose 
not to define a minimum or maximum level of SEA collaboration with 
IHEs. We will instead rely on the center to meet the requirements 
through varying levels of collaboration between SEAs and IHEs, as 
appropriate.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the requirement 
of experience working with K-12 and postsecondary education systems for 
the Center on College and Career Readiness and Success. The commenter 
questioned whether this requirement would address State and district K-
12 systems, public and private postsecondary systems, and the systems 
of individual institutions.
    Discussion: We expect that grantees will have the experience and 
knowledge necessary to successfully provide technical assistance as 
described in the program requirements. Applicants are required to 
provide evidence of (1) working with SEAs or multiple districts to 
design and implement systemic, comprehensive strategies to improve 
student transitions from high school to postsecondary degree or 
credential programs, and (2) working with K-12 and postsecondary 
education systems to align policies and practices in order to improve 
student transitions from high school to postsecondary degree or 
credential programs. This experience and knowledge could be gained in a 
variety of ways. However, we do not require applicants to have 
experience with specific types of higher education institutions.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: To help develop rigorous career and technical education 
programs, one commenter suggested including additional examples to the 
list of possible activities for the Center on College and Career 
Readiness and Success. These could include support for collaboration 
with labor unions and for enrollment in apprenticeship programs.
    Discussion: The Center on College and Career Readiness and Success 
must provide technical assistance to Regional Centers and SEAs that 
focuses on SEA development and scaling up of statewide rigorous career 
and technical education (CTE) programs that align with college- and 
career-ready standards and lead to an industry-recognized credential or 
postsecondary certificate or degree. We provide some examples of how 
that might be accomplished and recognize that many others could be 
included. Nothing in the language of this notice precludes the center 
from working with SEAs and Regional

[[Page 33582]]

Centers on the activities recommended by the commenter.
    Changes: None.

Requirements for Center on Great Teachers and Leaders

    Comment: One commenter suggested requiring that the Center on Great 
Teachers and Leaders provide technical assistance focused on supporting 
a positive school culture, high expectations, family and community 
involvement, and community leadership development.
    Discussion: The Center on Great Teachers and Leaders will provide 
technical assistance to help SEAs and Regional Centers support 
effective instruction and leadership; improve student outcomes; and 
identify, synthesize, and disseminate research-based practices and 
emerging promising practices. The requirements for this Center identify 
a number of issues that must be addressed, including improving 
instructional practices; ensuring the equitable distribution of 
effective teachers; and developing strategies to recruit, reward, 
retain, and support effective teachers and leaders. To the degree that 
the issues mentioned by the commenter are related to these requirements 
and the Center's priority, and to the extent that the SEA seeks 
assistance in addressing them, this Center could provide needed 
technical assistance. Therefore, we decline to add the suggested 
requirements.
    Changes: None.

Requirements for the Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Center on Building State 
Capacity and Productivity provide technical assistance to help SEAs 
hold their LEAs accountable.
    Discussion: The purpose of the Center on Building State Capacity 
and Productivity is to provide technical assistance and identify, 
synthesize, and disseminate research-based practices and emerging 
promising practices that will increase the capacity of SEAs to 
implement their key initiatives statewide and support district and 
school-level implementation of effective practices to improve student 
outcomes. Therefore, nothing precludes this center from working with an 
SEA on approaches for holding its LEAs accountable when the work is 
related to implementing statewide initiatives to improve student 
outcomes.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Center on Building State 
Capacity and Productivity help SEAs identify supports and interventions 
to address not only the needs of districts and schools but also the 
needs of parents and caregivers.
    Discussion: Under the requirements for this Center, grantees are 
expected to provide technical assistance that builds the capacity of 
SEAs to better support their districts and schools. This support 
includes helping districts and schools communicate more effectively 
with parents and caregivers. Nothing in the priority or requirements 
for this center would prevent the Center from working with the SEA to 
address this issue to the extent that the SEA identifies it as an area 
in which it could benefit from the Center's capacity-building technical 
assistance. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to add to the 
requirements.
    Changes: None.

Application Requirements

General

    Comment: One commenter recommended that in addition to 
demonstrating the capacity and experience of key staff, applicants be 
required to demonstrate corporate capacity and experience. The 
commenter also suggested that experience providing technical assistance 
for a variety of education constituencies through vehicles other than 
the Comprehensive Centers be given consideration equal to that given 
for work conducted through the Comprehensive Centers.
    Discussion: In the application requirements, we identify the 
subject-matter and technical expertise that applicants must 
demonstrate. We assume that the expertise of key staff reflects the 
corporate capacities and experience of the applicant that proposes 
them. Additionally, the selection criteria state that we will evaluate 
not only key personnel but also the quality of the proposed technical 
assistance plan, project design, and management plan. When reviewing 
applications, we will consider all relevant experience. We will not 
award additional points or give special consideration to applicants 
that demonstrate experience conducting technical assistance through a 
Comprehensive Center.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters requested clarification of the application 
requirement that centers engage the services of an external evaluator.
    Discussion: Upon further review and consideration, we have revised 
the evaluation requirements. We have removed the requirement for a 
third party evaluation. However, we do believe that evaluation and 
continuous assessment of the Centers' performance are important parts 
of providing useful and relevant technical assistance to SEAs. 
Therefore, we still require each applicant to include in the 
application a plan to assess its own progress and performance. 
Additionally, to ensure that the evaluations are of high quality, 
measurable, and comparable for all centers, we are revising the title 
of this subsection to include the word ``performance'' and to require 
that the plan include results-based outcomes.
    Changes: In paragraph II(A)(4) of the Requirements for all Centers 
section, we have revised the title of the subsection to read 
``Performance and Evaluation'' and deleted the requirement that a third 
party perform an evaluation of the program. Additionally, in section 
III(K)(4) of the Application Requirements, we have revised the title of 
the subsection to read ``Performance and Evaluation Plan,'' deleted the 
reference to a third-party evaluator, and included clarifying language 
regarding the plan requirements. We specify that the plan must include 
a set of performance objectives the project intends to achieve and 
performance measures for each performance objective, which must include 
results-based outcomes; explain the qualitative and quantitative 
methods that will be used to collect, analyze, and report performance 
data; and describe the methods that will be used to monitor progress 
and make mid-course corrections as needed.

Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes

    Comment: A few commenters recommended adding requirements to the 
subject-matter and technical-expertise requirements for the Center on 
Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. One commenter advised that in 
addition to the experience we proposed, grantees would need experience 
with professional development for early childhood educators, Head 
Start, and child care. A few commenters recommended additional 
expertise requirements, including participation in early childhood 
collaborative efforts, participation in projects focused on at-risk 
young children, and knowledge of the developmental and learning needs 
of young children. Another commenter recommended that consideration be 
given to requiring applicants to demonstrate capacity to produce 
substantive change in policy and practice.
    Discussion: We agree that in order to provide high-quality 
technical assistance that will help SEAs increase

[[Page 33583]]

their capacity to implement comprehensive and aligned early learning 
systems, grantees should have additional areas of expertise. Therefore, 
we are revising the application requirements for the Center on 
Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes to include additional requirements. 
We note that the subject-matter and technical expertise requirements 
for all centers include the expectations that an applicant demonstrate 
experience in building collaborative relationships and that an 
applicant provide evidence of the effect of its technical assistance on 
improving student outcomes.
    Changes: We have added two requirements to applications for the 
Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. An applicant must provide 
evidence demonstrating that it possesses knowledge and understanding of 
developmentally appropriate practices for early learning and of State 
early learning systems, and an applicant must demonstrate that the 
proposed center staff have experience in working with publicly funded 
early learning programs, such as State-funded preschool, Head Start, 
programs funded under section 619 of part B of IDEA and part C of IDEA; 
programs funded under Title I of the ESEA; and programs receiving funds 
from the State's Child Care Development Fund (CCDF).

Flexibility and Requirements for Regional Center Assignments

    Comment: Many commenters were concerned about the proposed 
flexibility requirements for Regional Center assignments. Commenters 
noted that the flexibility may deter collaboration and communication 
among Regional and Content Centers. Specifically, they were concerned 
that the flexibility would create a competitive dynamic that would 
hinder cross-center and cross-State collaboration.
    Commenters agreed that SEAs unhappy with the level of service by 
their assigned Regional Center should have mechanisms for obtaining 
quality service. However, commenters were concerned that reassigning 
States to certain centers two years into a grant would be difficult to 
implement and affect the continuity of State work.
    They noted that an SEA changing affiliation would have to invest 
additional time in developing relationships with the new center, 
possibly creating gaps in service. Commenters were also concerned that 
other States in the region might experience gaps in service while the 
Regional Center takes on the work of the additional SEA. They noted 
that the flexibility could create difficulties in the planning and 
staffing of Regional Centers. Finally, commenters were concerned that 
centers with large marketing budgets might have an advantage in 
promoting their services to SEAs. One commenter, however, supported our 
proposal, noting that flexibility would strengthen incentives to 
provide relevant and high-quality service and would allow States to 
maximize their ability to collaborate with peer States that share their 
reform goals and strategies.
    Discussion: We appreciate the concerns raised by the commenters and 
acknowledge that the flexibility may create a competitive dynamic among 
centers. However, we believe that the best way to implement a customer-
centered, performance-focused technical assistance network is to allow 
States to create a demand-driven market for services. We disagree that 
this flexibility will deter collaboration and communication among 
Regional and Content Centers. In order to provide quality technical 
assistance sought after by States, centers must continue to collaborate 
and take advantage of the expertise of both Content and Regional 
Centers. Regional Centers that collaborate with other centers across 
regional boundaries are often better able to provide technical 
assistance to their States. Therefore, it will be in the best interest 
of every center to work with other centers to improve the quality of 
technical assistance across the country.
    We acknowledge that there may be implementation challenges when a 
State requests reassignment. We agree that SEAs unsatisfied with their 
current center should have more than one mechanism for obtaining 
quality service. For these reasons, the Department has added clarifying 
information about how and when a State may request reassignment. In 
addition, once a State has requested reassignment, the current Regional 
Center will have time to work with the State to resolve any quality-of-
service issues prior to the Department considering the request for 
reassignment.
    We also acknowledge that there may be a temporary gap in services 
when a State is assigned to a different Regional Center. However, prior 
to requesting reassignment, the State must obtain documentation from 
the new Regional Center indicating its willingness and capacity to 
serve the additional State. As a result of this process, the new 
Regional Center should already be effectively planning and working with 
the State to develop a strategy for continuing services to the State 
while maintaining the same level of service for all of its current 
States.
    Finally, we disagree with those commenters suggesting that Regional 
Centers with larger marketing budgets have an advantage over centers 
with smaller budgets. States are likely to request reassignment in 
order to seek services that they believe will best meet their needs, 
regardless of location or marketing initiatives. Further, we agree with 
the comment that supports this flexibility because it would allow 
States to maximize their ability to collaborate with peer States that 
share their reform goals and strategies.
    Changes: We have clarified the process for a State to request 
reassignment to a different Regional Center. In its request, an SEA 
must provide its specific reasons for requesting reassignment. The 
Department will notify the current Regional Center immediately after 
receiving the request for reassignment. We have also added time to the 
process of requesting reassignment to allow the current Regional Center 
time to work with the State to resolve any quality-of-service issues 
prior to the Department considering the request for reassignment.

Cost Sharing or In-Kind Match

    Comment: A number of commenters objected to the proposal to 
establish a competitive preference priority for applicants that provide 
evidence of a commitment of funds or an in-kind match, or both, that 
totals at least 15 percent of the total grant budget. The commenters 
expressed a number of concerns.
    They stated that external funders would expect to have a 
significant voice in Center decision-making, especially as the rate of 
cost-sharing increased. Commenters were also concerned that the 
complexity of tracking separate sources of funds would pose a 
significant burden. Commenters noted that the current economic climate 
in general has increased the difficulty of obtaining funds and that 
applicants could find themselves in competition with States for the 
limited available funds. Commenters also stated that large foundations 
would be more inclined to fund projects with national scope and a 
tangible potential product and less likely to fund regional technical 
assistance. Finally, commenters voiced concern that applicants with an 
already established relationship with philanthropic organizations might 
have an unfair advantage. One commenter stated that the Department did 
not present a strong justification explaining

[[Page 33584]]

why the program would benefit from this priority.
    Discussion: The Comprehensive Centers program represents a 
significant investment in technical assistance to SEAs. We are 
committed to supporting SEAs, districts, and schools as they work to 
implement their reform priorities. Because of the importance of these 
technical assistance efforts, we believe that there is significant 
value in securing additional funding to support SEA capacity-building. 
Combining the Department's efforts and resources with external efforts 
and resources provides an opportunity to increase and extend the reach 
of the Comprehensive Centers program. For these reasons, we remain 
committed to providing incentives for additional investments in the 
work of the centers.
    However, we also acknowledge the challenges of securing matching 
funds and managing multiple partnerships. Therefore, for the FY 2012 
competition, we will use this priority only as an invitational 
priority. We indicate this in the notice inviting applications 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. We also 
remove the ``competitive preference'' designation from the priority and 
in this notice of final priorities, requirements, and selection 
criteria (NFP). Not designating it as absolute, competitive preference, 
or invitational in the NFP will allow the Department flexibility in 
using the priority in future competitions.
    Changes: We have revised the priority for cost-sharing or matching 
to remove the competitive preference designation.

Selection Criteria

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we add to the selection 
criteria a criterion on the demonstrated ability to provide 
analytically based technical assistance. The commenter cited the 
usefulness of technical assistance that improves the analytic capacity 
of the SEA and its contribution to data-based decision-making.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the usefulness of technical assistance 
that improves the analytic capacity of SEAs and contributes to their 
skill in making data-based decisions. Regional Centers will be required 
to provide technical assistance that builds SEA capacity to implement, 
support, scale up, and sustain initiatives that address the use of 
data-based decision-making to improve instructional practices, 
policies, and student outcomes. In addition, the requirements for the 
Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity include helping SEAs 
identify research-based practices and emerging promising practices in 
such areas as human capital management, financial data systems, and 
return-on-investment analyses that can inform decision-making and help 
improve SEA productivity. We will use the selection criteria to 
determine the extent to which applicants meet these requirements. 
Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to add an additional 
selection criterion.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether the criterion that requires 
that Content Centers demonstrate evidence of in-depth knowledge and 
understanding of State technical assistance needs means that a center 
must have a broad view of the kinds of needs that all or many States 
have, or an in-depth understanding of the needs of each State.
    Discussion: As described in the requirements in this notice for all 
Content Centers, each Center must both assess national needs and take 
into account the needs of SEAs and Regional Centers in its area of 
expertise.
    Changes: None.
    FINAL PRIORITIES:

I. Priorities

    This notice contains eight priorities. The Assistant Secretary may 
use one or more of these priorities for the FY 2012 Comprehensive 
Centers program competition or for any subsequent competitions.
    PRIORITY FOR REGIONAL CENTERS:
    Priority 1: Regional Centers. Each Regional Center must provide 
high-quality technical assistance that focuses on key initiatives, 
aligns with the work of the Content Centers, and builds the capacity of 
SEAs to implement, support, scale up, and sustain initiatives statewide 
and to lead and support their LEAs and schools in improving student 
outcomes. Key initiatives include: (1) Implementing college- and 
career-ready standards and aligned, high-quality assessments for all 
students; (2) identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly 
effective teachers and leaders; (3) turning around the lowest-
performing schools; (4) ensuring the school readiness and success of 
preschool-age children and their successful transition to kindergarten; 
(5) building rigorous instructional pathways that support the 
successful transition of all students from secondary education to 
college without the need for remediation, and careers; (6) identifying 
and scaling up innovative approaches to teaching and learning that 
significantly improve student outcomes; and (7) using data-based 
decision-making to improve instructional practices, policies, and 
student outcomes.
    PRIORITIES FOR CONTENT CENTERS:
    Priority 2: Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation. The 
Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation must provide 
technical assistance and identify, synthesize, and disseminate 
research-based practices and emerging promising practices that will 
lead to the increased capacity of SEAs to support their districts and 
schools in implementing rigorous college- and career-ready standards 
and aligned high-quality assessments.
    Priority 3: Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. The Center on 
Great Teachers and Leaders must provide technical assistance and 
identify, synthesize, and disseminate research-based practices and 
emerging promising practices that will lead to the increased capacity 
of SEAs to support their districts and schools in improving student 
outcomes by supporting effective instruction and leadership.
    Priority 4: Center on School Turnaround. The Center on School 
Turnaround must provide technical assistance and identify, synthesize, 
and disseminate research-based practices and emerging promising 
practices that will lead to the increased capacity of SEAs to support 
their districts and schools in turning around their lowest-performing 
schools.
    Priority 5: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. The Center 
on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes must provide technical assistance 
and identify, synthesize, and disseminate research-based practices and 
emerging promising practices that will lead to the increased capacity 
of SEAs to implement comprehensive and aligned early learning systems 
in order to increase the number of children from birth through third 
grade who are prepared to succeed in school.
    Priority 6: Center on College and Career Readiness and Success. The 
Center on College and Career Readiness and Success must provide 
technical assistance and identify, synthesize, and disseminate 
research-based practices and emerging promising practices that will 
lead to the increased capacity of SEAs to support districts and schools 
in implementing comprehensive strategies that promote college- and 
career-readiness for students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) 
and ensure the successful transition of all students from high school 
graduation to postsecondary education and the workforce.
    Priority 7: Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity. The 
Center on Building State Capacity and

[[Page 33585]]

Productivity must provide technical assistance and identify, 
synthesize, and disseminate research-based practices and emerging 
promising practices that will increase the capacity of SEAs to 
implement their key initiatives statewide and support district- and 
school-level implementation of effective practices to improve student 
outcomes.
    Priority 8: Center on Innovations in Learning. The Center on 
Innovations in Learning must provide technical assistance and identify, 
synthesize, and disseminate research-based practices and emerging 
promising practices that will lead to the increased capacity of SEAs to 
identify and scale up innovative approaches that significantly improve, 
or have the potential to significantly improve, student outcomes.
    PRIORITY FOR ALL CENTERS:
    Priority: Cost-Sharing or Matching. Applications that provide 
evidence in the application of a commitment from one or more entities 
or organizations in the public or private sector, which may include 
philanthropic organizations, of funds or an in-kind match, or both, 
that totals at least 15 percent of the total grant budget meet this 
priority. The entire amount of the matching contribution must be non-
Federal funds. See 34 CFR 80.24. Evidence of the commitment of the 
financial or in-kind matching contribution must include the full amount 
and source of the matching contribution and the date that the funds or 
in-kind contributions will be received. Examples of such evidence 
include funding agreements with a public or private-sector entity or 
other signed documents such as commitment letters. The evidence should 
not include contingencies that raise concerns about the funding 
commitment other than that the applicant must be awarded a 
Comprehensive Centers grant award.
    If the Department chooses to designate this priority as competitive 
in a notice inviting applications, we may provide additional points for 
applicants that provide evidence of matching funds or in-kind 
contributions in excess of 15 percent of its grant budget. Additional 
points may be awarded to the extent that the applicant provides 
evidence of a committed financial or in-kind matching contribution up 
to 100 percent of its grant budget. The Department would also specify 
in the notice inviting applications the number of points to be awarded 
for specific ranges of matching amounts.
    Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition 
using one or more priorities, and unless already established as a 
specific type of priority through regulation, we designate the type of 
each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational 
through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of 
priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

II. Comprehensive Center Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education 
establishes the following requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As used in these requirements, the term ``high-need children 
and high-need students'' means children and students at risk of 
educational failure, such as children and students who are living in 
poverty, who are English Learners, who are far below grade level or 
who are not on track to becoming college- or career-ready by 
graduation, who have left school or college before receiving, 
respectively, a regular high school diploma or a college degree or 
certificate, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on 
time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who are pregnant or 
parenting teenagers, who have been incarcerated, who are new 
immigrants, who are migrant, or who have disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. Requirements for All Centers.
    1. Provide high-quality technical assistance. Each center must 
deliver technical assistance that is based on research-based practices 
and emerging promising practices; highly relevant and useful to SEAs, 
LEAs, and school policymakers and practitioners; timely; and cost 
efficient.
    2. Provide technical assistance to build State capacity. Each 
center must provide technical assistance to help SEAs build their 
capacity to implement State-level initiatives and support district- and 
school-level initiatives that improve educational outcomes for all 
students, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of 
instruction.
    For the purposes of this notice, the process of ``building 
capacity'' includes helping SEAs--
    a. Build internal organizational strength through such activities 
as creating sustainable organizational structures and effective 
performance management systems, building staff expertise within those 
structures to ensure that districts and schools are provided high-
quality services and supports, and better aligning programs and 
policies through strengthening connections (e.g., communication, 
collaboration) among different work streams (e.g., divisions, grant 
programs); and
    b. Build organizational capacity to support district- and school-
level implementation of effective practices to improve student 
outcomes--for example, by working collaboratively and productively with 
districts and schools; identifying and implementing a continuum of 
supports and interventions to address the needs of districts and 
schools; supporting the implementation and scaling up of innovative and 
effective strategies; sustaining effective practices; engaging 
effective external service providers; and involving key stakeholders, 
including parents, in decision-making.
    3. Coordination and Collaboration. In addition to the statutory 
requirement under section 203(f)(2) and (g) of the ETAA to collaborate 
with the Department and other entities and to establish an advisory 
board, each center must collaborate with other Comprehensive Centers 
funded under this program; the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 
including the What Works Clearinghouse and the RELs; technical 
assistance centers funded under other Department programs; and other 
technical assistance providers to address SEA needs. Each center must--
    a. Develop strong, ongoing relationships and partnerships with 
leading experts and organizations nationwide to supplement and enhance, 
as appropriate, center staff's expertise, skills, and experience and to 
ensure that technical assistance is informed by research-based 
practices and emerging promising practices;
    b. Coordinate center activities with the work of other technical 
assistance providers to make the best use of available knowledge and 
resources and avoid duplicating efforts; and
    c. Participate in sharing and exchanging information through a 
common online portal administered by a center funded by the Department 
for the purpose of sharing technical assistance expertise, materials, 
and other applicable resources across Comprehensive Centers, other 
Department-funded technical assistance providers, SEAs, districts, and 
schools.
    4. Performance and Evaluation. Each center must develop a plan to 
assess the

[[Page 33586]]

progress and performance of the center in meeting the educational and 
capacity-building needs of the center's clients.
    B. Requirements for All Regional Centers. In addition to the 
requirements for all centers described in this notice, each Regional 
Center must--
    1. Assess each State's needs and develop an annual work plan in 
partnership with each SEA in its region and the Content Centers, as 
appropriate, that--
    a. Provides technical assistance to build SEA capacity to 
implement, support, scale up, and sustain initiatives that address the 
following key areas: (1) Implementing college- and career-ready 
standards and aligned, high-quality assessments for all students; (2) 
identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective 
teachers and leaders; (3) turning around the lowest-performing schools; 
(4) ensuring the school-readiness and success of preschool-age children 
and their successful transition to kindergarten through third grade 
learning; (5) building rigorous instructional pathways that support the 
successful transition of all students from secondary education to 
college, without the need for remediation, and to careers; (6) 
identifying and scaling up innovative approaches to teaching and 
learning that significantly improve, or have potential to significantly 
improve, student outcomes; and (7) using data-based decision-making to 
improve instructional practices, policies, and student outcomes;
    b. Addresses the needs of each SEA in the region based on the SEA's 
unique context, challenges, and current capacity;
    c. Articulates an approach to secure an SEA's commitment to devote 
time, leadership, and personnel needed to implement the work plan and 
achieve specific goals, which may include a memorandum of understanding 
or similar agreement that contains timelines and benchmarks to ensure 
that the work stays on track to achieve these goals.
    d. Addresses the demands of implementing integrated State 
longitudinal data systems and using data from these systems and other 
sources to improve student outcomes, in collaboration with RELs, as 
appropriate; and
    e. Addresses the needs of all students, including English Learners, 
students with disabilities, and high-need students;
    2. Deliver high-quality intensive technical assistance to SEAs 
that--
    a. Provides regular virtual and on-site support and coaching at a 
frequency appropriate to ensuring high-quality implementation of the 
work plan;
    b. Facilitates collaborative activities and strategies for 
evaluating and continuously improving organizational structures and 
processes;
    c. Draws on the expertise of the Center on Building State Capacity 
and Productivity;
    d. Facilitates productive SEA interactions with LEAs and other 
stakeholders to support implementation of key initiatives focused on 
improving student outcomes;
    e. Helps SEAs implement researched-based practices and emerging 
promising practices identified by the Content Centers and other leading 
experts and organizations nationwide; and
    f. Provides opportunities for SEAs to meet with and learn from 
researchers, experts, and each other about practical and effective 
strategies for implementing key initiatives, including by, for example, 
organizing or facilitating SEA participation in communities of 
practice; and
    3. Make all training materials, rubrics, manuals, presentations, 
and other materials developed during the grant period publicly and 
freely available through the online portal described in the 
coordination and collaboration requirement for all centers.

    Note: The requirements for all Regional Centers do not support 
the development of new content. A Regional Center applicant will not 
satisfy these requirements if it proposes a technical assistance 
plan that includes development work, such as designing or developing 
curricula or instructional materials for use in classrooms, 
developing educational programs, or conducting research, monitoring, 
or program evaluations for an SEA. A Regional Center may propose to 
create materials to be used in capacity-building activities with the 
SEA, such as decision matrices, written responses to information 
requests, self-assessment rubrics, or presentation materials. In 
addition, to the extent that an applicant proposes to work with 
individual school districts or schools, the applicant must propose 
technical assistance that reaches a large number or proportion of 
districts or schools in the State, responds to a need identified by 
an SEA, and is planned, coordinated, and executed in concert with 
the SEA.

    C. Requirements for All Content Centers. In addition to the 
requirements for all centers described in this notice, each Content 
Center must
    1. Assess national needs and develop an annual work plan that--
    a. Takes into account the needs of SEAs and Regional Centers in its 
area of expertise;
    b. Addresses its specific area of expertise; and
    c. Addresses the needs of all students, including English Learners, 
students with disabilities, and high-need students;
    2. Deliver high-quality technical assistance to Regional Centers 
and SEAs in its area of expertise that--
    a. Reflects collaboration with Regional Centers to address 
identified needs of SEAs;
    b. Provides opportunities for SEAs to learn from researchers, 
experts, and each other by, for example, participating in, organizing, 
or facilitating SEA participation in communities of practice; and
    c. Differentiates the delivery of technical assistance based on the 
current capacity and needs of the Regional Centers and SEAs;
    3. Translate expertise, research-based practices and emerging 
promising practices into high-quality publications, tools, and services 
appropriate for SEAs, LEAs, and school policymakers and practitioners; 
and
    4. Make all training materials, rubrics, manuals, presentations, 
and other materials developed during the grant period publicly and 
freely available through the online portal described in the 
coordination and collaboration requirement for all centers.
    D. Requirements for the Center on Standards and Assessments 
Implementation. In addition to the requirements for all centers and for 
all Content Centers described in this notice, the Center on Standards 
and Assessments Implementation must provide technical assistance to 
Regional Centers and SEAs that focuses on--
    1. State implementation of college- and career-ready standards for 
students and schools statewide, as well as State development and 
administration of aligned high-quality assessments such as those under 
development by the Race to the Top Assessment program grantees (https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/) and by General 
Supervision Enhancement Grants (GSEG) program grantees, who are 
developing alternate assessments based on alternate academic 
achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities;
    2. The instructional implications of transitioning to new 
standards, including the need for aligned, high-quality instructional 
materials and high-quality professional development and other supports 
to prepare teachers to teach all students, including English Learners, 
students with disabilities, and

[[Page 33587]]

low-achieving students, to college- and career-ready standards;
    3. Integrating new standards and assessments with State 
accountability systems and State, district, and school teacher and 
leader support and evaluation systems; and
    4. Using assessment data and other measures of student performance 
to inform instruction, differentiate school performance levels, and 
evaluate district and school improvement policies and activities.
    E. Requirements for the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. In 
addition to the requirements for all centers and for all Content 
Centers described in this notice, the Center on Great Teachers and 
Leaders must provide technical assistance to Regional Centers and SEAs 
that focuses on--
    1. Developing the knowledge and skills of teachers and leaders, 
with emphasis on improving instructional practices that help students 
meet college- and career-ready standards;
    2. Strategies to ensure the equitable distribution of effective 
teachers and to meet demand in hard-to-staff schools and subjects and 
in rural areas;
    3. Strategies to recruit, reward, retain, and support effective 
teachers and leaders by, for example, offering opportunities for career 
advancement;
    4. Developing and implementing teacher and leader human capital 
management systems (e.g., systems related to recruiting, evaluating, 
developing, rewarding, and retaining teachers and leaders), including 
teacher and leader evaluation and support systems that use multiple 
valid measures of effectiveness (including student growth and other 
measures of professional performance), differentiate performance 
levels, inform professional development needs, and focus on 
continuously improving instruction for teachers in both tested and non-
tested grades and subjects, including teachers of English Learners and 
students with disabilities; and
    5. Using human capital strategies, which may include professional 
development and evaluation, that build teacher and leader capacity to 
create safe, productive school environments and increase academic 
engagement for all students through positive behavior management and 
appropriate discipline.
    6. Using data from human capital management systems, State 
longitudinal data systems, and other sources to guide professional 
development and improve instruction.
    F. Requirements for the Center on School Turnaround. In addition to 
the requirements for all centers and for all Content Centers described 
in this notice, the Center on School Turnaround must provide technical 
assistance to Regional Centers and SEAs that focuses on--
    1. Developing and strengthening organizational systems and 
structures that promote and sustain comprehensive district and school 
reforms that lead to significant gains in student outcomes and close 
achievement gaps in the lowest-performing schools;
    2. Developing effective tools, processes, and policies for States 
to monitor and support district and school efforts to turn around the 
lowest-performing schools; the tools, processes, and policies could 
include ways to select and monitor external providers, support and 
develop turnaround leaders, and analyze and use data;
    3. Collecting and disseminating information and resources on 
successful school turnaround models;
    4. Collecting and disseminating information and resources on 
promising and emerging State, district, and school approaches to: (a) 
Improving student outcomes and closing achievement gaps, (b) addressing 
non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as students' 
social, emotional, and health needs, and (c) sustaining improvements 
across a broad spectrum (e.g., urban, rural, high-poverty) of the 
lowest-performing schools and across student populations (e.g., English 
Learners, students with disabilities, high-need students); these 
approaches may include extending learning time; and
    4. Facilitating support networks and ongoing learning opportunities 
for SEAs, LEAs, and school policymakers and practitioners serving the 
lowest-performing schools, which may include managing and supporting an 
online community of practice.
    G. Requirements for the Center on Enhancing Early Learning 
Outcomes. In addition to the requirements for all centers and for all 
Content Centers, the Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes must 
provide technical assistance to Regional Centers and SEAs that focuses 
on--
    1. Aligning preschool and kindergarten-through-third-grade 
education policies and systems in order to increase the number of 
children who transition successfully to kindergarten and to close the 
achievement gap, particularly for high-need children;
    2. Increasing knowledge and expertise among SEA staff and among 
State-level early learning program staff in understanding the purposes 
and uses of a full range of early learning assessment strategies and 
instruments and in selecting assessment instruments and approaches that 
are appropriate for all children, including English Learners, students 
with disabilities, and low-achieving students;
    3. Using assessment data and other information to improve the 
quality of instruction in early learning programs;
    4. Increasing the effectiveness of the early learning workforce--
for example, by assisting SEAs in developing and implementing statewide 
workforce knowledge and competency frameworks designed to support 
children's learning and development and improve outcomes; supporting 
more robust early childhood educator preparation and professional 
development efforts; and developing a common, statewide progression of 
teaching credentials and degrees aligned with the State frameworks; and
    5. Working to integrate and align resources and policies across 
State agencies and programs to support a coordinated statewide system 
that promotes children's success in school.
    H. Requirements for the Center on College and Career Readiness and 
Success. In addition to the requirements for all centers and for all 
Content Centers described in this notice, the Center on College and 
Career Readiness and Success must provide technical assistance to 
Regional Centers and SEAs that focuses on--
    1. Policies and practices that--
    a. Support the successful transition of all students from secondary 
education to college, without the need for remediation, and to careers; 
and
    b. Increase postsecondary enrollment, persistence, and completion--
for example, by assisting SEAs in aligning secondary and postsecondary 
learning expectations, strengthening the rigor of high school courses 
and pathways, and providing college counseling;
    2. SEA development and scaling up of statewide rigorous career and 
technical education (CTE) programs that align with college- and career-
ready standards and lead to an industry-recognized credential or 
postsecondary certificate or degree--for example, by implementing high-
quality, academically rigorous CTE programs and courses; providing high 
school credits for work-based learning opportunities; providing college 
credit for secondary school academic and technical courses through 
statewide secondary-postsecondary articulation agreements; implementing 
career counseling services that incorporate the most up-to-date 
information on existing and emerging in-demand industry sectors and 
occupations; and aligning CTE programs and priorities with State and 
local economic development strategies, industry standards in existing

[[Page 33588]]

and emerging in-demand industry sectors and occupations, and job growth 
data;
    3. High-quality science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
(STEM) instruction that supports and challenges students through a 
progression of STEM courses and the transition to postsecondary degree 
and certificate programs in STEM fields;
    4. Implementing accelerated learning strategies such as dual-credit 
and early college options, General Educational Development (GED)-to-
college pathways, competency-based pathways, and other programs 
designed to encourage and support the successful transition of all 
students, especially disadvantaged and first-generation college-going 
students, dropouts who re-enter school, and students with disabilities, 
from secondary school into postsecondary education or training 
programs; and
    5. Effectively using data--for example, using early warning and 
college- and career-readiness indicators to identify secondary school 
students needing additional support, or implementing approaches, 
consistent with Federal, State, and local privacy laws and regulations, 
to allow data to be shared between LEAs and postsecondary institutions 
to improve student transitions.
    I. Requirements for the Center on Building State Capacity and 
Productivity. In addition to the requirements for all centers and for 
all Content Centers described in this notice, the Center on Building 
State Capacity and Productivity must provide technical assistance to 
Regional Centers and SEAS that focuses on--
    1. Building the internal organizational capacity of SEAs by--
    a. Supporting the implementation of sustainable organizational 
structures and effective performance management systems that help SEAs 
support key education initiatives and set priorities for using their 
resources;
    b. Helping SEAs build their staffs' leadership skills and expertise 
so that staff can effectively lead and support education initiatives 
and ensure that districts and schools are provided with high-quality 
services and supports;
    c. Helping SEAs strengthen information sharing across 
organizational units within SEAs in order to facilitate cross-cutting 
work that increases the success of State- and district-level 
initiatives designed to improve student outcomes and that enhances the 
sustainability of these initiatives;
    d. Helping SEAs make more efficient use of scarce resources--for 
example, by measuring and comparing the costs of similar systems, 
processes, programs, and products; and
    e. Identifying State- and district-level research-based practices 
and emerging promising practices in such areas as human capital 
management, financial data systems, and return-on-investment analyses 
that can inform decision- making and help SEAs improve productivity and 
reduce costs across classrooms, schools, districts, and States; and
    2. Building the organizational capacity of SEAs to support 
district- and school-level implementation of initiatives designed to 
improve student outcomes by helping SEAs--
    a. Build collaborative and productive relationships with their 
LEAs; provide technical assistance that builds the capacity of its 
LEAs; facilitate the sharing of research-based practices, emerging 
promising practices, and problem-solving strategies among LEAs; and 
identify ways in which the SEA can help its LEAs scale up effective 
practices;
    b. Identify and implement a continuum of supports and interventions 
to address the needs of districts and schools;
    c. Develop processes to identify and select effective external 
partners and monitor their progress in achieving stated goals and 
objectives; and
    d. Engage and provide information to key stakeholders, including 
parents, on the implementation of key initiatives.
    J. Requirements for the Center on Innovations in Learning. In 
addition to the requirements for all centers and for all Content 
Centers described in this notice, the Center on Innovations in Learning 
must provide technical assistance to Regional Centers and SEAs that 
focuses on--
    1. Identifying and implementing policies, strategies, and practices 
that encourage the identification and scaling up of new teaching and 
learning strategies, approaches, processes, or tools that significantly 
improve, or have the potential to significantly improve, student 
outcomes--for example, through analyzing State and district data to 
identify positive trends or unique patterns that indicate significant 
improvement, or the potential for significant improvement, in student 
outcomes; helping States use competitions to identify the most 
promising innovations; helping States rigorously evaluate promising 
innovations; and supporting States' broad adoption of the most 
promising and proven innovations and the replacement of less effective 
programs and practices;
    2. Identifying and implementing policies, strategies, and practices 
that encourage improved student outcomes through personalization of 
learning for each student--for example, by helping SEAs, LEAs, and 
schools provide opportunities for self-paced learning, implement 
instructional approaches and subject matter matched to students needs 
and interests, and increase access to experts, teachers, and peers who 
can address specific student needs and interests;
    3. Selecting and implementing technologies that support the 
personalization of learning--for example, (a) data systems that allow 
teachers to better differentiate instruction and instructional 
resources for maximum effectiveness and (b) adaptive instructional 
systems that enable students to optimize the pace of learning and 
individualize the instructional content they need to achieve mastery;
    4. Using State and local data systems to identify specific areas of 
student need and evaluate the effectiveness of specific strategies that 
support innovations in learning--for example, practices that improve 
student learning outcomes, that increase the number of individuals 
served without increasing resources, or that maintain educational 
outcomes and the number of students served while using fewer resources; 
and
    5. Identifying and implementing policies and practices that 
accelerate the adoption of promising and proven personalized learning 
strategies, practices, and tools.
    K. Application Requirements
    1. Technical Assistance Plan. An applicant for a Regional Center 
must submit as part of its application a five-year plan of technical 
assistance that describes how it will meet the program requirements for 
all centers and for Regional Centers. An applicant for a Content Center 
must submit as part of its application a five-year plan of technical 
assistance that describes how it will meet the program requirements for 
all centers, the general requirements for all Content Centers, and the 
applicable Content Center requirements described in this notice.
    2. Subject-Matter and Technical Expertise. An applicant for a 
Regional or Content Center must provide a narrative describing the 
subject-matter and technical expertise of proposed center staff, 
including any partners and consultants. At a minimum, the narrative 
must include the names and resumes for the proposed center staff.
    a. All Centers. An applicant for a Regional or Content Center must 
provide evidence in its application

[[Page 33589]]

demonstrating that the proposed center staff, including any partners 
and consultants, possesses--
    i. Knowledge and understanding of the research-based practices and 
emerging promising practices that will enable the applicant to provide 
high-quality technical assistance specifically related to building SEA 
capacity to implement State-level initiatives and to support district- 
and school-level initiatives that improve educational outcomes for all 
students, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of 
instruction; and
    ii. Experience in the following:
    (a) Delivering high-quality, relevant technical assistance and 
sharing expertise with SEAs or multiple districts. An applicant must 
provide evidence of the effect that its technical assistance has had on 
SEAs or LEAs, such as improved student outcomes, increased 
organizational capacity, the establishment of effective structures or 
processes, or high levels of client satisfaction.
    (b) Supporting SEAs or multiple districts in implementing key 
initiatives and in making systemic changes beyond individual districts 
or schools.
    (c) Building collaborative relationships with leading experts and 
organizations in applicable areas of expertise to increase the quality, 
relevance, and usefulness of technical assistance.
    b. Regional Centers. In addition to the subject-matter and 
technical expertise outlined for all center applicants, an applicant 
for a Regional Center must provide evidence in its application 
demonstrating that the proposed center staff, including any partners 
and consultants, possesses--
    i. Knowledge and understanding of--
    (a) The context and status of education reform in each of the 
States the applicant would serve;
    (b) Leading research on implementing educational initiatives and 
practices and on how to help SEAs implement, support, scale up, and 
sustain practices that address identified problems;
    (c) LEA support systems within States the applicant would serve, 
such as networks of educational service agencies and third-party 
systems of support, and how to use those systems to provide high-
quality support to districts and schools; and
    ii. Experience in the following:
    (a) Working with SEAs or multiple districts to implement 
comprehensive or innovative plans to improve student achievement or 
provide large-scale technical assistance focused on improving student 
outcomes.
    (b) Developing and implementing performance and project management 
systems on a large scale or in large, complex, public-sector 
institutions.
    (c) Facilitating communities of practice within and across States.
    c. Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation. In addition 
to the subject-matter and technical expertise outlined for all centers, 
an applicant for the Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation 
must provide evidence in its application demonstrating that the 
proposed center staff, including any partners and consultants, 
possesses--
    i. Knowledge and understanding of--
    (a) The Common Core State Standards and other college- and career-
ready standards that States have adopted, including detailed knowledge 
and understanding of the differences in expectations embedded in these 
standards compared to those embedded in current State standards;
    (b) The work of the Smarter Balanced assessment consortium and the 
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) 
assessment consortium, as well as other State-developed assessments 
that are linked to college- and career-ready standards, including 
assessment designs and the status of efforts to develop and pilot the 
new assessments; and
    (c) Instructional strategies and high-quality curricula that are 
aligned with rigorous college- and career-ready standards and support 
the teaching and learning of all students, including English Learners, 
students with disabilities, and low-achieving students; and
    ii. Experience in the following:
    (a) Working successfully with SEAs or multiple districts on the 
implementation of new standards or assessments.
    (b) Working with experts and practitioners involved in college- and 
career-ready assessment efforts supported by States, such as the 
Smarter Balanced or PARCC assessment consortia.
    (c) Working with SEAs or multiple districts in aligning curricular 
and instructional options, as well as teacher and leader professional 
development, with new, more rigorous standards.
    (d) Working with SEAs, LEAs, or school policymakers and 
practitioners on the interpretation and appropriate use of assessment 
data.
    d. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. In addition to the 
subject-matter and technical expertise outlined for all centers, an 
applicant for the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders must provide 
evidence in its application demonstrating that the proposed center 
staff, including any partners and consultants, possesses--
    i. Knowledge and understanding of--
    (a) Teacher and leader professional development that improves 
instruction and helps students meet college- and career-ready 
standards;
    (b) Strategies to improve teacher and leader recruitment and 
retention;
    (c) Designing or improving teacher and leader human capital 
management systems, including teacher and leader evaluation and support 
systems, that are based in significant part on student growth, 
differentiate performance, include multiple measures of effectiveness, 
inform professional development, and focus on continuous improvement of 
instruction; and
    (d) The broad range of SEA and district teacher and leader human 
capital management systems, State policies that facilitate or hinder 
the development of such high-quality systems, and possible barriers to 
the equitable distribution of effective teachers and leaders; and
    ii. Experience in the following:
    (a) Working successfully with SEAs or multiple districts on 
improving the quality of instruction statewide or across multiple 
districts.
    (b) Working collaboratively with teacher and leader preparation 
organizations, institutions of higher education, charter management 
organizations, or other teacher and leader preparation and development 
groups to develop, implement, or improve teacher and leader human 
capital management systems, including teacher and leader evaluation and 
support systems.
    e. Center on School Turnaround. In addition to the subject-matter 
and technical expertise outlined for all centers, an applicant for the 
Center on School Turnaround must provide evidence in its application 
demonstrating that the proposed center staff, including any partners 
and consultants, possesses--
    i. Knowledge and understanding of--
    (a) The approaches States, districts, and schools are taking to 
turn around their lowest-performing schools, including efforts under 
the School Improvement Grants and Race to the Top programs; and
    (b) Emerging promising practices, including non-academic practices 
that impact student outcomes, for improving student outcomes in the 
lowest-performing schools, particularly those engaged in school 
turnaround efforts; and
    ii. Experience working with SEAs or multiple districts on school 
turnaround

[[Page 33590]]

efforts, including helping SEAs or multiple districts develop and 
implement structures or systems that promote and sustain comprehensive 
district and school reforms and processes and tools to monitor 
turnaround efforts.
    f. Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. In addition to the 
subject-matter and technical expertise outlined for all centers, an 
applicant for the Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes must 
provide evidence in its application demonstrating that the proposed 
center staff, including any partners and consultants, possesses--
    i. Knowledge and understanding of--
    (a) Developmentally appropriate practices for early learning;
    (b) State early learning and development standards that define what 
children should know and be able to do from birth through third grade;
    (c) Principles and approaches to appropriately assess young 
children's knowledge and skills from birth through third grade, 
including expertise in the field of psychometrics;
    (d) The issues related to improving the workforce serving children 
from birth through third grade, including issues related to workforce 
competencies, certifications, and compensation; and
    (e) State early learning systems; and
    ii. Experience in the following:
    (a) Providing technical assistance to SEAs or multiple districts on 
selecting, using, and interpreting the results of early childhood 
assessments.
    (b) Assisting SEAs or multiple districts on building an effective 
early childhood workforce; and
    (c) Working with publically funded early learning programs, such as 
State-funded preschool; Head Start; programs funded under section 619 
of part B of IDEA and part C of IDEA; programs funded under Title I of 
the ESEA; and programs receiving funds from the State's Child Care 
Development Fund (CCDF).
    g. Center on College and Career Readiness and Success. In addition 
to the subject-matter and technical expertise outlined for all centers, 
an applicant for the Center on College and Career Readiness and Success 
must provide evidence in its application demonstrating that the 
proposed center staff, including any partners and consultants, 
possess--
    i. Knowledge and understanding of--
    (a) Research-based practices and emerging promising practices that 
support the successful transition of all students from secondary 
education to college, without the need for remediation, and to careers;
    (b) Rigorous career and technical education programs of study that 
align with college- and career-ready standards; and
    (c) High-quality STEM instructional pathways that lead to a 
postsecondary degree or certification in STEM fields; and
    ii. Experience in the following:
    (a) Working with SEAs or multiple districts to design and implement 
systemic, comprehensive strategies that promote college- and career-
readiness for K-12 students and students' successful transition from 
high school graduation to postsecondary education and the workforce.
    (b) Helping SEAs address the systemic needs and challenges they and 
their LEAs face in ensuring that all students graduate from high school 
prepared for college and careers, particularly in high-poverty, high-
minority, urban, and rural settings.
    (c) Working with K-12 and postsecondary education systems to align 
policies and practices in order to improve student transitions from 
high school to postsecondary degree or credential programs.
    h. Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity. In addition 
to the subject-matter and technical expertise outlined for all centers, 
an applicant for the Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity 
must provide evidence in its application demonstrating that the 
proposed center staff, including any partners and consultants, 
possesses--
    i. Knowledge and understanding of--
    (a) SEA organizational structures that are effective in supporting 
district- and school-level implementation of effective practices to 
improve student outcomes;
    (b) The relationship of an SEA to its LEAs and the differing 
resources and capacities that exist across LEAs;
    (c) Research-based practices and emerging promising practices in 
using LEA support systems in States, such as networks of educational 
service agencies and third-party systems of support, in order to 
provide high-quality support to districts and schools; and
    (d) Leading research in performance and project management, 
including research conducted in non-education sectors and industries; 
and
    ii. Experience in the following:
    (a) Working with SEAs to successfully implement programs or 
initiatives statewide or in multiple districts.
    (b) Providing in-depth coaching and advice to SEA leaders on 
improving internal organizational capacity or the capacity to support 
district- and school-level implementation of effective practices in 
order to improve student outcomes.
    (c) Facilitating communities of practice within and across States.
    (d) Working with large-scale organizations, especially public-
sector organizations that work with multiple constituencies and 
stakeholders, on performance and project management.
    i. Center on Innovations in Learning. In addition to the subject-
matter and technical expertise outlined for all centers, an applicant 
for the Center on Innovations in Learning must provide evidence in its 
application demonstrating that the proposed center staff, including any 
partners and consultants, possesses--
    i. Knowledge and understanding of--
    (a) Policies, strategies, and practices that encourage the 
identification and scaling up of new teaching and learning strategies, 
approaches, processes, or tools that significantly improve, or have the 
potential to significantly improve, student outcomes; and
    (b) Policies, strategies, and practices that encourage improved 
student outcomes through personalization of learning and through 
implementing technologies that support the personalization of learning; 
and
    ii. Experience in the following:
    (a) Working with SEAs on identifying and implementing policies, 
strategies, and practices that encourage the identification and scaling 
up of new teaching and learning strategies, approaches, processes, or 
tools that significantly improve, or have the potential to 
significantly improve, student outcomes.
    (b) Working with SEAs or LEAs on identifying and implementing 
policies, strategies, and practices that encourage improved student 
outcomes through personalization of learning, including selecting or 
developing and implementing technologies that support personalized 
learning.
    3. Management Plan.
    An applicant must submit a management plan that describes the 
responsibilities of key personnel, timelines, and milestones for 
accomplishing project tasks; the time commitment of key personnel; and 
the adequacy and allocation of resources, including financial or in-
kind matching contributions from an entity or organization in the 
public or private sector, if any. If an applicant's proposed budget 
includes matching contributions, the application must include evidence 
of a commitment for the full amount of the matching contribution, 
inclusive of the source of the funds or in-kind contributions and the 
date(s) they will be received.
    4. Performance and Evaluation Plan.

[[Page 33591]]

    Each applicant must provide a plan to assess the progress and 
performance of the center in meeting the educational and capacity-
building needs of SEAs. The plan must identify a set of performance 
objectives the project intends to achieve and performance measures for 
each performance objective, which must include results-based outcomes; 
explain the qualitative and quantitative methods that will be used to 
collect, analyze, and report performance data; and describe the methods 
that will be used to monitor progress and make mid-course corrections 
as needed. Each center must also provide a plan to collect and use 
reliable formative and summative data throughout the grant period to 
inform and improve service delivery.

III. Flexibility and Requirements for Regional Center Assignments

    Requirements. In the second fiscal year of the cooperative 
agreement, and in each subsequent fiscal year, an SEA could indicate to 
the Department its desire to affiliate with a different Regional 
Center, regardless of the geographic location of that Center. A State 
could exercise this option only once in any two-year period.
    To exercise this option, a State must notify the Department in 
writing, not later than six months prior to the end of the fiscal year, 
that it wishes to affiliate with a different Regional Center noting the 
specific reasons for requesting reassignment. The Department will 
notify the current Regional Center immediately after receiving the 
request for reassignment. In order to allow time for the grantee to 
address quality-of-service issues and for the Department to evaluate 
whether reassignment is in the best interest of the program, the 
Department will provide the State's current Regional Center a specified 
period of time to address the concerns articulated by the State before 
the Department considers the State request. The State must provide--
    A. Documentation from the proposed Regional Center with which it 
wants to affiliate that indicates the Center's willingness and capacity 
to serve the additional State; and
    B. Other information that the Department requests.
    After considering the documentation and other information, the 
Department could approve a request if it is consistent with the 
requirements in section 203(a) of ETAA that (1) there be no fewer than 
20 Comprehensive Centers and that (2) there be at least one 
Comprehensive Center in each of the 10 geographic regions served by the 
RELs. If the Department approves the request, the Department will re-
designate regions served by each Regional Center to reflect any changes 
in regional membership. The Department will re-allocate the funding to 
each center, taking into account changes in the number of students 
served by each Regional Center and other such factors it deems 
appropriate. The Department will provide notification of any changes 
through a notice published in the Federal Register.

IV. Selection Criteria

    Selection Criteria: In any competition under this program, the 
Secretary may use one or more of the selection criteria proposed in 
this notice, any of the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, criteria 
based on the statutory requirements for the Comprehensive Centers 
program in accordance with 34 CFR 75.209, or any combination of these. 
This includes the authority to reduce the number of selection criteria.
    The Secretary may apply one or more of these criteria in any year 
in which this program is in effect. The Secretary may also select one 
or more of these selection criteria to review pre-applications, if the 
Secretary decides to invite pre-applications in accordance with 34 CFR 
75.103. In the notice inviting applications, the application package, 
or both, we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each 
criterion.
    A. Technical Assistance Plan.
    1. Overall quality of the technical assistance plan. In determining 
the overall quality of the technical assistance plan for the proposed 
center and the likelihood of the center contributing to improved State 
outcomes, the Secretary considers--
    a. The extent to which the proposed technical assistance plan 
presents an exceptional approach that will likely result in building 
SEA capacity to implement State-level initiatives and support district- 
and school-level initiatives that improve educational outcomes for all 
students, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of 
instruction;
    b. The potential contribution of the center to increasing the 
knowledge and understanding of effective strategies in the center's 
area of expertise; and
    c. The extent to which the proposed technical assistance plan 
presents an approach that will result in the sharing of high-quality, 
relevant, useful information, materials, and other applicable resources 
across SEAs, districts, and schools, within and outside of a region.
    d. In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the extent to 
which the proposed technical assistance plan presents an approach that 
is likely to secure an SEA's commitment to devote the time, leadership, 
and personnel needed to implement the work plan and achieve specific 
goals, which may include a memorandum of understanding or similar 
agreement that contains timelines and benchmarks to ensure that the 
work stays on track to achieve these goals.
    2. Quality of the Project Design. In determining the quality of the 
project design of the proposed center for which the applicant is 
applying, the Secretary considers--
    a. The extent to which the applicant's technical assistance plan 
proposes an exceptional approach to meeting the requirements for all 
centers, which includes--
    i. Providing high-quality technical assistance that is based on up-
to-date knowledge and understanding of research-based practices and 
emerging promising practices; is highly relevant and useful to SEAs, 
LEAs, and school policymakers and practitioners; and is delivered in a 
timely, cost-efficient manner;
    ii. Focusing technical assistance on helping SEAs build capacity to 
implement State-level initiatives and support district- and school-
level initiatives that improve educational outcomes for all students, 
close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction; and
    iii. Coordinating and collaborating with national experts and 
technical assistance providers to ensure that the technical assistance 
is informed by leading-edge research and innovative approaches and 
avoids duplicating efforts;
    b. In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the extent to 
which the applicant's technical assistance plan proposes an exceptional 
approach to meeting the requirements for all Regional Centers; and
    c. In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, the extent to 
which the applicant's technical assistance plan proposes an exceptional 
approach to meeting the requirements for all Content Centers, as well 
as the requirements for the specific Content Center for which the 
applicant is applying.
    3. Knowledge of State Technical Assistance Needs. In determining 
the applicant's ability to meet State technical assistance needs, the 
Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed technical 
assistance plan provides strategies that address the technical 
assistance needs of States in key areas, as evidenced by in-depth 
knowledge and understanding of--

[[Page 33592]]

    a. In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the specific 
educational goals and priorities of the States to be served by the 
applicant, including emerging priorities based on State-led reform 
efforts;
    b. In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the 
applicable State and regional demographics, policy contexts, and other 
factors and their relevance to improving student outcomes, closing 
achievement gaps, and improving instruction; and
    c. In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, State 
technical assistance needs, and research-based practices and emerging 
promising practices related to the Content Center for which the 
applicant is applying.
    B. Subject-Matter and Technical Expertise.
    Quality of Key Project Personnel. In determining the subject-matter 
and technical expertise of key project personnel, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the Secretary 
considers--
    1. The knowledge, understanding, and experience of key project 
personnel as outlined under the subject-matter and technical expertise 
requirements for all centers;
    2. In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, in addition 
to the knowledge, understanding, and experience outlined under subject-
matter and technical expertise requirements for all centers, the 
subject-matter and technical expertise of key personnel outlined under 
the requirements for Regional Centers;
    3. In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, in addition to 
the knowledge, understanding, and experience outlined under subject-
matter and technical expertise requirements for all centers, the 
subject-matter and technical expertise of key personnel outlined under 
the requirements for the specific Content Center for which the 
applicant is applying;
    4. The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated experience 
providing high-quality technical assistance to SEAs or multiple 
districts;
    5. The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated the ability 
to develop ongoing partnerships with leading experts and organizations 
nationwide that inform high-quality technical assistance and subject-
matter expertise;
    6. The extent to which the applicant has prior relevant experience 
operating a project of the scope required for the purposes of the 
center being proposed; and
    7. The extent to which the applicant proposes an advisory board 
membership in accordance with the requirements of the ETAA and includes 
reasonable assurance of proposed board members' commitment to serve.
    C. Management and Evaluation Plans.
    1. Quality of the Management Plan. In determining the quality of 
the management plan for the proposed center, the Secretary considers--
    a. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of 
the project on time and within budget, including clearly defined 
responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project 
tasks;
    b. The extent to which the time commitments of the project director 
and other key project personnel, including any partners or consultants, 
are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed 
project;
    c. The extent to which resources are allocated within a region for 
Regional Centers, and across regions for Content Centers, in a manner 
that reflects the need for technical assistance; and
    d. The adequacy of the resources for the proposed project, 
including whether the applicant proposes facilities and equipment to 
successfully carry out the purposes and activities of the proposed 
center.
    2. Quality of the Project Evaluation Plan. In determining the 
quality of the evaluation plan, the Secretary considers--
    a. The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a strong capacity 
to provide reliable formative and summative data on performance 
measures;
    b. The extent to which the performance goals and objectives for the 
project are clearly specified and measurable in terms of the project 
activities to be accomplished and their stated outcomes;
    c. The extent to which the methods for monitoring performance and 
evaluating the effectiveness of project strategies in terms of outcomes 
for SEAs, districts, and schools are thorough, feasible, and 
appropriate to the objectives and outcomes of the proposed project;
    d. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
continuous performance feedback and encourage the continuous assessment 
of progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and
    e. The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan to use 
both formative and summative data from evaluations to inform and 
improve service delivery over the course of the grant.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, 
requirements, and selection criteria, we invite applications through 
a notice in the Federal Register.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Under Executive Order 12866, the 
Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to the requirements of the 
Executive Order and subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a 
``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a 
rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local or tribal governments, or communities in a material way (also 
referred to as an ``economically significant'' rule); (2) create 
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or 
planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impacts 
of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the Executive Order, it has been determined that this 
regulatory action is significant and subject to OMB review under 
section 3(f)(4) of the Executive Order.
    We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those

[[Page 33593]]

approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, 
environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; 
distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these priorities, requirements, and selection 
criteria only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify 
their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we 
selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the 
analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory 
action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    Need for Federal Regulatory Action: These priorities, requirements, 
and selection criteria are needed to implement the Comprehensive 
Centers program because the authorizing language in the ETAA provides 
only broad parameters to govern the program. The Department does not 
believe that the statute, by itself, provides a sufficient level of 
detail to ensure that all States can build their capacity to improve 
educational outcomes for all students. The priorities, requirements, 
and selection criteria in this notice clarify the types of centers the 
Department seeks to fund and permit the Department to evaluate proposed 
centers using selection criteria that are based on the purpose of the 
program and are closely aligned with the Department's priorities. In 
the absence of specific selection criteria for the Comprehensive 
Centers program, the Department would use the general selection 
criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of the Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations in selecting grant recipients. The 
Department does not believe the use of those general criteria would be 
sufficient for a Comprehensive Centers program competition because they 
do not focus specifically on the objectives of the program, especially 
the role of the centers in providing technical assistance to SEAs so 
that they can build their capacity to assist LEAs and schools and, in 
turn, improve educational outcomes for students.
    Regulatory Alternatives Considered: The Department considered a 
variety of possible priorities, requirements, and selection criteria 
before deciding on those included in this notice. For example, the 
Department considered a priority to support knowledge management and 
dissemination across all Comprehensive Centers. It chose instead to 
require each center to collaborate with other Department-funded centers 
engaged in that type of activity.
    The priorities, requirements, and selection criteria reflect and 
promote the purpose of the Comprehensive Centers program. They also 
align the program, where possible and permissible, with other 
Presidential and Departmental priorities. We believe that the 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria in this notice 
appropriately balance the need for specific programmatic guidance while 
providing each applicant with flexibility to design and propose an 
innovative and effective Comprehensive Center.
    Summary of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that these 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria do not impose 
significant costs on eligible research organizations, institutions, 
agencies, institutions of higher education, or partnerships among such 
entities, or individuals that would receive assistance through the 
Comprehensive Centers program. We also believe that the benefits of 
implementing the priorities and requirements contained in this notice 
justify any associated costs.
    The Department believes that the priorities, requirements, and 
selection criteria will result in the selection of high-quality 
applications to establish centers that are most likely to build the 
capacity of SEAs in order to improve educational outcomes for all 
students. Through these priorities, requirements, and selection 
criteria, we clarify the scope of activities we expect to support with 
program funds and the expected burden of work involved in preparing an 
application and implementing a center under the program. A potential 
applicant would need to consider carefully the effort that would be 
required to prepare a strong application and its capacity to implement 
a project successfully.
    The Department further believes that the costs imposed on an 
applicant by the priorities, requirements, and selection criteria are 
largely limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application 
and that the benefits of preparing an application and receiving an 
award will justify any costs incurred by the applicant. This is 
because, during the project period, the costs of actually establishing 
a center and carrying out activities under a Comprehensive Centers 
program grant would be paid for with program funds and any matching 
funds. Thus, the costs of establishing a Comprehensive Center using 
these priorities, requirements, and selection criteria will not be a 
significant burden for any eligible applicant, including a small 
entity.
    Accounting Statement: As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at 
https://www.Whithouse.gov/omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following 
table, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the 
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of 
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the 
Federal payments to be made to eligible applicants under this program 
as a result of this regulatory action. This table is based on funds the 
Department has requested for new awards for this program for FY 2012. 
The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional 
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers to those entities 
listed.
    Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                      Transfers (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Transfers................  $51.2
From Whom to Whom.........................  Federal Government to
                                             research organizations,
                                             institutions, agencies,
                                             institutions of higher
                                             education, or partnerships
                                             among such entities, or
                                             individuals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that this 
regulatory action may affect are eligible research organizations, 
institutions, agencies, institutions of higher education, or 
partnerships among such entities, or individuals. The Secretary 
believes that the costs imposed on an applicant by the priorities, 
requirements, and selection criteria would be limited to paperwork 
burden related to preparing

[[Page 33594]]

an application and that the benefits of implementing them would 
outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the Comprehensive Centers program is voluntary. 
For this reason, the priorities, requirements, and selection criteria 
will impose no burden on small entities unless they apply for funding 
under the Comprehensive Centers program using the priorities, 
requirements, and selection criteria in this notice. We expect that in 
determining whether to apply for Comprehensive Center funds, an 
eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of preparing an 
application and implementing a Comprehensive Center, and any associated 
costs, and weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by 
implementing a center. An eligible entity would probably apply only if 
it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 
application and implementing a project. The likely benefits of applying 
for a Comprehensive Center program grant include the potential receipt 
of a grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity 
through its development of an application, such as the use of such 
application to create partnerships with other entities in order to 
assist State educational agencies.
    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define 
``small entities'' as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total 
annual revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled 
by small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts), with a population of less than 50,000.
    The Secretary believes that the priorities, requirements, and 
selection criteria in this notice do not impose any additional burden 
on a small entity applying for a grant than the entity would face in 
the absence of the proposed action. That is, the length of the 
applications those entities would submit in the absence of this 
regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an application would 
likely be the same.
    Further, this regulatory action may help a small entity determine 
whether it has the interest, need, or capacity to implement activities 
under the program and, thus, prevent a small entity that does not have 
such an interest, need, or capacity from absorbing the burden of 
applying.
    This regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be able to 
meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this 
program.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation process to 
provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment 
on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance 
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public understands the 
Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the 
requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and 
financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly 
understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents.
    We estimate that each applicant will spend approximately 176 hours 
of staff time to address the priorities, requirements, and selection 
criteria; prepare the application; and obtain necessary clearances. 
Based on the number of applications the Department received in the last 
competition it held under this program (in FY 2005), we expect to 
receive approximately 65 applications for these funds. The total number 
of hours for all expected applicants is an estimated 11,440 hours. We 
estimate the total cost per hour of the applicant-level staff who will 
carry out this work to be $57 per hour. The total estimated cost for 
all applicants will be $652,080.
    In the Notice of Proposed Priorities we invited comment on the 
paperwork burden estimated for this collection. We did not receive any 
comments.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond 
to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control 
number. The OMB control number assigned to this information collection 
is 1810-0709.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: June 1, 2012.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2012-13739 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P