Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, 9096-9133 [2018-04291]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9096-9133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04291]



[[Page 9095]]

Vol. 83

Friday,

No. 42

March 2, 2018

Part II





Department of Education





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





Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for 
Discretionary Grant Programs; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2018 / 
Notices

[[Page 9096]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket ID ED-2017-OS-0078]
RIN 1894-AA09


Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for 
Discretionary Grant Programs

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priorities and definitions.

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

SUMMARY: In order to support and strengthen the work that educators do 
every day in collaboration with parents, advocates, and community 
members, the Secretary issues 11 priorities and related definitions for 
use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs 
that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use 
an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or 
use one or more of the priority's component parts. These priorities and 
definitions replace the supplemental priorities published in the 
Federal Register on December 10, 2014 and September 14, 2016. However, 
if a notice inviting applications (NIA) published before the 
applicability date of this notice of final priorities and definitions 
included priorities from the December 10, 2014 or September 14, 2016 
notices, the included priorities would be in effect for the duration of 
the applicable competition.

DATES: These priorities and definitions are applicable April 2, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leticia Braga, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 6W231, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 401-0831 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Secretary has outlined a 
comprehensive education agenda that includes support for families and 
individuals to choose a high-quality education that meets their unique 
needs; promotes science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) 
education, including computer science; develops and supports effective 
educators and school leaders; encourages freedom of speech and civil 
interactions in a safe educational environment; and fosters success 
from early childhood through adulthood. These final priorities and 
definitions may be used across the Department of Education's (the 
Department) discretionary grant programs to further the Department's 
mission, which is ``to promote student achievement and preparation for 
global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring 
equal access.''
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: This 
regulatory action announces 11 supplemental priorities and relevant 
definitions. Each major provision is discussed in the Public Comment 
section of this document.
    Costs and Benefits: The final priorities and definitions would 
impose minimal costs on entities that would receive assistance through 
the Department's discretionary grant programs. Additionally, the 
benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs 
because it would result in the Department's discretionary grant 
programs encouraging the submission of a greater number of high-quality 
applications and supporting activities that reflect the 
Administration's educational priorities.
    Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant 
program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on 
applicants by the final priorities are limited to paperwork burden 
related to preparing an application for a discretionary grant program 
that is using one or more of the final priorities in its competition. 
Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with 
program funds, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for 
any eligible applicants, including small entities.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.

    We published a notice of proposed supplemental priorities and 
definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register on October 12, 2017 (82 FR 
47484). That notice contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the particular priorities and definitions.
    There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final 
priorities and definitions (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of 
Comments and Changes section in this notice.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, more than 
1400 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities and 
definitions.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under 
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general 
comments regarding concerns not directly related to the proposed 
priorities or definitions.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities and definitions since publication of 
the NPP follows.

General

    Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for implementing 
evidence-based practices, suggesting that their program of interest 
would be shown to positively influence children or students.
    Discussion: We appreciate hearing from commenters who are involved 
in a wide range of educational programs, and the Department supports 
these valuable efforts to implement evidence-based practices.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters requested a more focused approach when 
considering evidence-based practices. Specifically, one commenter 
recommended that the Department fund only evidence-based practices. 
Another commenter requested a new priority focused on rigorous 
evaluation, in order to develop the evidence base around work funded by 
the Department.
    Discussion: We believe that evidence of effectiveness is an 
important consideration in identifying appropriate priorities for a 
discretionary grant competition. The Department has issued regulations 
in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 
on the use of evidence in Department programs and has the ability to 
use demonstrated evidence of effectiveness as part of the selection 
criteria in various grant competitions. However, prior evidence of 
effectiveness may not be the only factor that should be considered in a 
grant competition, and we think it is important to leave room for 
innovative ideas--particularly such ideas that can be subject to a 
rigorous evaluation once implemented. Because EDGAR already allows 
discretionary programs to use the extent to which an applicant will 
conduct a rigorous evaluation of its project as a part of the selection 
criteria, we do not think it is necessary to include a supplemental 
priority in this NFP that focuses solely on rigorous evaluation.
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that they appreciated the 
references to evidence-based models and the use of, and building upon, 
evidence. Specifically, these commenters encouraged the Department to 
prioritize evidence under Priority 1 where possible, including by 
adding a reference to ``evidence-based'' as described in the ESEA, and 
EDGAR.
    Discussion: We share the commenters' interest in the use and 
prioritization of evidence in educational choice. As described in the 
NPP, subpart (c) of the priority encourages grantees to develop,

[[Page 9097]]

increase access to, and build evidence of effectiveness of innovative 
models of educational choice. We believe we can encourage the 
development and use of evidence by using the evidence framework 
established in EDGAR, which allows for the incorporation of evidence 
definitions and selection criteria into the design of discretionary 
grant competitions, and, where appropriate, this framework can be used 
in conjunction with the priority. We also note that the definition of 
``evidence-based'' in 34 CFR 77.1 aligns with, and builds upon, the 
language regarding evidence-based in the ESEA, and we will include in 
this priority the citation to the EDGAR definition as well as the ESEA 
to ensure that all discretionary programs can employ the definition of 
evidence-based that applies to their program. EDGAR selection criteria 
also allow for the inclusion of rigorous evaluation in grant programs, 
which can be used to determine the impacts of educational choice on 
participating students, including students with disabilities, and can 
be used to build out the evidence base around educational choice. We 
note that multiple commenters recommended a particular evidence-based 
model as an option under this priority, but we do not endorse any 
specific programs.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (c) of the priority to include a 
reference to the definition of ``evidence-based'' in 34 CFR 77.1 and 
the ESEA, and have made conforming changes to Priorities 6 and 7 as 
well.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that contrary or negative 
evidence exists on specific educational programs, notably charter 
schools, other educational choice programs and school voucher programs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern about the 
existing body of evidence on educational choice. We believe it is 
important to build upon the evidence base and examine more closely the 
effectiveness of various options, and how these options are 
implemented.
    Overall, we view high levels of parent satisfaction as a key 
benefit of school choice options such as private school vouchers. As 
discussed in the NPP, research shows high satisfaction levels among 
private school parents, with more than 80 percent of parents saying 
they were ``very satisfied'' with their children's school. Parents of 
children at public charter schools and other public schools of choice 
also showed levels of satisfaction that were significantly higher than 
parents whose children attend geographically assigned district 
schools.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cheng, A. and Peterson, P. (2017). How Satisfied are Parents 
with Their Children's Schools? Education Next, 17(2). Available at: 
https://educationnext.org/how-satisfied-are-parents-with-childrens-schools-us-dept-ed-survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that evidence suggests that some charter school models 
might be more effective at improving math and reading scores for low-
income or low-achieving students. For example, a rigorous, random 
assignment study funded by the Department's Institute of Education 
Sciences found that the study's charter middle schools that are in 
urban areas and serve high proportions of low-income or low-achieving 
students had positive effects on middle school students' math test 
scores.\2\ More recently, a national quasi-experimental design study 
found that certain groups of students enrolled in charter schools 
across the Nation demonstrated levels of academic growth in math and 
reading achievement that exceeded the growth of similar students 
enrolled in traditional public schools.\3\ Other research suggests that 
specific practices some charter schools use, such as the use of data to 
guide instruction, increased instructional time, and more rigorous goal 
setting, may improve student outcomes.\4\ Research also suggests that 
differences in State charter policies,\5\ including with regard to the 
entity responsible for chartering,\6\ such as school districts or 
nonprofits, may be related to differences in charter school 
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C., and Dwoyer, E. (2010). 
The Evaluation of Charter School Impacts: Final Report (NCEE 2010-
4029). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and 
Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 
Department of Education.
    \3\ Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2015). Urban 
Charter School Study: Report on 41 Regions. Stanford, CA: Author. 
https://urbancharters.stanford.edu/download/Urban%20Charter%20School%20Study%20Report%20on%2041%20Regions.pdf.
    \4\ Tuttle, C., Booker, K., Gleason, P., Chojnacki, G., 
Knechtel, V., Coen, T., Nichols-Barrer, I., and Goble, L. (2015). 
Understanding the Effects of KIPP as it Scales: Volume I, Impacts on 
Achievement and Other Outcomes. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy 
Research. https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/news/kipp-i3-scale-up; 
Dobbie, W., and Fryer, Jr., R.G. (2013). Getting Beneath the Veil of 
Effective Schools: Evidence from New York City. American Economic 
Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4):28-60.
    \5\ Davis, D.H., and Raymond, M.E. (2012). Choices for studying 
choice: Assessing charter school effectiveness using two quasi-
experimental methods. Economics of Education Review 31:225-236.
    \6\ Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Attridge, J., and Obernauf, K. (2014). 
Charter School Authorizers and Student Achievement. Education 
Finance and Policy, 9(1): 59-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, studies of voucher programs in some districts have 
shown small positive or null effects in reading or large effects on 
high school graduation or postsecondary outcomes for subgroups of 
students and mixed effects in math.\7\ Studies of statewide programs 
have shown negative or null effects on academic outcomes,\8\ though 
there is some evidence that the effects become less negative over time 
for those students who continue to participate over a number of 
years.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Witte, J.F., Carlson, D., Cowen, J.M., Fleming, D.J., and 
Wolf, P.J. (2012). Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Longitudinal 
Educational Growth Study Fifth Year Report. Report of the School 
Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 
Milwaukee Evaluation Report #29; Chingos, M.M., and Peterson, P.E. 
(2015). Experimentally estimated impacts of school vouchers on 
enrollment and degree attainment. Journal of Public Economics, 122, 
1-12; Cowen, J.M. (2008). School choice as a latent variable: 
Estimating the ``complier average causal effect'' of vouchers in 
Charlotte. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 301-315.
    \8\ Mills, J.N. and Wolf, P.J. (2016). The Effects of the 
Louisiana Scholarship Program on Student Achievement After Two 
Years. School Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas, 
Fayetteville, AR & Education Research Alliance, Tulane University, 
New Orleans, LA; Figlio, D. and Karbownik, K. (2016). Evaluation of 
Ohio's EdChoice Scholarship Program: Selection, Competition, and 
Performance Effects. Columbus, OH: Fordham Institute.
    \9\ Mills, J.N. and Wolf, P.J. (2017). The Effects of the 
Louisiana Scholarship Program on Student Achievement After Three 
Years. School Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas, 
Fayetteville, AR & Education Research Alliance, Tulane University, 
New Orleans, LA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A recent analysis of a specific set of voucher programs found that 
they can be a cost-effective use of public funding for education. The 
study found that private school voucher programs were generally at 
least as effective as traditional public schools at improving math and 
reading scores and cost the government less.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Shakeel, M.D., Anderson, K.P., and Wolf, P.J. (2017). The 
Justice Is Worth the Squeeze: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the 
Experimental Evidence on Private School Vouchers across the Globe. 
Paper presented at the Spring 2017 conference of the Society for 
Research on Educational Effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department is committed to building the evidence base for 
school choice models further, and these priorities are intended to 
support this important work.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters made specific recommendations on the use 
of data. One commenter recommended that the priorities include clear 
references to the importance of data collection, data security, and the 
appropriate use of data to inform evidence-based strategies and further 
that the Department should collect data elements that help stakeholders 
assess the impact of discretionary grant programs. Another commenter

[[Page 9098]]

recommended that the Department require grantees to provide students, 
families, and teachers access to data showing students' learning over 
time, build State and local capacity to safeguard data, and train 
teachers to use data to make instructional decisions.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the importance of data 
collection, data security, and data-based decision-making to the extent 
that such collections are useful, cost effective, and not duplicative. 
Ensuring that students, families, and teachers have secure and timely 
access to student data, and that they are able to utilize the data 
presented for informed decision-making, are important aspects of 
meeting the unique needs of students. Additionally, we agree that there 
is a need to build State and local capacity to protect students' 
privacy through secure and confidential data, consistent with the 
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g). The 
Department has provided technical assistance to State and local 
entities to address these needs in multiple ways and will continue to 
consider these needs in future discretionary grant opportunities. Given 
these ongoing efforts, we do not believe it is necessary to add 
specific language to the priorities regarding the use of data.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters requested a separate priority or an added 
focus in the final priorities on the area of ``early learning'' or 
``early childhood.'' More specifically, some commenters recommended 
adding references to ``early learning'' throughout the priorities, 
including Priorities 4, 7, 9, and 10. Other commenters recommended that 
the definitions of ``educational choice'' and ``high-poverty school'' 
be amended to include ``early learning.''
    Some commenters asked that we expand references to ``teachers and 
principals'' to include individuals in the early childhood workforce 
who impact the outcomes of our youth, including administrators and 
service coordinators (among others).
    Additionally, commenters asked that ``early learning'' be an 
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority in all 
Department discretionary grant competitions.
    One commenter requested that we revise the priorities to emphasize 
the critical role that families play in child, policy, and systems 
development, and recommended specific revisions that would reference 
the early childhood population.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions. The final 
priorities place a renewed focus on the Department's core mission: 
Promoting student achievement and preparation for global 
competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal 
access. The priorities are intended to positively impact all students, 
from the early years through adulthood. The Department recognizes the 
importance of early learning and its positive outcomes and benefits, as 
well as its impact on future academic achievement of students.
    The final language in Priority 1 subpart (b)(xv) specifically 
focuses on early learning. Subpart (d) of Priority 9 includes projects 
that address, ``Increasing the number of children who enter 
kindergarten ready to succeed in school and in life by supporting 
families and communities to help more children obtain the knowledge and 
skills to be prepared developmentally.''
    We agree with the commenters who requested that we recognize, and 
include language to emphasize, early learning. While we do not think it 
is necessary to establish a separate priority for early childhood, we 
are making specific edits to include the term ``children or students'' 
in some of the priorities, as well as in the definition of 
``educational choice,'' to clarify that the priorities and this 
definition may be used in grant programs that serve the early childhood 
population.
    Furthermore, throughout the priorities, we generally use the term 
``educators,'' which we believe includes early childhood service 
providers and other school personnel. Similarly, we believe that the 
term ``education'' encompasses early learning and does not preclude the 
use of the priorities referencing education in discretionary programs 
that serve the early childhood population, as appropriate. Lastly, we 
decline to revise the definition of ``high-poverty school'' as we 
believe that it adequately captures the intended populations within 
priorities where such terms are used.
    Changes: We have modified Priorities 1(a), 1(b), 2(c), 4(b), 5(a), 
6(b), 6(j), 7(c), and 9(b), and the definition of ``educational 
choice'' by adding ``children or students'' in order to clarify that 
this priority may be used in competitions for discretionary grants that 
serve children within the 0-5 age range.
    Comment: Multiple commenters requested that the Department include 
in the priorities an emphasis on increasing socioeconomic diversity in 
schools. These commenters suggested that student diversity in schools 
supports improved academic and other outcomes and expressed concern 
that the perceived momentum for increasing diversity in schools will be 
lost in the absence of a stand-alone priority on diversity. One 
commenter highlighted research showing the benefits to students on 
outcomes, such as student satisfaction, motivation, and intellectual 
self-confidence when they attend schools with students from diverse 
backgrounds, including students with disabilities and English learners.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendation to promote 
socioeconomic diversity in classrooms, schools, and districts. While we 
do not believe a stand-alone priority on increasing diversity is 
necessary to achieve this goal, such projects would not be precluded 
under Priority 8(b), which, among other things, seeks to increase the 
diversity of the educator workforce. Furthermore, nothing in the 
priorities would preclude grant applicants from proposing projects 
that, in addition to addressing the particular grant program 
requirements, are also designed to increase socioeconomic diversity in 
classrooms, schools, and districts.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters encouraged the Department to consider 
the role that libraries play in advancing the goals of various 
priorities, including Priorities 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. These commenters 
explained that school libraries (to include libraries in elementary, 
secondary and higher education settings, such as universities and 
community colleges) and public libraries serve a valuable role in 
ensuring that students have access to a wide range of resources to 
which they may not otherwise have access, that these resources promote 
student literacy in many content areas, and the libraries themselves 
serve as a safe space for students and families to engage in literacy 
activities that span a wide age range. Commenters indicated that 
libraries and librarians play a vital role in promoting economic 
opportunity in both urban and rural communities, where literature and 
resources may not be readily available to children and families.
    While these commenters generally requested that libraries be 
recognized throughout the priorities for the value they bring to 
education, one commenter requested specifically that public libraries 
be included as eligible entities or allowable partners, as applicable, 
across the priorities.
    Discussion: We recognize the important role that libraries play in 
the lives of children and families. Libraries clearly support literacy 
in a variety of ways across the content areas reflected

[[Page 9099]]

in these final priorities. We note that libraries are explicitly 
included in Priority 6(j) and, furthermore, partnerships with libraries 
would not necessarily be precluded under other priorities as a way to 
address the requirements within relevant grant programs, though each 
program's authorizing statute would determine such eligibility. 
Accordingly, we do not think additional references to libraries in the 
priorities are necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed hope that the Department would 
support the development of a national test in social studies because 
the commenter believes that such a test could be used to advance 
Priorities 3, 4, and 8.
    Discussion: Developing a national test in social studies for use at 
the State and local level is beyond the scope of the Department's 
mission; this is a State and local responsibility. However, the 
Department does administer the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress (NAEP), which is a nationally representative and continuing 
assessment of what America's students know and can do in various 
subject areas. NAEP periodically assesses some subjects that are often 
taught in social studies, including civics, economics, geography, and 
U.S. history.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For more information, please see https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested adding language on the 
principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in multiple 
priorities. Specifically, commenters suggested adding language 
providing for the development of curricula and instruction based on the 
principles of UDL and the use of UDL in assessment. Several commenters 
supported UDL as a successful classroom strategy and recommended that 
we require projects to incorporate principles of UDL, in order to 
address the needs of individuals with disabilities.
    Discussion: The Department believes that learning environments, 
academic content, and assessments should be accessible and effective 
for all students and supports projects to achieve this goal. We believe 
that the language in Priority 5(b) could be inclusive of UDL as a 
strategy for meeting the needs of students with disabilities.
    We further believe that the priorities offer the flexibility for 
applicants to address UDL and similar strategies in their grant 
applications. While specific strategies such as UDL are not listed, the 
priorities include multiple references to the importance of effective 
strategies and evidence-based practices. There is nothing in any of the 
priorities that would prohibit the use of UDL, so long as projects 
address the requirements of the priorities. For these reasons, it is 
not necessary to revise the priorities to provide explicit references 
to the strategy.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department develop a 
priority focused on alignment between relevant discretionary grant 
programs and State or local plans under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that considering alignment 
between discretionary grant programs and statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the ESEA, where applicable, can help the Department 
and grantees to determine the best approach to support State and local 
programs. In fact, definitions from the ESEA are used throughout the 
priorities. However, program offices can consider how these priorities 
align with programs authorized by the ESEA in designing their notices 
inviting applications. Additionally, the Department would expect that 
all grant applications from LEAs and SEAs would be designed to support 
their State and local plans, and does not feel it is necessary to 
provide additional points in a competition to an application that does 
so. Therefore, we do not believe that a separate priority or subpart 
referencing alignment with the ESEA is necessary to achieve the goal of 
alignment, where appropriate.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed opposition to all priorities 
generally. One of these commenters objected to any competitive grant 
programs in favor of all Federal funds being allocated to States by 
formula and another suggested that competitions be guided solely by the 
language in the authorizing statute. Lastly, one commenter objected to 
the multiple references to rural schools in light of the challenges 
that urban school districts face. This commenter requested urban 
districts be acknowledged with emphasis similar to rural school 
districts.
    Discussion: The Department's discretionary grant programs are 
established by statute. Accordingly, the Department does not have 
discretion to allocate funds to formula grant programs to the exclusion 
of discretionary grant programs authorized by Congress. Discretionary 
grant programs encompass a broad array of topics and allow the 
Department to more specifically target areas of student and national 
need that arise from year to year and competition to competition. The 
Department takes this responsibility seriously and expects to use these 
priorities in alignment with the authorizing statutes.
    We appreciate views of the commenter who suggested we include a 
specific focus on urban local educational agencies (LEAs). As we 
discussed in the NPP, our focus on students who are served by rural 
LEAs is in acknowledgment of the fact that rural students and 
communities have unique needs that are not always adequately addressed. 
For these reasons, we decline to remove this focus or revise it to 
require a focus on students served by rural and urban LEAs and believe 
the priorities as a whole sufficiently encompass all students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department add Tribal 
leadership in Priorities 3-11 where States and localities are listed in 
order to emphasize Tribes, consultation with Tribal council members, 
and consideration of Native American students.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request and agree that 
all applicants should address the needs of the students proposed to be 
served, including Native American students, in designing their projects 
within the context of the specific requirements and focus of the 
program under which they are applying. With respect to the comment on 
tribal consultation, the Department's policy on that issue can be found 
here: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oie/tribalpolicyfinal.pdf.
    Changes: None.

Priority 1--Empowering Families and Individuals To Choose a High-
Quality Education That Meets Their Unique Needs

    Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for Priority 1 and 
the focus on educational choice. Additionally, in their support for the 
priority, multiple commenters encouraged the Secretary to add one or 
multiple areas of emphasis within the priority.
    Specifically, commenters emphasized: The role of States, LEAs, and 
parents in making decisions regarding choice; ensuring quality 
educational choices; and referencing specific groups of students, such 
as rural students, English learners, migratory children, low-skilled 
adults, and homeless students, or types of options, such as dual 
enrollment,

[[Page 9100]]

early college high schools, and Green Ribbon Schools.
    Discussion: We agree that this priority, and its focus on providing 
families and individuals with access to quality educational options, is 
important to best meet their unique needs. The priority and the 
accompanying definition of ``educational choice'' offer extensive 
flexibilities in how it can be used, the students that can be served, 
and the specific choice options available, which all seek to maximize 
the availability of high-quality learning opportunities. In addition, 
to promote high-quality learning opportunities, subpart (c) of the 
priority focuses on developing, increasing access to, and building 
evidence-based innovative strategies for promoting models of 
educational choice. Furthermore, with this priority we seek to provide 
families and individuals with the information and tools they need to 
make important decisions regarding which educational options are most 
appropriate for them.
    We agree with commenters that this priority can be used to focus on 
the needs of different groups of students, and the priority is designed 
to allow the Department to determine which group or groups should be 
the focus of educational choice for a given grant competition that uses 
this priority.
    The definition of ``educational choice'' provides significant 
flexibility, and was structured in this way in order to clarify our 
intent that families and individuals should be able to select the most 
appropriate educational option to meet their needs. Therefore, we do 
not require nor endorse any one option over others, including by 
distinguishing between public versus private options, or options in 
elementary, secondary, or postsecondary settings. Likewise, we do not 
believe that it is appropriate to identify specific Department programs 
in the priority as those could change over time and to ensure maximum 
flexibility for applicants in responding to this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters requested the inclusion of early 
learning as an option for educational choice.
    Discussion: We are committed to improving access to high-quality 
preschool through 12th grade and postsecondary educational options. We 
agree with the commenters, and are adding children in early learning 
settings as a group that may be a focus under the priority.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (b) of Priority 1 to include 
``children in early learning settings'' in the list of targeted groups.
    Comment: Multiple commenters requested the inclusion of adult 
learners for targeted educational choice, and proposed specific edits 
to the priority, including adding references to and definitions from 
the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that ensuring adults have 
access to a diversity of high-quality educational options is essential 
for both those individuals themselves and to the future educational 
success of their children. However, we do not believe that a specific 
reference to the definitions in WIOA is necessary for several reasons. 
First, adult learners are not explicitly excluded from the priority as 
written. Second, ``low-skilled adults'' are specifically referenced in 
subpart (b)(viii). We do not believe it is necessary to include adult 
learners explicitly in a separate subpart. That said, we agree it is 
important that these final priorities are widely applicable for 
discretionary programs that serve a broad spectrum of students, 
including adult learners, and are revising the title of this priority 
to clarify that adults are also included.
    Changes: We have revised the title of Priority 1 to clarify that 
adults may be included in programs using this priority.
    Comment: Multiple commenters requested that we include community 
colleges as a postsecondary option in Priority 1.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that community colleges 
play an important role in offering educational choice to students. 
However, we believe that community colleges, while not explicitly 
referenced, are included under the reference to postsecondary programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters referenced the importance of teachers in 
ensuring that students have access to high-quality educational choices.
    Discussion: We agree with commenters that teacher quality matters, 
and that great teachers contribute enormously to the learning and lives 
of children. As such, Priority 8 focuses on developing evidence about 
effective professional development programs that support teachers and 
leaders as they enter the profession, different leadership pathways for 
educators in and out of the classroom, increased diversity through 
strategic recruitment, innovative staffing models, and retention of top 
talent.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters proposed edits or additional language to 
the background section that accompanied Priority 1 in the NPP to 
emphasize different points, such as making educational choice options 
available to all families in accessible ways and languages, removing 
``where possible'' from the background in regard to the use of 
evidence-based models, and adding an explicit reference to public 
school choice.
    Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the 
background section included in the NPP, which explains our rationale 
for this priority. We do not include background sections for priorities 
in the NFP, nor are the background sections considered part of the 
final priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes in response 
to these comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters expressed opposition to Priority 1. 
This opposition included concerns regarding how educational choice 
might impact learning and the neighborhoods where students live, and 
concerns that parental choice could impact diversity. Commenters also 
opposed the use of public funds for education in private or religious 
schools, such as through the use of vouchers to offer educational 
choice in private schools. These commenters expressed a desire to 
defund (or not to fund) private schools or add significant additional 
regulations to govern any private schools participating in educational 
choice programs. Many commenters cited specific concerns regarding the 
impact of this priority on particular groups, such as rural students, 
students with disabilities, students who are living in poverty, 
students who are Indians, and military- or veteran-connected students.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding 
educational choice. We share commenters' support for public education 
and believe educational choice is compatible with support for public 
schools. We would also note, however, that positive educational 
outcomes for students must be prioritized over support for a particular 
public or private entity. We believe families are best equipped to make 
decisions as to where their children are most likely to achieve the 
best outcomes. We are committed to improving access to high-quality 
preschool through 12th grade and postsecondary educational options, 
offering meaningful choice to families, and providing families with the 
information and tools they need to make these important decisions. We 
believe that schools and educators aim to serve the public good by 
preparing students to

[[Page 9101]]

lead successful lives and that, therefore, we all benefit from 
maximizing the availability of high-quality learning opportunities for 
students.
    It is important to note that with this priority the Department 
seeks to maximize the availability of high-quality learning 
opportunities, and that private schools, as well as public schools, are 
available options listed in the definition of ``educational choice.'' 
While a number of commenters referenced vouchers, neither the priority 
nor the definition of ``educational choice'' explicitly mentions 
vouchers.
    We share commenters' support for transparency and accountability 
for results and believe all schools--public and private--should be held 
to high standards. It is important to note that the definition of 
``educational choice'' referenced in this priority requires that 
opportunities be consistent with applicable Federal, State, and local 
laws.
    Regarding the impact on particular groups of students, this 
priority also is designed to increase access to educational choice for 
a wide range of students, including traditionally disadvantaged groups 
the Department serves in accordance with its mission. It is important 
to note that this priority will be used to complement the applicable 
program statute and will not replace statutory requirements under the 
ESEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or other 
laws, and must be consistent with all applicable Federal and State 
laws. This priority only applies to discretionary grant programs and 
does not impact formula grant funds, which continue to be a significant 
focus for the Department. Thus, this priority cannot be used in formula 
grant programs, such as Title I, Part B of the IDEA, or Impact Aid.
    We appreciate commenters' concerns regarding the impact of the 
priority on rural students. The priority emphasizes offering access to 
educational choice for rural students; this group of students is listed 
under subpart (b) of the priority. We believe use of this priority will 
encourage applicants to propose projects that offer rural families an 
alternative educational opportunity that does not exist in many rural 
areas, and it will empower families and individuals to choose which 
school option is best equipped to meet their unique needs.
    Likewise, commenters raised concerns regarding the impact of the 
proposed priority on children with disabilities. This group of students 
is also specifically identified and listed under subpart (b) of the 
priority. As noted above, this priority only applies to discretionary 
grant programs and does not impact formula grant programs.
    We also appreciate the concerns of multiple commenters about the 
potential for this priority to increase segregation in schools. The 
priority can be used to reach all students or to specifically target a 
group or groups of students, including students living in poverty, 
students who are American Indian or Alaska Native, and military- or 
veteran-connected students. Moreover, while this priority can be used 
for a wide range of programs beyond vouchers, research suggests it is 
possible for a voucher program either to not change or to reduce racial 
segregation in public schools. A 2016 study \12\ examined how vouchers 
impacted racial segregation in public and private schools in the first 
year of operation of one State's voucher program (2011-12). The authors 
found that the net overall effect of the voucher program across the 
voucher students' former public schools and receiving private schools 
was reduced school-level racial segregation. In addition, a 2010 study 
\13\ found that one district's voucher program did not change the 
racial segregation of schools in the voucher students' former public 
schools or in receiving private schools. Thus, we do not believe an 
additional priority on diversity is needed to address concerns 
regarding segregation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Egalite, A.J., Mills, J.N., and Wolf, P.J. (2016). The 
Impact of the Louisiana Scholarship Program on Racial Segregation in 
Louisiana Schools. SCDP Louisiana Scholarship Program Evaluation 
Report #3. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, School Choice 
Demonstration Project.
    \13\ Green, J.P., Mills, J.N., and Buck, S. (2010). The 
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program's Effect on School Integration. 
SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report #20. Fayetteville, AR: University 
of Arkansas, School Choice Demonstration Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, as with all programs, grant applicants must carry out their 
grant in accordance with State, Tribal, and Federal laws and 
regulations. We expect the flexibility built into this priority will 
allow grantees to take advantage of their unique local practices while 
empowering State and local educators and families with the necessary 
information to make the right decisions for their children.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters sought clarification on how the 
proposed priority aligns with the ESEA. Specifically, a few commenters 
expressed concern that this priority contradicts the intent of 
competitive grant programs authorized under the ESEA by Congress to 
support students in public schools.
    Discussion: We disagree that this priority is not in alignment with 
the ESEA and the discretionary grant programs that Congress has 
established. The priority and the definition of ``educational choice'' 
are clear that the intent is to expand opportunity for students in 
compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, 
including the ESEA, and recognize that such choices may include 
programs offered by traditional public schools, public charter schools, 
and other education providers. We further note that many discretionary 
grant programs encompass broad topics and allow the Department to more 
specifically target areas of student and national need from year to 
year and competition to competition. The Department will use this 
priority in that context and in accordance with the statutory 
requirements for the grant program in which it chooses to use the 
priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with charter 
schools and their role under the priority. These commenters cited 
concerns that charter schools are able to select their student 
populations, resulting in greater segregation in these schools and that 
charter schools do not perform as well as their traditional public 
school counterparts.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding the 
role of charter schools under the priority, but we note that charter 
schools are public schools that are held accountable in accordance with 
applicable Federal and State law, as required under section 1111(c)(5) 
of the ESEA. Each State's charter school law identifies the specific 
entities within a State that are eligible to authorize charter schools. 
In addition, State charter school laws typically articulate 
accountability requirements for charter schools and authorizers.
    Charter schools provide enhanced parental choice and, while they 
have additional flexibility with regard to certain requirements in 
order to foster innovation and reduce burden on schools, they must 
still follow relevant State and Federal statutes and regulations. For 
example, charter schools must adhere to Federal civil rights laws that 
prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, 
disability, sex, and age; and ensure equal access for all students, 
including students with disabilities and English learners. Charter 
schools may, in some cases, consider additional recruitment efforts 
targeted toward groups that might otherwise have limited opportunities 
to participate in charter school programs. The decision of whether to 
approve, renew, or terminate a charter school contract is

[[Page 9102]]

made at the State and local levels, exclusively. The Department does 
not intervene in State and local decisions regarding the opening or 
closing of charter schools.
    For a summary of charter school performance, see earlier 
discussion.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about using this priority, 
as well as the other priorities, in any of the Department's Charter 
Schools Program competitions, arguing that the Charter Schools Program 
already focuses on choice, and the flexibilities offered to charter 
schools could be diminished by requiring certain priorities, such as 
STEM, be met.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern regarding the use 
of the priorities in Charter Schools Program competitions, and want to 
clarify the purpose of the priorities. These priorities serve as 
options for the Department to use when inviting applications for a 
discretionary grant program. For each grant program the Department may 
choose which, if any, of the priorities (or subparts) and definitions 
are appropriate for the competition with regard to feasibility and 
scope. The Department has the discretion to choose which priorities 
should be used in each competition, and how the priority would apply; 
for example, a priority may be used as an absolute priority (applicants 
must address the priority in order to be eligible to receive grant 
funds) or a competitive preference priority (applicants may receive 
additional points depending on how well they address the priority). 
Although we are issuing 11 priorities, we will use only those 
priorities that are relevant to, and appropriate for, the particular 
program. Furthermore, the Department is not required to use any of 
these priorities for any particular program.
    With respect to Charter Schools Program discretionary grant 
competitions, like all competitions, the priorities we use would work 
within the framework of the authorizing statutes and purposes of the 
program. The major purposes of the Charter Schools Program are to 
expand opportunities for all students, particularly traditionally 
underserved students, to attend charter schools and meet challenging 
State academic standards; provide financial assistance for the 
planning, program design, and initial implementation of public charter 
schools; increase the number of high-quality charter schools available 
to students; evaluate the impact of charter schools on student 
achievement, families, and communities; share best practices between 
charter schools and other public schools; encourage States to provide 
facilities support to charter schools; and support efforts to 
strengthen the charter school authorizing process.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that the use of this 
priority could negatively impact locations with existing educational 
choice options or locations in which the educational choice options 
identified in the priority and definition of ``educational choice'' may 
not be available.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns and want to 
highlight that this priority is not intended to penalize existing 
educational choice efforts; rather, it is meant to spur further 
efforts, maximizing the availability of learning opportunities. As 
such, we will carefully consider when and how to include this priority 
in a discretionary grant competition.
    Changes: None.

Priority 2--Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education 
With an Increased Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and Providing 
Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers

    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the priority, and 
noted examples of particular approaches that they described as 
innovative or cost-effective. Other commenters noted opportunities for 
increased efficiencies in program implementation at the Federal level.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the priority 
and note that the particular approaches cited in many comments are 
allowable under a number of the Department's programs. In addition, we 
appreciate the possible increased Federal efficiencies discussed by 
some commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: While many commenters supported the priority, some 
commenters expressed concern about the priority and stated the 
importance of the Federal role in education, particularly to safeguard 
the rights of students. Some commenters stated their belief that the 
intent of this priority is to shrink the Federal investment in 
education. Another commenter suggested that because the recently 
reauthorized ESEA already reduces burden, this priority may be 
unnecessary.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters who expressed support for 
the Department's work to ensure that students have an opportunity to 
pursue a high-quality education while their rights are protected. One 
objective of this priority is to sharpen the focus on the effectiveness 
of efforts dedicated to those goals while reducing and eliminating 
extraneous elements that do not benefit students. We agree with 
commenters who stated that the ESEA currently requires less direction 
from the Federal level than the previous authorization of the ESEA and 
that this may result in burden reduction. However, we believe that 
additional opportunities--including in areas not governed by ESEA--for 
streamlining can be explored. This priority does not reflect a desire 
to reduce Federal investment in education (and only Congress can set 
funding levels), but rather to most effectively leverage education 
funding from all sources to improve outcomes for students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that we define the term 
``outcomes.'' A few commenters recommended that grantees be required to 
include multiple measures of success, and one commenter stated that a 
focus on outcomes and efficiency favors easily measurable outcomes over 
those that are more challenging to measure. One commenter suggested 
that outcomes should be assessed in developmentally appropriate ways.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' focus on outcomes and 
their specific recommendations. These priorities are designed to have 
broad applicability and decisions about which outcomes to target must 
be informed by program-specific requirements and the availability of 
relevant evidence. Furthermore, 34 CFR 77.1 defines what ``relevant 
outcome'' means in the context of levels of evidence that may be 
required in a particular notice inviting applications. As a result, we 
do not think it is necessary to make the language in this priority more 
specific. We also acknowledge that not all important outcomes may be 
easily measured, but that holding grantees accountable for measurable 
outcomes where possible is often valuable.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters supported the concept of value for 
taxpayers, and one commenter supported the priority and suggested that 
we explicitly refer to cost-effectiveness. A number of commenters 
recommended that entities considering burden reduction or cost savings 
should also examine whether outcomes would be improved, and one 
commenter expressed doubt that it was possible to streamline education 
while improving outcomes. Another commenter stated

[[Page 9103]]

that grantees should be focused on increasing the quality of public 
education and not on increased value to taxpayers.
    Discussion: We believe that examining the efficiency and 
effectiveness of investments in education is critical. If decision-
makers know which investments accomplish greater outcomes for the 
amount of funding invested relative to other similar investments--that 
is, which investments are more cost-effective--funds can be more 
effectively leveraged to meet program goals. We disagree that 
streamlining education and improving outcomes are goals that are at 
odds; rather, we believe that they work in concert. No one can 
reasonably say that every single dollar in education is currently being 
put to the very best use. While such an outcome may never be realized, 
reducing waste and inefficiency can mean there are more funds available 
to serve students. We agree that thinking ahead to where resources 
could be redeployed when efficiencies are found is a good course of 
action, but certainly recognize it is not always possible. Further, we 
believe that it is imperative to demonstrate to taxpayers that 
investments in education are providing real benefits for the public and 
are managed in a manner that is efficient and effective.
    Changes: We have revised the priority so that the term 
``effectiveness'' is now ``cost-effectiveness.''
    Comment: Numerous commenters suggested a stronger emphasis on 
evidence in this priority, recommending that we only support evidence-
based approaches. Some commenters asked that we use the definition of 
``evidence-based'' that is used in the ESEA.
    Discussion: The Department is committed to the development and use 
of evidence. We note that the evidence framework and definitions in 
EDGAR align with the definitions in the ESEA. These evidence 
definitions can be combined with these supplemental priorities and so 
there is no need to repeat them, except in cases where we believe the 
use of evidence is essential within a supplemental priority. We would 
like evidence of effectiveness to inform decision-making when it is 
available; however, we also wish to maintain flexibility in cases where 
evidence of effectiveness can be built from the lower levels of 
evidence articulated in the EDGAR definition (i.e., ``promising 
evidence'' or ``demonstrates a rationale'').
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Numerous commenters expressed support for a focus on 
innovation. Some commenters noted that innovation does not necessarily 
lead to improved outcomes, and others stated that innovation must not 
be at the expense of what is evidence-based. One commenter recommended 
that we define ``innovation.''
    Discussion: The term ``innovation'' may mean different things in 
different contexts and grant programs and so we do not believe that a 
definition of innovation is needed. While innovation can lead to new 
lessons for the field, we agree that every new approach tried will not 
necessarily be successful. For this reason, it is important that 
innovative approaches that demonstrate the lower levels of evidence 
articulated in the EDGAR definition (i.e., ``promising evidence'' or 
``demonstrates a rationale'') be properly evaluated, in order to build 
evidence of effectiveness.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we include research in 
subpart (b).
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter who proposed that we 
specify that research also has the potential to lead to breakthroughs 
in the delivery of educational services.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (b) to support ``research'' in 
addition to ``innovative strategies.'' We also added the phrase ``or 
other significant and tangible educational benefits to students, 
educators, or other Department stakeholders'' to the end of the subpart 
to clarify our intent that this subpart be flexible enough to be used 
in programs that do more than fund ``services.''
    Comment: Numerous commenters expressed strong support for reducing 
compliance burden in education, both generally and as it relates to 
discretionary grant programs. For example, one commenter discussed the 
administrative tasks that teachers manage and cited a recent Government 
Accountability Office study on burden reduction efforts.\14\ Numerous 
other commenters noted the importance of ensuring safeguards for 
vulnerable populations, including students with disabilities, when 
regulatory burdens are reduced. These commenters noted that protecting 
students' civil rights is essential, and that many regulatory 
requirements are in place because of the work of parents and advocates 
with a goal of ensuring equality of opportunity for all students. One 
commenter said that the goal of reducing compliance burden may be 
appropriate at the Federal level but not for grantees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ State and Local-Imposed Requirements Complicate Federal 
Efforts to Reduce Administrative Burden. www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-25. 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: We agree that protecting students' educational 
opportunities and civil rights is essential, and believe that reducing 
unnecessary compliance burdens will increase the time available to 
focus on providing a high-quality education to students. For example, 
time that teachers are spending doing paperwork is time that they are 
not able to use to educate students or plan future lessons, and money 
spent hiring compliance officers takes funds away from core educational 
programs. We note that some compliance-related activity is important to 
ensure that schools, districts, and States are meeting legal 
requirements, including ensuring that all students have available to 
them a free appropriate public education. It is also important to note 
that not all compliance activities have clear, meaningful purposes. As 
such, we believe that the benefit of imposed burdens should be 
carefully examined. This priority is intended to prevent the creation 
of unnecessary burden at both the State and local levels while 
implementing Federal programs, and to engage participants in grant 
programs in helping to reduce burden where it is not aligned with an 
important right or benefit for students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that diverse stakeholder groups 
should have the opportunity to contribute to State and local 
determinations of whether a burden is unnecessary.
    Discussion: We agree that stakeholder input is important in making 
determinations about burden; stakeholder input has been, and will 
continue to be, an essential consideration at the Federal level, and we 
encourage the same at the State and local levels.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters proposed naming Pay for Success as a 
strategy that would advance the goals of the priority.
    Discussion: We agree that Pay for Success could be an approach that 
is used under this priority if it is otherwise allowable and 
appropriate for the particular program to which the priority is 
applied. We do not think it is necessary or appropriate to add a 
specific reference to Pay for Success.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Under subpart (e), one commenter requested that we clarify 
what is meant by ``development capabilities.'' Another commenter 
supported leveraging private funds but cautioned that private funds 
should not

[[Page 9104]]

replace public funds in implementing social programs due to concerns 
about sustainability.
    Discussion: We seek to encourage grantees under the Department's 
programs to leverage the diverse sources of support that may exist for 
their activities, beyond what is provided by the Department. Activities 
that could be carried out under subpart (e) could include projects for 
new audiences and launching joint initiatives with like-minded 
entities. This priority could improve the sustainability of activities 
launched with or supported by Federal funds, by leveraging private 
funds to further support or expand such activities.
    Changes: To clarify that strengthening development capabilities in 
order to increase private support for institutions may occur in a 
manner other than obtaining matching support for proposed projects, we 
have divided subpart (e) into two subparts, now subparts (e) and (f).
    Comment: Numerous commenters recommended that the Department 
include a priority for partnerships with organizations that have the 
ability to serve more students than States or LEAs can serve alone.
    Discussion: We appreciate these comments and agree that 
partnerships with community-based organizations can increase the 
benefits achieved by the Department's programs. Further, we agree that 
such partnerships would address the purpose of this priority.
    Changes: We have added a new subpart (g) that would allow for 
partnerships with different entities to help meet the goals of the 
project.
    Comment: One commenter proposed that Indian Tribes be included in 
the priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation. Though 
Indian Tribes were not explicitly mentioned in the background for the 
priority in the NPP, we note that the priority can be used by programs 
that serve Native American youth.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: The Department wishes to clarify that Priority 2(f) may 
include a specific percentage amount above a program's existing level 
of required private support or existing match requirements. If a 
program does not have either requirement, the priority could require a 
specific percent match of non-Federal funds relative to the total 
amount of Federal resources provided through the grant.
    Changes: We have revised Priority 2(f) by adding subparts (i), 
(ii), and (iii), which designate specific percentages of the total 
amount of the grant provided by Federal sources required from non-
Federal sources. Programs may select a specific subpart in order to 
incentivize or require a specific level of demonstrated matching 
support.

Priority 3--Fostering Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining 
Knowledge and Skills

    Comment: Several commenters expressed general support for Priority 
3. One commenter reported that many public high school students in the 
commenter's State participate in programs that integrate rigorous 
academic courses with sequenced, high-quality career and technical 
education (CTE), work-based learning, and other support services. 
Another commenter expressed strong support for the priority's emphasis 
on ensuring that students graduate with the knowledge and skills 
necessary to succeed in their postsecondary endeavors. Another 
commenter asserted that this priority will increase the opportunities 
for students to obtain careers that can support families, and thought 
that the priority will help students reach their career goals in 
innovative, nontraditional ways.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support. We agree that 
rigorous academic courses with sequenced, high-quality CTE and work-
based learning are an important part of a strong career pathways 
system. We also recognize the importance of preparing students with the 
skills necessary to succeed in postsecondary education and to develop 
innovative pathways for students to reach their career goals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters recommended adding ``for Rewarding 
Careers'' at the end of the title of Priority 3.
    Discussion: We decline to accept the suggestion because we think 
the title conveys adequately the content of the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we focus on the 
multidimensional needs of students and the teaching profession.
    Discussion: We appreciate the suggestion and note that nothing in 
Priority 3 precludes schools and their administrators from addressing 
the multidimensional needs of students and teachers. However, we do not 
think it is appropriate to create such a narrow focus on those needs in 
this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: In regard to subpart (a), one commenter expressed concern 
about the promotion of collaboration between education providers and 
employers. The commenter contended that employers had been given the 
opportunity to inform the development of State elementary and secondary 
education standards in recent years and that making further changes to 
these standards would harm students.
    Discussion: The priority does not mention State elementary and 
secondary education standards, and in no way requires or encourages 
grantees to revise these State standards as a result of collaboration 
between education providers and employers. However, we are clarifying 
that the priority focuses on ensuring that student learning objectives 
for particular courses or programs are aligned with necessary skills or 
knowledge.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (a) to state that student learning 
objectives be aligned with in-demand skills.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we include in subpart (a) 
consultation with individual educators, and not only education 
providers, in the collaboration with employers.
    Discussion: We agree that individual educators may benefit from 
greater interaction with employers. However, we decline to mandate 
their inclusion in an education provider's collaboration with 
employers, in order to preserve an applicant's flexibility to determine 
how it can best address subpart (a).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter urged us to modify Priority 3 to encourage 
partnerships between elementary and secondary education providers, 
institutions of higher education, and business and industry that 
provide high-quality, work-based learning opportunities.
    Discussion: Subpart (c) of Priority 3 focuses on work-based 
learning experiences leading to the attainment of skills demanded by 
employers. We think that projects that include the kind of partnerships 
recommended by the commenter would be responsive to subpart (c) and 
well-positioned to provide students with high-quality, work-based 
learning opportunities. However, we decline to require all projects to 
include such partnerships to preserve an applicant's flexibility to 
determine how it can best address subpart (c).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the priority to 
promote arts education because the commenter believes that 
participation in arts education helps students develop creativity. 
Another

[[Page 9105]]

commenter suggested revising the priority to include pilot programs 
that make the senior year of high school a service year. A third 
commenter recommended that we include environmental education in 
Priority 3.
    Discussion: We appreciate that an array of subjects and 
instructional approaches, such as those recommended by the commenters, 
can be part of a well-rounded education and can help students develop 
critical knowledge and skills. While nothing in this priority 
necessarily precludes the consideration of these subjects and 
approaches, we believe that the specific skill needs in States or 
regional economies should guide the selection of subjects and 
approaches, as appropriate and as aligned with the requirements of a 
particular discretionary grant program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we specify that creating or 
expanding opportunities for individuals to obtain recognized 
postsecondary credentials in STEM must be achieved by making 
improvements in STEM instruction and programs at the high school level.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that making improvements in 
high school instructional practices and programs is one way to create 
or expand opportunities for individuals to acquire postsecondary STEM 
credentials, but we disagree that the priority should be focused 
exclusively on high schools. We intend to use the priority in a wide 
variety of Department grant programs, including programs that provide 
support for postsecondary education. Postsecondary instruction and 
programs have a direct impact on the ability of individuals to earn 
postsecondary STEM credentials.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that we include in subpart (e) 
of the priority standards-based grading as an example of another 
approach that, like competency-based learning, enables students to earn 
recognized postsecondary credentials by demonstrating prior knowledge 
and skills. One of these commenters also recommended including 
interactive engagement because the commenter believes this set of 
practices can help students develop the communication, collaboration, 
and creative and critical thinking skills that are in demand by 
employers.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' interest in standards-
based grading, a term that is often used to describe a set of practices 
that includes assessing and reporting student achievement in relation 
to standards, giving a student multiple opportunities to demonstrate 
mastery of a standard, and permitting a student to advance in a course 
only upon his or her mastery of a standard.\15\ We decline to add 
standards-based grading as an example in subpart (e) because this term 
is most commonly used in elementary and secondary education settings, 
rather than postsecondary education, which is the focus of subpart (e). 
Additionally, as it is typically implemented, standards-based grading 
does not eliminate ``seat time'' requirements (i.e., requirements that 
students complete a minimum amount of instructional time to earn 
credit), which is one of the most important features of competency-
based learning.\16\ We also appreciate the interest in interactive 
engagement, a term that describes a set of instructional practices 
sometimes used in physics and other science courses,\17\ but we decline 
to include it in subpart (e) because we do not prescribe specific 
instructional practices in these priorities. Applicants are best suited 
to propose appropriate instructional practices for the populations they 
serve and in the disciplines and settings in which they provide 
instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Heflebower, T., Hoegh, J.K., and Warrick, P. (2014). A 
School Leader's Guide to Standards-Based Grading. Bloomington, IN: 
Marzano Research.
    \16\ Townsley, M. (2014). What is the Difference between 
Standards-Based Grading (or Reporting) and Competency-Based 
Education? CompetencyWorks. Available at: www.competencyworks.org/analysis/what-is-the-difference-between-standards-based-grading/.
    \17\ Hake, R. ``Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional 
Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for 
Introductory Physics Courses.'' American Journal of Physics 66, 64 
(1998). Available at: https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.18809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters contended that local National Writing 
Project sites help teachers improve student learning in CTE, as well as 
other content areas, and asked that our grants support these projects.
    Discussion: We agree that proficiency in writing is an important 
skill that students need to be successful in the workplace, but it is 
not appropriate to endorse or pre-select any specific project; instead, 
it is appropriate to rely on the established, objective grant-selection 
process.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended that we include adult 
education in the priority. Another commenter expressed the view that 
Adult Basic Education (ABE) and adult secondary education programs are 
critical to the success of career pathways programs, and that many of 
these programs have developed effective models for collaboration with 
employers. Other commenters shared examples of adult education programs 
that they believed addressed Priority 3.
    Discussion: We agree that some subparts of the priority, such as 
subpart (d) and its focus on career pathways, are relevant to adult 
education. However, we decline to revise the priority to explicitly 
include adult education in order to maintain maximum flexibility. We 
appreciate learning from the other commenters about adult education 
programs that address Priority 3.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the priority, but, 
with respect to subpart (e), indicated that academic institutions 
should have the authority to determine if an individual demonstrates 
sufficient prior knowledge and skills to merit credit.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support. We note that 
these priorities will be used in discretionary grant competitions and 
do not impose any requirements on educational institutions that choose 
not to submit an application. Moreover, we expect that educational 
institutions that do choose to apply will play a central role in 
determining how and the extent to which credit is granted for a 
demonstration of prior knowledge and skills.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended modifying Priority 3 to identify 
after-school and summer learning as options for providers of self-
guided and work-based learning.
    Discussion: We agree that self-guided and work-based learning can 
occur after school or during the summer months. Projects that address 
Priority 3 may include after-school and summer learning opportunities 
to the extent that this is permissible under the program's underlying 
statute and any regulations that may have been promulgated.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that work-based learning 
programs promoted by Priority 3 should include programs that prepare 
individuals to enter the early childhood workforce.
    Discussion: We agree that such projects may be responsive to 
subpart (c) of Priority 3 if the skills leading to employment as an 
early childhood educator are in demand in the State or regional economy 
involved.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that, in subpart (c), we include 
workplace education programs for low-skilled incumbent workers in

[[Page 9106]]

the list of examples of work-based learning. Another commenter 
recommended that we add ``national service'' or ``service years'' to 
the list of work-based learning experiences.
    Discussion: Subpart (c) focuses on work-based learning experiences 
that help individuals obtain in-demand employability and technical 
skills. It identifies three examples: Internships, apprenticeships, and 
fellowships. While we agree that workplace education programs are 
valuable, we feel they are not the right fit here, because they provide 
instruction in basic skills rather than employability or technical 
skills. Similarly, while we agree that national or community service 
can offer many benefits for students and the community, their primary 
purpose is not to equip participants with in-demand employability and 
technical skills.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the priority and 
requested that the Department allow teachers in nonpublic schools to 
participate in grant programs that use the priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support. The statutes 
that authorize the Department's grant programs for which the priority 
may be used determine whether and the extent to which nonpublic schools 
may participate. We cannot change these statutes through the 
Supplemental Priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the priority to 
promote only apprenticeships that are not registered with the U.S. 
Department of Labor (DOL), while another commenter recommended that we 
include only apprenticeships registered with DOL. The latter commenter 
contended that registration with DOL would ensure that the 
apprenticeship is high-quality.
    Discussion: Apprenticeship is a type of postsecondary education and 
training that combines paid on-the-job training (OJT) with related 
technical instruction. The registration to which the commenters refer 
is a voluntary system that originated with the National Apprenticeship 
Act of 1937.
    We do not think amending the priority to limit its scope to 
registered apprenticeships is merited. We also do not agree that 
excluding registered apprenticeships from the priority is merited. 
While the differences between registered and unregistered 
apprenticeships provide drawbacks and benefits to each, we believe the 
greatest benefits can be achieved by allowing flexibility for both.
    We note that the quality and other merits of proposed projects that 
address this priority will be assessed by peer reviewers using general 
selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 and criteria developed under 34 CFR 
75.209. For example, 34 CFR 75.210(c) (Quality of the Project Design) 
includes factors that ask applicants to describe the extent to which 
the proposed project is supported by evidence and the extent to which 
the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the 
priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter indicated that community colleges would need 
``an improved infrastructure'' to deliver competency-based learning, 
which is an example in subpart (e). Two other commenters indicated that 
competency-based learning is challenging and costly for institutions to 
implement.
    Discussion: We agree that implementing competency-based learning 
and other strategies that offer individuals the opportunity to 
demonstrate their prior attainment of knowledge and skills can be a 
challenge for all kinds of educational institutions, including 
community colleges. By highlighting these strategies in the priority, 
we hope to support projects that will yield useful information and 
insights that can be used to facilitate their effective implementation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that veterans who 
participate in competency-based education programs may only need to 
enroll part-time, and for shorter periods of time, which could affect 
their ability to access their education benefits under the GI Bill. One 
of these commenters was also concerned about the implications of 
competency-based education for an individual's eligibility for other 
Federal student financial assistance.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns and agree that 
the impact on students' eligibility for veterans' education benefits 
and Federal student aid available under Title IV of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 as amended (HEA) is an important consideration 
for institutions of higher education as they design and implement 
competency-based education programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended adding providers of CTE as an 
additional example of the types of education providers identified in 
subparts (b) and (d).
    Discussion: We appreciate the suggestion, but the lists of 
providers in subparts (b) and (d) are not intended to be exhaustive and 
encourage a diverse group of applicants to participate in programs 
utilizing this priority to the extent allowed by authorizing statutes.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter supported the priority but was concerned 
that it was difficult to locate affordable industry-recognized 
certifications that were appropriate for high school students. The 
commenter requested that the Department address this need.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support. Developing new 
industry-recognized certification exams that are appropriate for high 
school students is outside the scope of the Department's mission; this 
is a private sector responsibility. However, we do note that, under 
some limited circumstances, funding available to LEAs under the Carl D. 
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins Act) may be 
used to pay fees associated with a technical skill assessment that is 
aligned with industry-recognized standards and that is related to a 
student's CTE coursework.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For more information, please see Questions and Answers 
Regarding the Implementation of the Carl D. Perkins Career and 
Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/PCRN/docs/Compiled_List_of_QAs-8-8-16.docx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters were supportive of the priority and shared 
programs they felt would align with it. One commenter shared 
information about the availability of a mobile technology center that 
seeks to address the needs of students for access to up-to-date 
equipment, skilled instructors, and laboratory space. Another commenter 
indicated that the project it implements with funds from the 
Department's Native American Career and Technical Education Program 
(NACTEP) addresses Priority 3.
    Discussion: We appreciate learning about these programs. However, 
the notice inviting public comment did not solicit applications for 
funding and these commenters are encouraged to work through the normal 
grant-making process.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the priority and urged 
that students with disabilities be held to high standards and graduate 
ready for college or career, through earlier transition planning and an 
exploration of all potential pathways to ensure independence.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important to set high expectations 
for all students, including students with disabilities. Priority 3 
includes all

[[Page 9107]]

students and, therefore, its focus is not limited to any specific 
subset of students. Because the priority neither limits expectations 
for a subset of students nor restricts access to particular students, 
we do not think revising the priority is necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we clarify that CTE 
programs are available and appropriate for all students, including 
students with disabilities.
    Discussion: We agree that CTE programs should be accessible to, and 
are appropriate for, all students who wish to enroll in them, including 
students with disabilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we take into account the 
need to provide different and more supports for individuals with fewer 
skills in the design of pathway programs.
    Discussion: We agree that the designs of the pathway programs 
promoted by Priority 3 should generally consider and address the needs 
of low-skilled individuals. We think that this concern is best 
addressed through the use of the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 
75.210 that will be used by peer reviewers to evaluate each 
application. We note, for example, that 34 CFR 75.210(d) (Quality of 
Project Services) includes a factor that evaluates the extent to which 
the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to 
the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those 
services.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that we add a new subpart 
to give priority to projects that examine and address barriers to 
obtaining industry-recognized and other workforce credentials for 
individuals with disabilities.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that students with disabilities 
may face additional barriers to obtaining credentials, and we currently 
support discretionary grant programs focused on the needs of this 
population. Priority 3 includes all students and, therefore, its focus 
is not limited to any specific subset of students. Because the priority 
neither limits expectations for a subset of students nor restricts 
access to particular students, we do not think revising the priority is 
necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that we delete from the 
priority references to ``in-demand industry sectors or occupations,'' a 
term we defined using the definition from WIOA. A few commenters 
maintained that this definition is appropriate only for short-term 
workforce development programs and argued that schools should have the 
flexibility to provide career preparation for a broad range of 
occupations. Another commenter contended that, in some places, State 
and local workforce development boards had only identified a few 
priority industry sectors and occupations. One commenter suggested that 
we give priority not only to programs that prepare individuals for 
careers in ``in-demand industry sectors or occupations,'' but also to 
programs that prepare individuals for careers in what the commenter 
labeled as ``high-value industry sectors and occupations,'' such as 
teaching.
    Discussion: We think the principal reason that individuals enroll 
in CTE programs is to secure knowledge and skills that are in demand in 
the labor market. We agree that these specific skill needs can vary by 
State and local context, can include jobs that are ``high value,'' and 
that such needs could include the skills needed for effective teaching. 
However, we feel that the definition of an ``in-demand industry sector 
or occupation'' in WIOA provides a clear criterion that allows for 
State-level flexibility, while also maintaining consistency in how to 
establish the applicable sectors and occupations considered in grants 
that incorporate this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended combining subparts (b) and (d) 
of the priority because they believe the two are similar.
    Discussion: While subparts (b) and (d) are similar in that both 
include a focus on pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials, 
subpart (d) differs from (b) in that it also includes pathways that 
lead to the obtainment of job-ready skills.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended striking the general 
references to ``pathways'' and ``paths'' in subparts (b) and (d) and 
replacing them with specific references to ``programs of study'' as 
defined by the Perkins Act.
    Discussion: While we agree that Perkins Act ``programs of study'' 
are one pathway to a recognized postsecondary credential, we do not 
believe other pathways, such as apprenticeships or ``career pathways'' 
as defined by section 3(7) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 
Act, should be excluded from the two subparts. We also note that the 
priority is intended to be used by a wide variety of the Department's 
discretionary grant programs, and not only those authorized by the 
Perkins Act.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the priority, but 
recommended revising subpart (d) to include the definition of 
``eligible career pathway program'' from section 484(d)(2) of the HEA. 
The commenter contended that this change was necessary to permit 
applicants to propose career pathway programs that include both 
secondary and postsecondary credentials.
    Discussion: Subpart (d) identifies career pathway programs as an 
example of an innovative path to a recognized postsecondary credential 
or job-ready skills and defines the term by cross-referencing the 
definition found in WIOA. We note that the WIOA definition used in 
subpart (d) does include postsecondary credentials. This definition 
specifies that a career pathway ``enables an individual to attain a 
secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, and at least one 
recognized postsecondary credential.'' The text of the HEA definition 
recommended by the commenter is identical to the WIOA definition. We 
decline to make the recommended change because it is unnecessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the priority but 
recommended that we include a number of strategies, including flexible 
scheduling; labor market alignment; wraparound support services; 
stackable credentials; acceleration strategies, like dual enrollment; 
and opportunities for work-based learning. Another commenter suggested 
including an additional subpart focused on strategies that facilitate 
credit transfer, while a third commenter recommended that we add a 
subpart that would support programs that provide integrated student 
supports that include academic and non-academic college and career 
guidance and accelerated and targeted instruction for historically 
underserved students who require additional support.
    Discussion: Two of the strategies recommended, labor market 
alignment and work-based learning, are included in subparts (a) and 
(c), respectively. We agree that the remaining strategies identified by 
the commenters may be helpful to projects as they seek to provide 
individuals with flexible pathways to recognized postsecondary 
credentials, skills in demand, and careers, but we think that 
applicants are best suited to identify and propose the strategies that 
are appropriate for their

[[Page 9108]]

target populations and project designs and, therefore, decline to add 
subparts or amend this priority as suggested.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we add a new subpart 
focused on financial literacy and statistics.
    Discussion: We agree that financial literacy and statistics are 
important topics that applicants may wish to address in their projects. 
While we decline to add a new subpart covering these topics in this 
priority, we do cover financial literacy in Priority 4.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter cautioned against creating new pathways to 
postsecondary credentials or the workforce that do not meet the same 
rigorous standards that are required for a high school diploma. Another 
commenter expressed the same concern and recommended including language 
in subparts (b) and (d) to ensure that the pathways that are their 
focus would meet the same standards required for a high school diploma. 
Two other commenters sought the addition of assurances that projects 
that address Priority 3 will not result in a ``watered-down 
curriculum'' or tracking by race, ethnicity, gender, and income. A 
fourth commenter urged us to require in subpart (e) that competency-
based learning programs be ``defined and high-quality.''
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns about the rigor 
of alternative pathways that may be proposed by applicants in response 
to this priority, but we note that the quality and other merits of 
proposed projects that address this priority will be assessed by peer 
reviewers using general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 and 
criteria developed under 34 CFR 75.209. Several of these selection 
criteria address the commenters' concerns. For example, 34 CFR 
75.210(c) (Quality of the Project Design) includes a factor that asks 
applicants to describe the extent to which the proposed project is part 
of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support 
rigorous academic standards for students. We expect high standards to 
be maintained for all students, including various subgroups.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter indicated that a high school diploma should 
signify readiness for both college and careers and that the standards 
and requirements necessary for attainment should be the same for 
students who intend to work after graduation as for students who intend 
to enroll in college.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's sentiment and note that 
nothing in Priority 3 requires or encourages States or school districts 
to set lower expectations for students whose immediate post-graduation 
plans do not include enrolling in postsecondary education. This remains 
a State and local decision.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters supported the participation of homeless 
youth in competency-based learning, but cautioned against segregating 
homeless youth in these programs.
    Discussion: Consistent with the requirements of Title VII-B of the 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended by the ESSA, 
homeless children and youth must have equal access to the same free, 
appropriate public education as provided to other children and youth 
and that homeless children and youth must not be segregated on the 
basis of their status as homeless.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the priority to 
encourage States to continue to invest in State longitudinal data 
systems (SLDS) so that they are able to connect data across systems. 
This would help States to understand better the employment outcomes of 
students, disaggregate achievement data for students who are homeless, 
in the foster care system, or military connected, and create formal 
data governance structures and processes.
    Discussion: We agree that appropriate transparency is worthwhile, 
but we do not agree that these topics are consistent with the general 
purposes of the priority, which is to support flexible and affordable 
pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials, job skills in demand, 
and success in the labor market. While it is possible, under some 
circumstances, that a project that is responsive to the priority may 
utilize SLDS data on employment outcomes and use grant funds for this 
purpose, a project that is focused entirely on improving or expanding 
SLDS would not meet the priority. However, Congress has appropriated 
funds for this purpose in the past and may do so again in the future.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter supported Priority 3 but recommended that we 
require that postsecondary degree and certificate programs be aligned 
with current labor market needs and that the institutions that offer 
them provide students with the support and resources they need to 
succeed, including instructional support from faculty.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendations but 
believe that these concerns can be addressed through the use of the 
selection criteria that peer reviewers will use to evaluate 
applications. Generally, priorities are used in discretionary grant 
competitions to guide applicants to propose projects that address 
certain topics or needs, such as opportunities for individuals to 
obtain recognized postsecondary credentials in STEM. They instruct 
applicants what to propose, while the Department uses selection 
criteria to evaluate how well applicants would implement their proposed 
projects in the context of the priority, in addition to the underlying 
statute and any applicable rules and regulations. Several of the 
selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 address the commenters' concerns. 
For example, 34 CFR 75.210(c) (Quality of the Project Design) includes 
factors that ask applicants to describe the extent to which the 
proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching 
and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students and 
the extent to which the project's design is appropriate to, and will 
successfully address, the needs of the target population or other 
identified needs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that we specify in subpart 
(f) that it includes computer science and indicate that computer 
science should be a particular focus of projects that address subpart 
(f).
    Discussion: We agree that computer science should be included in 
the list of postsecondary credentials under subpart (f).
    Changes: We have revised subpart (f) to include computer science.
    Comment: Some commenters asked that we include in Priority 3 
pathways that lead to job-readiness certificates or industry 
credentials.
    Discussion: We did not make this change because it is unnecessary. 
Subpart (d) includes pathways that lead to ``job-ready skills'' and 
subpart (e) includes pathways to ``an industry-recognized certificate 
or certification.''
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters expressed support for the priority and 
encouraged us to strengthen the role of coordinators of Education for 
Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) Programs in promoting the flexible 
pathways promoted by Priority 3, as well as to foster greater 
collaboration among EHCY coordinators, youth programs funded by Title I 
of WIOA, and Runaway and Homeless Youth Act grantees.

[[Page 9109]]

    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations but do not think it 
is appropriate to modify Priority 3 to identify particular grant 
programs so that the priority may be used by a variety of Department 
discretionary grant programs, including programs at the postsecondary 
level. However, discretionary grant programs serving homeless youth may 
use this priority in their competitions should they choose to do so.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters encouraged the Department to consider 
the return on investment for fostering civic engagement and workforce 
skills beginning in early childhood.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment and would note that, while 
there is nothing in Priority 3 that precludes an applicant from 
proposing a project that includes early childhood education, the focus 
of the priority is on skills for employment and later life and so 
offices and grant reviewers would need to make determinations on an 
individual basis.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter supported the emphasis within Priority 3 on 
competency-based learning and noted that competency-based learning is 
especially relevant to engineering education in elementary and 
secondary schools because design, analysis, and technical skills may be 
fostered through innovative partnerships with industry. The commenter 
cautioned, however, that workforce experiences must be connected to 
classroom instruction.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's views on competency-based 
learning as it relates to engineering education in elementary and 
secondary schools. We note that subpart (e) of the priority identifies 
competency-based learning as an example of a strategy that can be used 
to earn a recognized postsecondary credential. Thus, we think that a 
project that includes competency-based learning in high school would be 
responsive to subpart (e) if it were part of a pathway that culminated 
with a recognized postsecondary credential, such as an associate degree 
in engineering technology.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter supported Priority 3, but cautioned the 
Department against discouraging students from pursuing baccalaureate 
degrees.
    Discussion: Nothing in Priority 3 discourages students from 
pursuing baccalaureate degrees. The definition of ``recognized 
postsecondary credential'' that we use in Priority 3 is from section 
3(52) of WIOA and explicitly includes a baccalaureate degree. 
Specifically, the definition is as follows:
    ``The term `recognized postsecondary credential' means a credential 
consisting of an industry-recognized certificate or certification, a 
certificate of completion of an apprenticeship, a license recognized by 
the State involved or Federal Government, or an associate or 
baccalaureate degree.''
    As a result, we do not believe that any changes are necessary to 
address this concern.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter contended that professionals who transition 
from industry to become CTE teachers should have a strong education 
foundation that can be provided through a year-long residency program 
and other means.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment, but Priority 3 is not 
intended to address the training and qualifications of CTE teachers. We 
also note that teacher licensing and certification are a State, not 
Federal, responsibility.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter contended that local academic standards 
should be aligned to the expectations of local colleges and 
universities, and not just those of employers. This commenter 
maintained that Priority 3 did not include postsecondary educational 
institutions as partners in the projects promoted by the priority.
    Discussion: We agree on the importance of aligning secondary and 
postsecondary education, but we disagree that colleges and universities 
are excluded from Priority 3. Subpart (a) refers generally to 
``education providers'' so that it includes educational institutions at 
all levels of education, including colleges and universities. Subpart 
(b) focuses on pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials, the 
definition of which includes baccalaureate degrees, and it specifically 
mentions ``institutions of higher education.'' Subpart (c) focuses on 
work-based learning experiences and does not specify the educational 
level at which these experiences are offered so that this subpart is 
broadly inclusive. Subparts (d), (e), and (f) focus on different 
pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials, including 
baccalaureate degrees, as well as, in the case of subpart (d), job-
ready skills that align with the skill needs of industries in the State 
or regional economy involved.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters urged the Department to establish 
requirements to prevent for-profit organizations with records of poor 
performance from benefitting from Priority 3. They also recommended 
requiring providers to achieve a minimum level of student outcomes as a 
condition of their receipt of Federal funds. Another set of commenters 
urged the Department to ensure that projects that respond to Priority 3 
are high quality by examining measurable student outcomes, such as job 
placement rates, salaries, and graduation rates.
    Discussion: We note with respect to the first set of commenters' 
concerns about for-profit organizations that such entities are not 
eligible to receive assistance under many of the Department's 
discretionary grant programs. We agree with the first set of commenters 
that it is important to consider an applicant's prior performance 
before making a grant award. We note that 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3)(ii) 
requires us, prior to making a grant award, to consider information 
concerning an applicant's performance and use of funds under a previous 
award under any Department program. We also share both sets of 
commenters' concerns about an entity's performance after receiving an 
award. We note that 34 CFR 75.253 generally requires a grantee to make 
substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the 
project in order to receive continuation grant awards in multi-year 
projects. A grantee is also, if the notice inviting applications 
established performance measurement requirements, accountable for 
meeting the performance targets in its approved application. We may 
make an exception to this requirement only if the grantee has obtained 
our approval of changes to the project that will enable the grantee to 
achieve the goals and objectives of the project and meet the 
performance targets of the project, if any, without changing the scope 
or objectives of the project.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the priority's 
reference to providers of self-guided learning and asked what standards 
these providers would need to meet to ensure that taxpayer dollars are 
not wasted. Another commenter expressed similar concerns and suggested 
we define ``self-guided learning'' to clarify the term's meaning.
    Discussion: We think the commenters' concerns can be addressed 
effectively through the use of the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, 
particularly 34 CFR 75.210(c) (Quality of the Project Design), our 
consideration of an applicant's prior performance under 34 CFR 
75.217(d)(3)(ii), and the general requirement in 34 CFR 75.253 that

[[Page 9110]]

grantees make substantial progress in achieving the goals and 
objectives of the project and their established performance targets in 
order to receive continuation grant awards in multi-year projects. We 
appreciate the second commenter's suggestion but think that the meaning 
of ``self-guided learning'' is clear and does not require further 
elaboration.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter supported Priority 3 and expressed the view 
that education should prepare individuals to transition to work and 
independent living, and noted that occupational therapy practitioners 
can help individuals with disabilities attain life skills and navigate 
daily routines.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support of the commenter and 
recognize that occupational therapy practitioners make important 
contributions to helping individuals with disabilities live 
independently.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended changes to the background 
section for Priority 3 included in the NPP.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations we received on the 
background section in the NPP, which explains our rationale for the 
priority. However, as the background section is not part of the final 
priority, we do not include a background discussion in the NFP.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters expressed their opposition to competitive 
discretionary grants and indicated formula grants provide a more 
reliable stream of funding to local school districts. Another commenter 
expressed concern that language in the background statement about the 
Department's intention to focus less on discrete funding streams and 
more on innovative problem-solving would result in a reduction in 
funding for programs that help individuals earn recognized 
postsecondary credentials.
    Discussion: Congress appropriates funding for the Department's 
programs. Priority 3, as well as the other priorities, may be used in 
competitions for discretionary (but not formula) grants for which 
Congress has appropriated funding. The priorities themselves do not 
affect the amount of funding appropriated by Congress for particular 
programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter contended that the priorities do not address 
the need to provide dedicated funding to ``school-to-work apprentice 
programs.''
    Discussion: In fiscal year 2017, Congress appropriated more than 
$1.1 billion for the Perkins Act, which provides formula funding to 
States, school districts, institutions of higher education, and others 
to improve CTE programs. These funds are available to support ``school-
to-work apprentice programs.'' Additionally, Priority 3 focuses on 
pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials, job skills, and 
careers. Its use in other Department discretionary grant programs may 
further increase the resources available for these purposes. However, 
as noted above, we do not believe that these priorities affect the 
funding Congress will appropriate for any specific program.
    Changes: None.

Priority 4--Fostering Knowledge and Promoting the Development of Skills 
That Prepare Students To Be Informed, Thoughtful, and Productive 
Individuals and Citizens

    Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for Priority 4, 
particularly the priority's focus on developing students' knowledge of 
how government works and civic responsibilities. Additionally, multiple 
commenters encouraged emphasis within the priority beyond those areas 
specifically mentioned (i.e., civics, financial literacy, problem-
solving, and employability skills). Specifically, numerous commenters 
encouraged adding an explicit focus within this priority on history and 
geography education. In general, these commenters stated that it is 
inappropriate to include a priority that promotes the development of 
skills that prepare students to be informed, thoughtful, and productive 
citizens without focusing on other educational areas, including 
history, geography, and social studies. Lastly, other commenters 
requested that we add various content or focus areas to the priority, 
including: early learning; cultural diversity; partnerships; arts 
education; social and emotional development; engagement and reasoned 
argumentation; creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking; and 
ethnic studies. One commenter suggested that the Department develop and 
adopt specific standards describing the content and skills related to 
the commenter's suggested addition to the priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions. We agree a 
focus on skills that prepare students to be informed, thoughtful, and 
productive individuals and citizens is vital to maintaining a strong 
republic and to supporting the economic competitiveness of the United 
States. We appreciate the commenters' concern that this priority does 
not highlight all content areas equally. We believe that many of the 
objectives outlined in Priority 4 and its subparts could be addressed 
in one or more content areas that commenters mentioned, such as history 
and geography. As an example, Priority 4(a) supports ``fostering 
knowledge of the common rights and responsibilities of American 
citizenship and civic participation,'' which has the potential to occur 
through the content areas and approaches enumerated by commenters. 
However, we believe that the priority, as written, provides maximum 
flexibility for programs aiming to make use of these subparts. As such, 
we do not think specific emphasis on the recommended content areas or 
approaches is necessary. Furthermore, we believe that, in accordance 
with the ESEA, the work of developing content standards is best left to 
State and local governments.
    With regard to ``early learning,'' please see the discussion on 
this topic under the ``General'' response subheading. We have modified 
some of the priorities, including Priority 4, by adding ``children and 
students'' to make explicit that certain priorities may be used to 
serve the early childhood population. For the ``cultural diversity'' 
comments, we believe reaching certain subgroups of students would in 
some cases be allowable in these programs, especially in programs where 
such a focus is included in authorizing statutes. With respect to 
``partnerships,'' we agree that partnerships provide opportunities to 
leverage resources to increase either a project's effectiveness or its 
ability to reach more students. However, we do not believe it is 
necessary to add a reference to ``partnerships'' in Priority 4 because 
the priority does not preclude the use of partnerships. As for the 
other various requested additions, we believe that many of the other 
suggested additions represent allowable uses and do not require a 
specific mention. We therefore decline to make these changes.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned that the language ``control 
impulses'' used to describe student self-regulation under Priority 
4(b)(v) is vague and could be unresponsive to students with diverse 
learning needs. The commenter requested clarification on our intent in 
using this phrasing as well as what implications this language may have 
for social-emotional learning strategies for all students. The 
commenter suggested that we clarify or delete the language.

[[Page 9111]]

    Discussion: We agree that the phrase ``control impulses'' could be 
amended to better target positive learning outcomes for all students. 
We agree that clarifying the language would underscore our focus on 
self-regulation to support the development of study skills and 
executive function for students, including time management, 
organization, and interpersonal communication.
    Changes: We have removed the language ``control impulses and . . 
.'' and replaced it with the phrase ``develop self-regulation in order 
to . . .'' in subpart (b)(v) of Priority 4.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the priority, but also called 
for the Department to deemphasize the connection between educational 
and economic outcomes outlined in this priority, including promoting 
the global competitiveness of the United States.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding the 
emphasis on the economic advantages associated with Priority 4. 
However, the Department's mission is ``to promote student achievement 
and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational 
excellence and ensuring equal access,'' so we believe that the economic 
advantages outlined in this priority are appropriate and in line with 
the mission of the Department.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters requested that we require the application 
of evidence-based strategies to activities under this priority.
    Discussion: With regard to the inclusion of evidence-based 
strategies within this priority, while we support the use of evidence 
where possible, we do not believe it is appropriate for use in all 
cases. Specifically, where there is not a sufficiently rigorous body of 
evidence or where we seek to promote innovation for which there may not 
yet be a body of evidence, it may not be appropriate to require 
strategies to be evidence-based. In addition, evidence priorities in 
EDGAR can be combined with these priorities in grant competitions.
    Changes: None.

Priority 5--Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children, 
Including Those With Disabilities and With Unique Gifts and Talents

    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for this priority and 
the focus on children and students with disabilities. One commenter 
viewed the priority as a means to ensure extra funding and applauded 
the discussion of supports for all children. Another commenter urged 
the Department to continue to address the needs and outcomes as 
discussed in the priority and to hold all children to the same rigorous 
standards.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the 
Secretary's priorities and the Department's commitment to ensuring that 
all students, including students with disabilities, have equal access 
to a high-quality education. We will note, however, that these 
priorities do not impact funding levels set by Congress. The 
Department, through these supplemental priorities and other 
initiatives, intends to continue to focus on encouraging grantees to 
take meaningful strides toward ensuring equal access to high-quality, 
affordable, appropriately rigorous education for all students, 
including students with disabilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked how the Department intends to enforce 
the priorities and ensure high-quality education for all children.
    Discussion: The Secretary's priorities are intended to support and 
strengthen the work that educators do every day by focusing 
discretionary grants in a way that expands the implementation of, and 
investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an 
impact on improving student achievement and take strides toward 
ensuring equal access to high-quality education. The Department 
monitors all projects conducted under its priorities, and all grantees 
must comply with any corrective action required on the basis of any 
monitoring or other review of a grant awarded by the Department. 
Grantees must also perform the work, and seek to achieve the outcomes, 
described in the approved grant application (e.g., improved student 
achievement, employment of individuals with disabilities, improved 
teacher effectiveness). The Department uses various sources of 
information from grantees, including performance and financial reports, 
monitoring, and audits, to evaluate whether the goals of the grant 
projects are accomplished.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter applauded the inclusion of children with 
disabilities as a separate priority but stated that the failure of the 
Federal government to meet its funding obligations under Part B of the 
IDEA highlights the inadequacy of the discretionary grant programs to 
meet the needs of students with disabilities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern regarding funding 
under Part B of the IDEA. The Secretary's priorities speak specifically 
to discretionary grant activities, which would apply only to Part D of 
the IDEA. The IDEA discretionary grant program--National Activities to 
Improve Education of Children with Disabilities-IDEA Part D--is funded 
separately from IDEA Part B, a formula grant program. The IDEA Part D 
program funds State personnel development, technical assistance and 
dissemination, personnel preparation, technology, media and educational 
materials, and parent-training and information centers. In either case, 
the Department maintains its commitment to ensure that children with 
disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in a high-quality 
education, are expected to perform at high levels, and, to the maximum 
extent possible, are prepared to lead productive, independent lives.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter discussed the importance of serving students 
with disabilities but expressed concern that the priorities do not 
consider Tribes and Native American students. The commenter expressed 
support for the inclusion of Tribes, consultation with Tribal council 
members, and consideration of Native American students and asked that 
Tribal leadership be added where States and localities are listed.
    Discussion: We understand the commenter's concern about including 
Tribes and Native American students in this priority. The Department is 
committed to ensuring that students with disabilities, including Native 
American students with disabilities, have equal access to high-quality 
education, consistent with applicable requirements in Federal law. 
Nothing in the proposed priorities precludes grantees from considering 
and addressing Native American student needs. For this reason, we 
decline to specifically highlight Tribes and Native American students 
in this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter outlined challenges to State vocational 
rehabilitation agencies related to the implementation of pre-employment 
transition services to students with disabilities under the 15 percent 
reserve requirements in section 113 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
as amended by title IV of WIOA. The commenter suggested that the 
Rehabilitation Services Administration revise the WIOA regulations to 
allow States to use funds intended for pre-employment transition 
services when the associated goods and services (such as room, board, 
travel, and assistive technologies) are necessary for participation in 
the

[[Page 9112]]

required pre-employment transition services activity.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concerns; however, the 
Secretary's supplemental priorities and definitions are for 
discretionary grant programs. Since the Secretary's priorities relate 
to discretionary grants, not formula grant programs, any 
recommendations for changes to the WIOA regulations are not applicable 
to this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the use of 
private school vouchers for students with disabilities. They expressed 
concern that, under private school voucher programs, families might not 
be informed that some provisions of the IDEA do not apply when parents 
choose to enroll their children in private school. These commenters 
also expressed concern that schools accepting vouchers are not 
regulated in the same way as traditional public schools.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important for parents 
to have accurate information about how the IDEA applies when they 
select an educational program for their child. In all cases, it is 
essential to empower parents of children with disabilities by offering 
them the opportunity to enroll their children in the schools that they 
believe work best for their child. The commenter is correct that the 
rights of children with disabilities under the IDEA are changed if 
those children are enrolled by their parents in private schools, 
including private schools participating in voucher programs. However, 
the IDEA sets forth rights afforded to parentally placed children with 
disabilities. Under the IDEA, children with disabilities placed by 
their parents in private schools participating in voucher programs 
still must be included in the group of parentally placed children with 
disabilities who are eligible for equitable services, including special 
education and related services. The needs of these parentally placed 
children with disabilities participating in voucher programs must be 
considered through the consultation process required under the IDEA. 
Further, the IDEA's child find requirements for identifying, locating, 
and evaluating children suspected of having disabilities who need 
special education and related services are fully applicable to these 
children.
    With regard to accountability, while the IDEA gives States and 
school districts no regulatory authority over private schools, States 
and school districts must implement all of the IDEA requirements 
applicable to parentally placed private school children with 
disabilities and to children with disabilities who are parentally 
placed in private schools participating in voucher programs. The IDEA 
Parent Training and Information Centers are available to provide 
information and training to parents who have enrolled their children in 
private schools.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested the Department add an additional 
priority or subpart that references models and resources that are 
currently available and familiar to the education community when 
applying for discretionary grant funding. For example, the commenter 
recommended that the Secretary give additional points when applicants 
propose to implement models that meet the Institute of Education 
Sciences' What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards.
    Discussion: We appreciate the suggestion to focus on models that 
meet WWC Standards. We agree on the importance of promoting these 
approaches to increase educational success. However, there is nothing 
in the priorities that precludes the Department from incentivizing 
these approaches in the priorities, a flexibility established in EDGAR, 
and we do not believe that a separate priority or subpart referencing 
specific models and resources is necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters encouraged the Department to include 
the support and promotion of physical education and adapted physical 
education, physical activity, and the physical health of children with 
disabilities in future grant funding opportunities in order to meet the 
outcomes listed within Priority 5. One commenter proposed adding health 
and wellness to the outcomes within Priority 5.
    Discussion: We agree on the importance of physical education and 
physical activity to the overall well-being of students, including 
those with disabilities. To this end, the Department can support 
physical education and physical activity through its discretionary 
grants, where it is an allowable expense and appropriate, and does not 
need to add these activities to the priority to do so.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters encouraged the Department to support 
the professional development of in- and pre-service physical education 
teachers and school leaders as part of Priority 5.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments in support of training 
opportunities to ensure that faculty, teachers, and school leaders are 
prepared to support high-quality physical education and adaptive 
physical education. We note that, taken together, the priorities are 
comprehensive and address the need for high-quality preparation and 
ongoing professional development for all educators and school leaders, 
including physical education teachers.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested various changes to the 
introductory language in subpart (a). A few commenters proposed 
expanding the language to include ``high-quality instruction and 
specialized instructional support services.'' Others commenters 
suggested adding language to ensure that children are offered the 
opportunity to meet challenging objectives. Another commenter 
recommended adding language to require students to meet challenging 
standards for the grade in which they are enrolled and that students 
receive high-quality instruction and specialized services. One 
commenter requested that we address the needs of special education 
students targeted by bullying, harassment, and relational aggression.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations for 
revisions to subpart (a). The Department reasserts its long standing 
position that all students, including students with disabilities, must 
be held to high expectations and rigorous standards. Many students with 
disabilities can successfully learn grade-level content and make 
significant academic progress when appropriate instruction, services, 
and supports are provided, and every student should have the chance to 
meet challenging objectives and achieve academic goals in an 
educational environment that is safe and respectful of all viewpoints 
and backgrounds. The language in subpart (a) is consistent with the 
standard expressed in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 
137 S.Ct. 988 (2017) (Endrew F.), the unanimous Supreme Court decision 
holding ``that a child's educational program must be appropriately 
ambitious in light of his circumstances.'' This standard, and 
requirements expressed elsewhere in law and regulation, are still 
operable, even if not explicitly restated in these priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we believe it is important to 
align the language used to address students with disabilities with the 
language in Priority

[[Page 9113]]

1(b)(ii), to allow for maximum flexibility in supporting this 
population of learners through this priority.
    Changes: We have defined the term ``children or students with 
disabilities'' within this notice and have used the defined term 
throughout Priority 5, where appropriate.
    Comment: Commenters suggested specific additions to the list in 
subpart (a)(i)-(iv). One commenter suggested adding speech and language 
skills, noting that communication skills are essential in the 
workplace. Another commenter suggested adding language to focus on 
postsecondary education, competitive employment, and independent 
living. The commenter also suggested we highlight the importance of 
social-emotional learning in subpart (a)(iv).
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations for 
revisions to subpart (a)(i)-(iv). We agree that subpart (a)(iii) should 
be inclusive of postsecondary education, competitive integrated 
employment, and independent living, in order to align with the goal of 
subpart (a) to ensure students with disabilities can meet challenging 
objectives. The other recommendations, though not explicitly mentioned, 
would not necessarily be excluded from use by grantees.
    Changes: We have added postsecondary education to the language in 
subpart (a)(iii).
    Comment: Some commenters recommended that the Department add 
specific populations to the priority. One commenter suggested we add 
``learning disabled adults'' to the priority. Another commenter 
suggested the addition of homeless children and youth. One commenter 
noted that English learners tend to be overrepresented in special 
education and underrepresented in gifted education, and recommended a 
focus on professional learning for educators and school leaders to 
endure the needs of this population are adequately met. Another 
commenter suggested the addition of English learners as a third target 
population with unique needs, and a few commenters recommended the 
priority be expanded to address high-needs students more broadly.
    Discussion: The Department is committed to ensuring that all 
students with disabilities, including students with disabilities who 
are ``learning disabled adults,'' homeless children and youth, and 
English learners, have equal access to high-quality educational 
opportunities that lead to successful transitions to college and 
careers. Through these priorities, the Department will continue to 
maximize the availability of high-quality learning opportunities to 
address the special education needs of all eligible children, students 
and adults, including adults with learning disabilities, homeless 
children and youth, and English learners.
    Regarding the request to focus on professional learning to address 
the needs of English learners, we note professional development and 
preparation of teachers and school staff are addressed under Priorities 
7 and 8. The term ``educators'' in these priorities encompasses all 
educators, including those of students who are English learners. 
Therefore, we do not believe additional language under this priority is 
necessary. As for the request to add additional subgroups, including 
English Learners, to this priority, we decline to make this change 
since some programs or projects will allow a specific focus on one of 
the populations suggested above, and others would not exclude these 
populations from consideration, when such a focus aligns with the aims 
of a particular discretionary grant program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted the need for students who are deaf or 
have hearing loss to have access to appropriate supports and 
accommodations and that such access was not sufficiently addressed in 
the priorities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree with the need to 
ensure that students who are deaf or have hearing loss have accessible 
books, instructional materials, and resources. We believe that subpart 
(b) includes this population of students and explicitly calls for 
ensuring that coursework, books, and other materials are accessible to 
students who are children with disabilities and/or individuals with 
disabilities under Section 504.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters supported the need to provide accessible 
materials for students with disabilities, and stated that there is a 
need to go beyond what is minimally required. These commenters 
indicated that grant applicants should not receive a ``bonus'' for 
complying with current requirements and regulations to serve students 
with disabilities. They also noted that the Endrew F. ruling set the 
standard that students with disabilities should have ``appropriately 
ambitious'' goals, and that students need more than the minimal 
requirement of access. The commenters suggested updating the priority 
to recognize projects that go beyond minimum requirements.
    Discussion: We appreciate these comments and agree that students 
with disabilities need to be held to high standards and that access is 
not always enough for full engagement with the general education 
curriculum. We also agree that students with disabilities should have 
``appropriately ambitious'' goals as indicated in subpart (a). We 
specifically included language in subpart (b) to address accessible 
materials to emphasize that in order to hold students to high 
standards, regardless of their disability, they require meaningful 
access to the same books and educational materials as their peers. Our 
current discretionary grants programs are highly competitive and, as 
such, applicants are expected to go beyond minimal requirements to 
receive funding. The language in subpart 5(a) is consistent with the 
standard expressed in Endrew F., the unanimous Supreme Court decision 
holding ``that a child's educational program must be appropriately 
ambitious in light of his circumstances.''
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested revising subpart (b) to 
include technology since technology is now one of the primary vehicles 
for delivering instruction. Other commenters suggested assessments 
should be included as well because digital assessments need to be 
accessible for students with disabilities and that the assessments 
should meet nationally recognized standards for accessibility, such as 
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0 AA). In addition, 
several commenters suggested strengthening the requirements by 
referencing the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the Communication Act, 
and WCAG 2.0 AA.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments and agree that technology 
should be included in the priority language as technology has become 
one of the primary tools for delivering instruction. Indeed, Priority 6 
incorporates technology in two different subparts as a way to increase 
access. We agree that digital instructional materials, including 
assessments, need to be accessible. We also agree that it may be 
difficult to ensure compliance with accessibility requirements without 
adherence to modern standards such as the WCAG 2.0 AA standard, which 
includes criteria that provide comprehensive web accessibility to 
individuals with disabilities--including those with visual, auditory, 
physical, speech, cognitive, developmental, learning, and neurological 
disabilities. However, we decline to list specific standards, as they 
are updated over time. Project activities that are funded through 
discretionary grants using this

[[Page 9114]]

priority must still be consistent with the requirements of the IDEA, 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504, where 
applicable.
    Finally, we believe that the language of subpart (b) encompasses 
accessible technology. Specifically, the text of subpart (b) indicates 
that projects under this priority would ensure ``coursework, books, or 
other materials are accessible to students who are children with 
disabilities,'' where ``other materials'' encompasses technology.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that parents, families, 
and family-serving organizations are not included in Priority 5. The 
commenter noted the historical role of engaged families in ensuring a 
free appropriate public education is available to all children with 
disabilities, as required under the IDEA. The commenter also noted that 
strong family-professional partnerships are among the most effective 
strategies to improve educational outcomes for children with 
disabilities; and how the Department's investment in parent training 
and information centers (PTIs) and community parent resource centers 
(CPRCs) has resulted in preparing many families to work with 
professionals and advocate for their children.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that families are crucial 
to ensuring that children with disabilities have the opportunity to 
meet challenging objectives in appropriately ambitious educational 
programs, as well as the importance of providing information and 
training to all families. Through the funding and management of the 
IDEA Part D Parent Information and Training Program, the Department has 
ensured that families in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin 
Islands, and Pacific territories have access to the information and 
training they need to advocate for their children. Engaging families in 
their children's education, increasing parents' knowledge and ability 
to advocate for their children, increasing parents' and professionals' 
ability to work together, and involving family-serving organizations in 
improvement efforts are vital strategies to strengthen the education of 
children with disabilities. Through the notices inviting applications, 
the Department has the discretion to specify strategies used to address 
these priorities, and we intend to continue to promote strategies that 
empower families and students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested modifying Priority 5(a) to include 
``instructed on or taught to challenging academic standards for the 
grade in which they are enrolled and receive high quality instruction 
and specialized instructional supports services that are meaningful and 
appropriately ambitious in light of each students circumstances.''
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment, and we agree with the need 
to ensure students with disabilities are instructed on challenging 
academic content standards and receive high-quality instruction and 
specialized instructional supports and services that are meaningful and 
appropriately ambitious in light of each student's circumstances. We 
note that the instructional program for students with disabilities is 
individually determined and is within the purview of the child's 
individualized education program team. The Department believes that 
this priority addresses that students with disabilities are instructed 
on or taught to challenging academic standards for the grade in which 
they are enrolled and receive high-quality instruction and specialized 
instructional supports services that are meaningful and appropriately 
ambitious in light of each student's circumstances.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested grantees create programs that are 
intentionally designed from the outset, so all learners, especially 
high-needs students, have the greatest chance of being fully included; 
accessing instruction, strategies, supports and materials; and 
achieving the desired outcomes outlined by the Department.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment on the need to develop 
accessible instruction, materials, and support, not only for students 
with high needs, but all students. We appreciate the potential benefits 
to developing accessible materials from the outset as compared with 
``retrofitting'' materials to be accessible. We currently support some 
projects that are taking this approach and believe this is included in 
the language under Priority 5.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters indicated the need to make a more 
explicit connection between the preparation and ongoing professional 
development of teachers and school staff, including specialized 
instructional support personnel, and meeting the unique needs of 
children and students, especially those with disabilities and those 
with unique gifts or talents within Priority 5.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that high-quality personnel 
preparation and ongoing professional development for teachers, school 
leaders, and other school staff is critical in meeting the unique needs 
of students and children, including those with disabilities and unique 
gifts and talents. We note professional development and preparation of 
teachers and school staff are addressed under Priorities 7 and 8. The 
term ``educators'' in these priorities encompasses all educators, 
including those of children who are students with disabilities. Nothing 
in Priority 7 or 8 would preclude an applicant from focusing on 
teachers of children who are students with disabilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Commenters suggested that the Department allow for 
professional development to help teachers and other school staff, 
including specialized instructional support personnel, better meet the 
needs of students with disabilities and those with unique gifts and 
talents within Priority 5. The commenter also recommended expanding 
Priority 8 to recognize the crucial role that school psychologists and 
other specialized instructional support personnel play in providing 
meaningful and ample support to teachers, principals, and other school 
leaders in helping students reach their full potential and in school 
improvement efforts.
    Discussion: We appreciate these suggestions and agree that high-
quality personnel preparation and ongoing professional development for 
all school staff, including teachers, principals and other school 
leaders, and other school staff, including other specialized 
instructional support personnel, plays an important role in providing 
meaningful and ample support to teachers, principals, and other school 
leaders in helping students reach their full potential and in school 
improvement efforts. However, with respect to the requested expansion 
of Priority 8, the term ``educators'' in subparts (b) and (d) includes 
all staff that support students in schools, including, for example, 
various specialized instructional support personnel.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Numerous commenters expressed general support for subpart 
(c). Many commenters shared research and their concerns that gifted and 
talented students with high needs, including twice-exceptional students 
(e.g., students gifted in math and who have dysgraphia) often do not 
have access to the resources they need to reach their full potential.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' commitment 
to this group of students and included this subpart under Priority 5 
because we share this concern as well.

[[Page 9115]]

The Department will continue to support programs to address the unique 
needs of this group of students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for subpart (c) and 
advocated for additional funding for this student group. One commenter 
suggested that it would be more effective to direct funding toward 
supporting students who have demonstrated mastery in content areas, 
rather than focusing on closing the achievement gap. Some commenters 
discussed the need for further research on this topic. One commenter 
specifically requested additional research as it relates to effective 
identification, assessment, and enrichment programs in rural 
communities. Other commenters advocated for increased funding for 
programs that serve this group, such as the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and 
Talented Students Education Program.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' commitment to research 
and programs for this student population, including in rural 
communities. While the priorities and definitions in this document may 
be used in future discretionary grant competitions, no funding is tied 
to these final priorities. Appropriations for Federal programs are made 
by Congress and are outside the scope of this discussion. We agree that 
building further models of effectiveness are a crucial part of our 
discretionary grant programs and look forward to working with grantees 
to discover more of what works in these areas.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters suggested programs and methods to 
adequately address subpart (c). These suggestions include, but are not 
limited to: using differentiation strategies, educator access to 
curricular resources and collaboration with resource specialists, 
professional development geared toward gifted and talented students, 
and the use of an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary model.
    Discussion: We believe that our Nation's schools should develop 
opportunities to meet the needs of gifted and talented students that 
empower them to reach their full potential.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for legislation that would 
mandate gifted education in public schools.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's commitment 
to gifted students. However, legislative mandates are set by Congress 
and are outside the scope of this discussion and this notice.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended changes in the language of 
subpart (c). One commenter felt this subpart lacks specificity, and 
should explicitly discuss mentoring, Advanced Placement coursework, and 
early college opportunities. The commenter also recommended combining 
this subpart with Priorities 3 and 6. Another commenter recommended 
focusing on students with high needs within the gifted and talented 
population, by adding language from subpart (b) related to the 
accessibility of materials in subpart (c).
    Discussion: We appreciate these suggestions. With regard to the 
level of specificity in subpart (c), the Department seeks to allow 
grantees the flexibility to serve gifted students in ways that best 
meet their unique needs. As such, we do not support listing examples of 
specific types of services or curricula under this subpart. Regarding 
combining this subpart with another priority, the Department believes 
that the strong support we received from other commenters for including 
this subpart justifies leaving it as a distinct subpart. Finally, we 
agree that it is important to consider the unique needs of students 
with high needs, and believe that the priority as written would not 
preclude a program using this priority from focusing on the 
accessibility of materials.
    Changes: None.

Priority 6--Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM) 
Education, With a Particular Focus on Computer Science

    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for STEM education, 
including computer science, elaborating that computer science enhances 
students' ability to problem solve and think critically. One commenter 
stated that it is extremely important to offer programs to communities 
that could not normally fund STEM programs, and another supported 
projects to support more women and girls in STEM as reflected in 
subpart (d). Other commenters noted that computer science is one of the 
STEM fields that has more job openings than graduates, and termed it 
among the most important growth areas for new employment in the United 
States. Several commenters expressed appreciation that the priority 
addresses the needs of underrepresented students in STEM and that the 
Department's focus on STEM education will allow school districts to 
expand computer science and STEM offerings more quickly and with 
greater quality so that every student can fully access the field to his 
or her fullest potential and prosper in the 21st-century economy. 
Another commenter applauded the Department's effort to increase the 
number of educators adequately prepared to deliver rigorous instruction 
in STEM and increase access for underrepresented students in STEM 
courses. One commenter also noted the inclusion of subpart (l) to 
support greater use of STEM and computer science resources by making 
them available as open educational resources.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for STEM and the 
inclusion of computer science. We believe our Nation's economic 
competitiveness depends on our ability to improve and expand STEM 
learning and engagement, and, thus, we must expand the capacity of our 
elementary and secondary schools to provide all students, including 
minorities, students in rural communities, women, and other 
historically and traditionally underrepresented students in STEM 
fields, with engaging and meaningful opportunities that develop 
knowledge and competencies in STEM, both in and out of the classroom. 
In order to do this, educators must be equipped to leverage new digital 
technologies to enhance classroom instruction.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters provided suggestions to strengthen the 
background section for the priority. One commenter requested amendments 
to the background section to include reference to the IDEA, the 
Communication Act, and WCAG. Another commenter stated that the 
background section should state that in addition to making technology 
accessible to students with disabilities, the technology should also be 
made accessible to English learners.
    Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the 
background section included in the NPP, which explains our rationale 
for this priority. We do not include background sections for priorities 
in the NFP, nor are the background sections considered part of the 
final priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes in response 
to these comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: We have determined that our intent to allow programs 
and grantees the flexibility to address one or more of the STEM 
subjects, rather than all four, was not apparent. Therefore, we are 
clarifying that program offices will have the flexibility to build 
competitions that focus on one or more

[[Page 9116]]

STEM fields (e.g., just science, or science and technology). 
Furthermore, we are clarifying that projects under Priority 6 should be 
designed to improve student achievement or other educational outcomes, 
and that discretionary grant competitions that use this priority could 
focus solely on the root of the priority (i.e., projects designed to 
increase educational opportunities by reducing academic or non-academic 
barriers to economic mobility) or require that the proposed project 
meet both the root and one or more of the subparts in Priority 6 (i.e., 
paragraphs (a) through (e)). This allows for maximum flexibility in 
using these priorities within discretionary grant programs.
    Changes: We revised the title of the priority, changing the word 
``and'' to ``or.'' We have also revised the introductory language to be 
clear that projects may (or may not) be required to address one or more 
of subparts (a) through (e). In addition, we changed the word ``and'' 
to ``or'' within subpart (k) to specify that projects may address 
science, technology, engineering, or mathematics.
    Comment: Several commenters requested the addition of various 
particular content areas within STEM, asserting that these other 
content areas also aid in the development of problem-solving, critical 
thinking, and analytical skills. Specifically, commenters variously 
requested separate subparts within Priority 6 for areas including 
statistics, geography, psychological science, chemistry, art, and 
environmental education. One commenter requested adding a subpart 
focused on engineering design and analysis skills in teacher training 
and teacher professional development.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' requests to add separate 
subparts to address various specific STEM content areas and support 
teachers. With respect to the addition of separate subparts in specific 
STEM and computer science areas, the priority as written does not 
preclude grant applicants from proposing to focus on particular content 
areas within STEM and computer science, including, for example, 
statistics, geography (to the extent such a focus relates to STEM and 
computer science), or chemistry. Further, subpart (a) of this priority 
focuses exclusively on increasing the number of educators who are 
equipped to teach STEM and computer science, and, similarly, grant 
applicants could propose to focus on increasing the number of educators 
equipped to teach a particular content area within STEM and computer 
science, for example, engineering design and analysis skills. Thus, we 
decline to add additional subparts to Priority 6 related to specific 
content areas within STEM and computer science and rather allow maximum 
flexibility for grant applicants to focus on the range of specific 
content areas within STEM and computer science. Furthermore, we believe 
the priority appropriately emphasizes the preparation necessary for 
students to meet the current demands of the labor market and for 
educators to effectively teach STEM subjects.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters requested various revisions to the 
priority to highlight certain aspects of teaching and learning in STEM 
and computer science. Specifically, some commenters requested that this 
priority reference certain teaching strategies, such as online 
learning, ``hands-on'' learning experiences, and experiential learning 
to ensure access to and engagement from students. A few commenters 
requested that the priority explicitly mention out-of-school (e.g., 
before school, after school, summer) settings as an opportunity to 
engage students in STEM and computer science. A few commenters 
requested that we include CTE in the title of the priority as well as 
explicitly in subparts (a), (d), and (e). With respect to CTE, one 
commenter explained that half of all STEM jobs are open to workers with 
less than baccalaureate credentials, and that CTE should not be seen as 
different or separate. Multiple commenters recommended that we delete 
the reference in subpart (b) to ``proficient use of computer 
applications'' as they believe it suggests that computer use is a 
prerequisite for learning computer science.
    Discussion: We appreciate commenters' requests to highlight these 
various important elements in the teaching and learning of STEM and 
computer science for all students. With respect to specific learning 
strategies, we prefer to allow grant applicants to choose from among 
the numerous learning strategies and approaches currently available and 
innovative ones that may be emerging in the teaching of STEM and 
computer science. However, we note that subpart (b) specifically offers 
``hands-on, inquiry-based learning'' as a viable option for supporting 
student mastery of STEM and computer science prerequisites. 
Furthermore, subpart (e) explicitly mentions online coursework as a way 
to increase student access to STEM and computer science, and subpart 
(i) focuses solely on technology to provide students access to 
educational choice to which they otherwise might not have access. 
Further, nothing in Priority 6 precludes STEM and computer science 
teaching and learning during out-of-school time or that focuses on CTE. 
Finally, with respect to the requested change in subpart (b), our 
intent was not to suggest that computer use is a prerequisite for 
learning computer science, but rather that understanding the state of 
the art in commonly used computer applications or technologies better 
positions learners to transition from consumers of technology to 
developers of technology.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: We decided it was necessary to clarify that subparts 
(a) and (g) focus on strategies that are evidence-based, in order to 
achieve the goals of the subparts.
    Changes: We added the term ``strategies'' to subpart (a) where 
evidence was already referenced. Similarly, we changed the term 
``areas'' to ``strategies'' in subpart (g).
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority recognize the 
critical and distinct role that principals and other school leaders 
play by changing the reference to educators in subpart (a) to teachers, 
principals, and other school leaders.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that principals and other 
school leaders play integral roles in student success; however, our 
intent in using the phrase ``educator'' is that it be inclusive of 
teachers, principals, and other school leaders.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: We felt it was important to clarify that there are two 
main components to subpart (b), such that a discretionary grant program 
may decide to use them together or independent from one another.
    Changes: In subpart (b) we removed the word ``and'' and replaced it 
with the word ``or.''
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: We believe that the priorities should provide maximum 
flexibility while accommodating the statutory requirements of 
discretionary grant programs. Certain discretionary grant programs may 
require strong evidence. To ensure that we can use Priority 6 and also 
accommodate this requirement, we revised subpart (c) to allow for 
application of the priority to grant programs that may require strong 
evidence.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (c) to specify that instructional 
strategies may be supported by either strong

[[Page 9117]]

evidence, or strong or moderate evidence.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the priority explicitly 
mention certain groups of students, including students with 
disabilities, low-income students, Alaska Native students, students of 
color, minority students, English learners, adults, gifted and talented 
students, and students in urban settings. In requesting the addition of 
and focus on a specific subgroup, multiple commenters raised concerns 
that focusing on only one subgroup could prevent the Department from 
meeting the needs of another. For example, one commenter feared that 
focusing on low-income students may result in less attention to racial 
and ethnic minorities. Some commenters requested further emphasis on 
certain subgroups explicitly included in subpart (d), including females 
and students in rural communities, by including them in subpart (e) as 
well. Multiple commenters elaborated on the importance of providing 
underserved students opportunities to learn STEM and computer science 
content starting in pre-kindergarten and extending through third grade 
in order to create early and sustained interest, confidence, and 
competency in STEM and computer science. Finally, one commenter 
requested that the priority address what the commenter perceives as 
institutional barriers that may hinder undergraduates in 
underrepresented groups from pursuing STEM and computer science 
coursework.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' requests that STEM and 
computer science education be inclusive of all students, and, in 
particular, certain subgroups of students that may not otherwise have 
access to this content. We agree that it is critical that traditionally 
underserved students have access to STEM and computer science 
coursework and educators who are well prepared to deliver such 
coursework. However, we believe that the priority already includes 
several of the student subgroups that the commenters requested we 
include. Paragraph (d) of the priority addresses ``underrepresented 
students,'' and the examples given are not exclusive. The term also 
encompasses students of color, minority students, American Indian or 
Alaska Native students, students in urban settings, and English 
learners, among others.
    With respect to adult students, the priority does not preclude 
grant applicants who propose to focus on adults, and subpart (k) 
specifically indicates support for programs that lead to recognized 
postsecondary credentials through WIOA. The priority also explicitly 
notes the need for support of women, as well as the need to support 
students in rural communities, highlighting that student population in 
both subparts (d) and (h). With respect to gifted and talented 
students, we note that subpart (c) under Priority 5 focuses solely on 
addressing the needs of gifted and talented students. Regarding the 
concern that referencing one subgroup may detract from a focus on the 
needs of other subgroups, we believe that the priorities should provide 
maximum flexibility for grant applicants to address the needs of 
students in their particular contexts. Most importantly, this priority 
emphasizes the needs of underserved students.
    We do recognize the need to emphasize students with disabilities 
and students living in poverty in this priority, as these subgroups 
experience particular challenges in accessing and participating in 
rigorous computer science. These student subgroups contribute to 
America's economic growth and prosperity and must be afforded the same 
opportunities to learn about and engage in STEM and computer science in 
the course of their education. Therefore, we have added to subpart (d) 
an explicit mention of students with disabilities and low-income 
students.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (d) of Priority 6 to explicitly 
include students with disabilities and low-income students in the list 
of underrepresented students.
    Comment: Some commenters requested that we revise subpart (d) to 
explicitly include early learning, asserting that foundational learning 
in STEM and computer science, as with all subjects, begins in the early 
grades. Additional commenters emphasized the importance of early years 
to a child's long-term success, and, thus, recommended that the 
priorities incorporate a significant focus on early learning. These 
commenters suggested we include in subpart (a) professional development 
for educators on developmentally appropriate STEM and computer science 
content, and another commenter recommended that we revise subpart (a) 
to include supporting educators beginning with early childhood 
educators.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations that the 
priority emphasize early learning in this priority and across all 
priorities. We agree that learning in STEM and computer science begins 
in the early grades and there is a need for educators to engage 
students in early grades in these content areas. However, nothing in 
the priorities precludes grant applicants from focusing on children in 
early learning settings and thus we decline to revise the text to 
include explicit mention of early learning settings. In fact, use of 
``students'' and ``education'' throughout the priorities is meant to be 
inclusive of all students and settings, and the previously discussed 
addition of ``children or students'' in several priorities is meant to 
further clarify this inclusiveness. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, 
the priority could be used in competitions that focus on early 
learning. Furthermore, we would expect grant applicants to propose age-
appropriate interventions or activities for whatever age(s) they are 
targeting. We also reflect our interest in, and the importance of, 
early childhood education in Priority 9(d).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters requested revisions to the priority to 
further emphasize computer science throughout the priority, asserting 
that adding computer science to STEM in several subparts of the 
priority will result in a lack of focus on computer science in 
competitive grant awards in favor of science and math. These commenters 
further noted that the wording of several subparts within the priority 
do not mirror the language of the title of the priority which calls for 
``a particular focus on computer science'' and, thus, lessens the 
emphasis on computer science. To address these concerns, these 
commenters requested that the priority consistently state ``STEM with a 
priority on computer science'' or ``STEM with a particular focus on 
computer science.'' These commenters further suggested that a way to 
emphasize computer science would be to add subpart (d) as an absolute 
or competitive priority in all competitive grant programs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' desire to emphasize 
computer science and agree that the priorities should do so. However, 
we believe that by including computer science as the sole focus of 
subpart (d), the Department is clearly signaling the importance of 
ensuring that all students have access to and can participate in 
rigorous computer science coursework. In addition to subpart (d), grant 
applicants may propose to focus solely on computer science in 
responding to the other subparts within this priority. However, to 
ensure maximum flexibility for grant applicants to focus on student 
needs specific to their unique contexts, we decline to require that 
they include computer science in their applications.
    With respect to adding subpart (d) as an absolute or competitive 
preference

[[Page 9118]]

priority across all discretionary grant programs, the Department has 
discretion in choosing whether and how to use these priorities based on 
their applicability to a given grant competition. Priorities are used 
in grant competitions to guide applicants to propose projects that 
respond to a specific need, such as expanding access to and 
participation in rigorous computer science coursework.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department highlight 
the importance of family involvement in Priority 6, suggesting that it 
could be incorporated into subpart (f).
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments and believe in the 
importance of family involvement in students' education. Thus, while we 
decline to modify subpart (f), we believe that it would not preclude 
family involvement as a component of a grant application responding to 
subpart (f).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that we place a greater 
emphasis on STEM and computer science professional development for 
educators generally and by, for example, revising subpart (f) to 
include partnerships that provide teachers with access to high-quality 
professional development in STEM and computer science teaching; 
incorporating grade-appropriate engineering design challenges and 
computational thinking into professional development; providing support 
in teaching skills for STEM postsecondary faculty; adding appropriate 
and evidence-based practices to support pre-service teachers in 
accessing effective STEM teaching; explicitly adding modeling as an 
approach to professional development; and making reference to cross-
content training to support staff who may transition from, for example, 
teaching math to teaching computer science. Several commenters also 
emphasized the importance of preparing STEM and computer science 
educators to teach students with disabilities, asserting that students 
with disabilities are significantly less likely to have access to high-
quality STEM and computer science courses and support to thrive in 
these courses. One commenter stated that there should also be an 
emphasis on increasing the number of educators who are knowledgeable 
about serving English learners.
    Discussion: We appreciate these comments related to professional 
development, and also believe professional development is critical to 
helping ensure the educator workforce is prepared to deliver high-
quality STEM and computer science coursework to all students across the 
pre-kindergarten through postsecondary education spectrum, including 
students with disabilities and English learners. However, we believe 
that the priority sufficiently highlights the critical nature of 
professional development and addresses the content of the requested 
revisions. Specifically, regarding partnerships that may enhance 
professional development for teachers on STEM and computer science, 
subpart (a) would not preclude partnerships between, for example, 
institutions of higher education and schools or LEAs to support high-
quality, evidence-based professional development. Additionally, such 
partnerships would not be precluded under subpart (f) of Priority 8, 
which explicitly addresses professional development for teachers of 
STEM and computer science.
    Further, Priority 6 accommodates professional development for 
teachers of students of all ages and allows for grant applicants to 
focus on particular content areas within STEM and computer science. 
With respect to evidence-based practices, subpart (a) includes explicit 
reference to evidence-based practices, and the Department can further 
add evidence priorities consistent with EDGAR if we determine that they 
are appropriate. While we appreciate the strategy of modeling in the 
context of professional development, we decline to specify any single 
approach to professional development and rather prefer to allow grant 
applicants the discretion to determine which approach they believe will 
help ensure effective professional development.
    Regarding professional development for educators that specifically 
targets the needs of students with disabilities or English learners, we 
agree that teachers must have the skill set necessary to support the 
learning needs of all students. Subpart (a) of Priority 6 would not 
preclude grant applicants from proposing to focus specifically on 
professional development to build educator capacity to address the 
needs of students with disabilities or English learners. Finally, 
subpart (a) specifically addresses the needs of teachers that may 
transition from other fields to STEM and computer science.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters provided suggestions related to subpart 
(i), which addresses the use of technology to provide access to 
educational choice. Specifically, some commenters recommended moving 
subpart (i) of Priority 6 to Priority 1 given the reference to choice, 
while others recommended deleting subpart (i) altogether in opposition 
to using the priorities to promote school choice.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions but disagree 
with either moving or deleting subpart (i). The focus of the subpart is 
to broaden access to STEM and computer science coursework and resources 
through the use of technology (e.g., distance or online learning) to 
students who may not otherwise have access to such coursework and 
resources. According to the National Center for Women and Informational 
Technology,\19\ less than one-quarter of students nationwide have 
access to rigorous computer science courses. Thus, technology can help 
ensure that all students and families who choose to pursue learning in 
STEM and computer science can do so, regardless of their enrollment in 
schools or districts that may not have such opportunities on-site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/12/prweb10219767.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters opposed the inclusion of computer science 
in Priority 6. One commenter asserted that adding computer science will 
diminish the focus on math; others similarly contended that focusing on 
computer science will result in the exclusion of various equally 
important high-demand fields of study, such as chemistry, physics, and 
environmental science, and that the Department should not favor certain 
subjects over others.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns but believe that 
the priorities overall, and Priority 6 in particular, allow flexibility 
for grant applicants to focus on areas of needs identified in their own 
contexts. With regard to Priority 6, grant applicants have the 
discretion to focus solely on any STEM and computer science content 
area or areas working in concert with each other. As noted earlier, the 
availability of jobs that require STEM and computer science skills 
continues to grow and provides an opportunity for all students to 
meaningfully contribute to America's domestic security and global 
competitiveness. Emphasizing STEM and computer science can open doors 
for students across the educational spectrum from pre-kindergarten 
through postsecondary education. Students can pursue traditional or 
alternate pathways to an education that will equip them with the skills 
and abilities to be successful in a wide range of STEM and computer 
science jobs.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 9119]]

    Comment: Multiple commenters requested that we clarify the 
relationship between this priority and the Presidential Memorandum 
directing the Secretary of Education to establish a goal of devoting at 
least 200 million dollars in grant funds to promote STEM education 
including computer science, as published in the Federal Register on 
September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45417). These commenters recommended that we 
reference this memorandum in the priority and clearly state that a 
minimum of 200 million dollars will be committed to STEM and computer 
science and that the Secretary will publically report progress toward 
that goal.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for this 
presidential memorandum and the focus of Priority 6. We decline to 
specifically reference it in Priority 6 because doing so would have no 
practical effect; however, we appreciate the commenters' request to 
note the applicability of the memorandum to Priority 6.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended revisions to the definition 
of ``computer science'' included in the priorities. Several commenters 
recommended that the definition mirror the definition from the K-12 
Computer Science Framework and the Computer Science Teachers 
Association, which defines computer science as ``the study of computers 
and algorithmic processes, including their principles, their hardware 
and software designs, their implementation, and their impact on 
society.'' One commenter stated that the definition of ``computer 
science'' does not fully encompass the evolving field of computer 
science and should include, for example, the relationship between 
computing and mathematics, artificial intelligence, and applications of 
computing across a broad range of disciplines and problems. Other 
commenters variously contended that: Students need to understand 
computation and computational thinking within disciplinary problem-
solving; the definition should be inclusive of emerging fields, such as 
mechatronics and robotics; and that networking and network 
administration should also be included in the definition.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions regarding the 
definition of ``computer science.'' However, we believe that the 
definition encompasses the concepts that commenters requested be 
included and does not preclude emphasis on any of the concepts within 
the field of computer science articulated in the comments, including by 
the Computer Science Teachers Association.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department support 
and enhance the State role in computer science education. The 
commenters recommended that the Department consider the leadership role 
that State agencies and governors may play to advance the goals of STEM 
and computer science education. Three commenters specifically 
recommended that programs or priorities recognize the State role 
through fiduciary responsibilities and competitive sub-granting 
authorities, and also that the priority recognize that a focus on 
collaboration with States, LEAs, and local or national organizations 
would create additional momentum for State planning in this area and 
maximize participation for all school districts.
    Discussion: We appreciate and agree with the commenters regarding 
the roles and responsibilities that State agencies and governors play 
to advance the goals of STEM and computer science education. Leaders in 
States, districts, and schools must have the opportunity to do things 
differently to meet the needs of their students. To this end, we 
emphasize in these priorities eliminating unnecessary burdens placed on 
grantees, particularly in Priority 2(c) that seeks to reduce compliance 
burden within grantee's operations.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters believed this priority would be important 
at the community college level. Community colleges play a critical role 
in American higher education and provide fast-track training in 
response to high-demand occupations. In addition, community colleges 
can provide assistance to secondary schools by expanding access through 
dual credit programs at an affordable cost. The commenters requested 
subpart (f) of Priority 6, and applicable definitions, specifically 
highlight community colleges and their value to society more directly.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support from these commenters 
regarding the invaluable role that community colleges play in the 
Nation's higher education infrastructure. Nothing in the priorities 
precludes community colleges from being included in grant competitions 
to which these priorities may be attached.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended the inclusion of STEM in the 
following Department grant programs: Education Innovation and Research; 
Charter Schools Program; Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program, 
Supporting Effective Educator Development; Promise Neighborhoods; and 
Teacher Quality Partnership Program.
    Discussion: While we acknowledge and agree in part with the 
commenters' recommendation regarding the inclusion of STEM in other 
Department grant programs, we do not agree with listing specific grant 
programs in a manner that might limit use of the priority. This 
priority may be used in a variety of discretionary grant programs as 
applicable.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that soft skills that are 
necessary for workforce success and a well-rounded curriculum that 
includes courses in English and composition be included in the language 
for the priority, in addition to other subjects and skills.
    Discussion: The Department believes that so-called soft skills are 
addressed in subpart (b). As written, this subpart permits flexibility 
for educators to determine the types of building block skills and soft 
skills they deem appropriate for their learning communities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify and 
highlight the role of innovative STEM education providers, such as 
science centers.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the role that education providers such 
as science centers play in providing programming and training in STEM 
education, as well as providing a space for learners to develop their 
interest and knowledge in STEM. We believe that these providers are 
already included within the priority; specifically, subpart (f) 
includes local businesses and not-for-profit organizations, and subpart 
(j) includes other partners as entities that may facilitate access to 
services.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended amending all priority 
language that suggested that evidence-based activities, strategies, and 
interventions were an option within the priority. The commenters 
recommended that any discretionary grant program funded by the 
Department must include evidence-based approaches.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendation and note 
that we have placed an increasing emphasis on promoting evidence-based 
practices through our grant competitions. We believe that encouraging 
applicants to focus on proven strategies can only enhance the

[[Page 9120]]

quality of our competitions. However, the Department wants to maintain 
discretion regarding evidence-based practices when applicable and can 
attach evidence requirements to grant competitions as appropriate.
    Changes: None.

Priority 7--Promoting Literacy

    Comment: One commenter requested a separate priority focusing on 
information literacy. Another commenter asked that ``information 
literacy'' be highlighted in the priorities.
    Discussion: We agree that information literacy is important. 
However, we decline to write a priority that focuses solely on 
information literacy, or include specific references to information 
literacy within the priority. However, there is nothing in the priority 
that would prevent applicants from proposing projects focusing on 
information literacy, if appropriate for the specific competition. 
Furthermore, we note that projects under Priority 7, or other 
priorities such as Priority 4(a), may result in students achieving the 
commenters' desired objectives.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed strong support for aligning 
content areas, and integration of literacy instruction into those 
content areas. Specifically, some commenters expressed their support 
for integrating literacy instruction with social studies, math, and 
science as part of this priority. Some commenters also expressed their 
support for beginning this integration in elementary grades to build a 
strong early foundation for literacy, and continuing it into secondary 
education.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for aligning 
content areas and integrating literacy instruction into these content 
areas. It is important to note that the Department may use Priority 7 
to support these kinds of efforts, and subpart (d) specifically 
encourages the integration of literacy instruction into content-area 
teaching. Additionally, the Department agrees that a focus on literacy 
is important in early childhood and elementary grades to build a strong 
foundation for learning and should be continued into secondary 
education, as students must rely on these literacy skills to read texts 
across a variety of subjects, such as math, science, and social 
studies. As such, the Department did not place a particular emphasis on 
literacy in elementary relative to secondary education, or vice versa.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed support for Priority 7. Some of 
these commenters also requested additions to the priority. 
Specifically, commenters requested the addition of: Literacy support 
for incarcerated youth; theater education as a way to promote literacy; 
a component for building vocabulary; and family literacy.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 7--
Promoting Literacy. We believe literacy is a foundation for learning 
and is essential to students' ability to progress in school, pursue 
higher education, and succeed in the workplace. In regard to 
incarcerated youth, we believe this population is certainly in need of 
special assistance and support, and, in fact, this group is included in 
the Department's definition of ``children or students with high 
needs.'' With regard to a literacy approach using theater education and 
family literacy, and to the request that the priority reference 
building vocabulary, the Department would note that while these 
specific approaches or areas of focus may not have been mentioned in 
the context of this priority, nothing in the priorities precludes 
support for them.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the specific 
literacy efforts already underway in States and communities across this 
country.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for existing 
literacy efforts. The Department does not endorse specific approaches, 
products, or services. Moreover, these priorities do not authorize or 
fund specific programs, and we do not include specific programs in the 
text of the priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for family engagement 
as part of Priority 7. One commenter, while supportive of family 
engagement, suggested we add other ways families could be engaged and 
supported at the school, district, State, and national level.
    Discussion: We agree that family engagement is an important part of 
Priority 7. Families play a critical role in supporting children's 
literacy. When families and schools work together and support each 
other in their respective roles, children have a more positive attitude 
toward school and experience more school success. Specifically, 
research has found that having parents reinforce specific literacy 
skills is effective in improving children's literacy.\20\ We believe 
that this priority, especially subpart (b), addresses the role that 
families play in literacy and so we decline to make further changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Patall, E.A., Cooper, H., and Robinson, J.C. (2008). Parent 
involvement in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational 
Research, 78, 1039-1101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended broadening this priority to 
include adult literacy. One commenter recommended including ABE and 
developmental or remedial studies provided by community colleges. 
Another commenter was particularly concerned with young parents who may 
still be in school and may have their child in early childhood 
education. A third commenter recommended adding data on the lack of 
secondary and postsecondary educational attainment to the background 
and a reference to the Integrated Education and Training model. And 
another commenter recommended emphasizing the important role that 
community colleges play in delivering ABE programs.
    Discussion: It is important to note that the Department may use 
Priority 7 to encourage these types of efforts, including the role of 
community colleges in supporting adult learners, and subpart (e) 
addresses adult literacy directly. We appreciate the feedback we 
received on the background section included in the NPP, which explains 
our rationale for this priority. We do not include background sections 
for priorities in the NFP, nor are the background sections considered 
part of the final priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes 
in response to recommendations on the background sections.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters offered support for an emphasis on 
early learning. Several commenters suggested adding an additional 
subpart to Priority 7 for early reading and learning programs. A few 
commenters recommended replacing the term ``education'' with ``early 
learning and education'' throughout Priority 7.
    Discussion: While early childhood education is not specifically 
mentioned in Priority 7, the Department may use Priority 7 to encourage 
these types of efforts. We believe that the term ``education'' is 
inclusive of early learning and that priorities using the term 
``education'' may be used in programs serving an early childhood 
population, as appropriate. We have addressed the inclusion of this 
population by revising the term ``students'' to ``children or 
students'' when it aligns with the intent of the priority and its 
subparts.

[[Page 9121]]

    Changes: We revised subpart (c) to include the phrase ``children or 
students.''
    Comment: Several commenters provided feedback about specific 
approaches, curricula, or frameworks to improve literacy instruction. 
Commenters gave feedback supporting approaches and models such as: 
Environmental and sustainability programs, quality out-of-school-time 
(OST) programs, evidence-based strategies, UDL, and holistic 
educational approaches.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' commitment to literacy 
and various approaches to promoting it. While we support programs that 
help educators deliver effective literacy instruction, we prefer to 
allow maximum flexibility for applicants to choose the programs for 
literacy intervention that best match their needs and contexts and meet 
other program requirements, and we decline to endorse specific 
approaches.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended making edits to the 
background section. Specifically, one commenter recommended adding 
information on 21st-century skills to the background section. Another 
commenter recommended adding data on educational attainment for 
communities of color and Native Americans to the background section, 
while another commenter recommended adding information on educational 
attainment for immigrants.
    Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the 
background section included in the NPP, which explains our rationale 
for this priority. We do not include background sections for priorities 
in the NFP, nor are the background sections considered part of the 
final priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes in response 
to these comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters offered support for continued funding 
for programs related to literacy. A few commenters offered support for 
literacy funding focused in rural areas. One commenter expressed 
support for funding book distribution programs and research on 
pediatric early literacy programs. Another commenter recommended that 
Priority 7 place more emphasis on literacy programs for English 
learners.
    Discussion: While the priorities and definitions in this document 
may be used in future discretionary grant competitions, no funding is 
tied to these final priorities. Appropriations for Federal programs are 
made by Congress, and are outside the scope of this discussion. While 
literacy programs for English learners could be funded using Priority 
7, we decline to add an explicit reference to such programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter emphasized the difficulty of unaccompanied 
students experiencing homelessness participating fully in family 
engagement in literacy. The commenter suggested that mentoring and 
tutoring programs for unaccompanied students be added to section 7(b), 
and mentioned family engagement methods for these students.
    Discussion: While we note that the priority as written can support 
these types of activities, we appreciate the commenter's concern about 
unaccompanied students experiencing homelessness and how they can 
participate in family engagement in literacy. We agree that strategies 
for promoting literacy should be supported when occurring outside of a 
home environment, and we agree that this priority should be revised to 
make this clear.
    Changes: We have deleted the term ``at home'' from subpart (b).
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department expand this 
priority to include writing. Specifically the commenter recommended 
adding writing as a part of the discussion of literacy in the 
background section of Priority 7, adding writing to subpart (d) of the 
priority on integrating literacy instruction, and adding teaching of 
writing as part of professional development in subpart (a) of the 
priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter discussing how to integrate 
writing into Priority 7. It is important to note that the Department 
may use this priority to encourage the types of efforts described by 
the commenter. In addition, the background section will not be edited 
as it is not part of the NFP.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern with using third grade as 
a benchmark for reading proficiency and, specifically, that students 
not reading on grade level at third grade should not be retained.
    Discussion: Grade retention within primary or secondary education 
is not addressed within Priority 7 or any of the other priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended revisions to subpart (a). 
One commenter recommended emphasizing early childhood. Another 
commenter recommended focusing the priority on struggling readers. One 
commenter recommended including ``educators, teachers, principals, and 
other school leaders'' in subpart (c).
    Discussion: The ``educators'' noted in Priority 7 can include 
teachers, principals, and other school leaders and can include early 
childhood educators as well. Similarly, we believe that the priority, 
as written, encompasses the populations or approaches recommended by 
commenters, as appropriate, including struggling readers and early 
childhood education.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Commenters also recommended including the definition of 
``comprehensive literacy instruction'' of section 2221(b)(1) of the 
ESEA in the NFP. Several commenters recommended changing the 
introductory sentence of the priority to align with language in the 
ESSA referencing the definition of ``comprehensive literacy 
instruction.''
    Discussion: The current text allows for a broad interpretation of 
literacy, allowing individual discretionary grant programs and grantees 
maximum flexibility in promoting literacy. Definitions included in 
authorizing statutes for specific programs still apply.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for national nonprofit 
organizations competing for funding.
    Discussion: While the Department appreciates the commenter's 
support for the many nonprofits that serve students throughout the 
country, the NFP does not establish eligible entities for any of the 
Department's competitive grant competitions. The purpose of the NFP is 
to discuss supplemental priorities and definitions that may be used in 
future grant competitions.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters recommended adding a priority for 
numeracy to Priority 7.
    Discussion: We believe that numeracy is addressed generally by 
Priority 6.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: We believe that the priorities should provide maximum 
flexibility while accommodating the statutory requirements of 
discretionary grant programs. Certain discretionary grant programs may 
require strong evidence. To ensure that we can use Priority 7 and also 
accommodate this requirement, we revised subpart (d) to allow for 
application of the priority to grant programs that may require strong 
evidence.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (d) to specify that practices may 
be supported by either strong evidence, or strong or moderate evidence.

[[Page 9122]]

Priority 8--Promoting Effective Instruction in Classrooms and Schools

    Comment: Numerous commenters expressed general support for Priority 
8.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 8. 
The Department believes that effective classroom instruction and school 
leadership are essential for student success.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed strong support for Priority 8 
and integrating its objectives into instruction in social studies, 
civic education, and related content areas. One commenter suggested 
integrating financial literacy and economics into increased 
opportunities for high-quality preparation and professional development 
for teachers and other educators.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for incorporating 
the goals of Priority 8 into social studies and civic education. 
Priority 8 could include many of the efforts suggested by commenters 
and we decline to specifically name all possible activities. 
Furthermore, the Department has expressed its strong support for 
financial literacy, civics education, and related social studies in 
Priority 4.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Numerous commenters who work with positive behavioral 
interventions and supports (PBIS) noted that Priorities 7, 8, and 10 
are foundational for social growth of children and supported an 
alignment and integration of content areas.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' support for 
Priority 8 and aligning it with the other priorities. Priority 8 allows 
for innovative strategies to provide students with access to effective 
teachers or school leaders, and nothing in the priority precludes 
grantees from aligning the priorities with the content areas.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested adding elements of teacher support 
that contribute to building new pathways for effective educators to 
assume leadership roles, including, for example, common planning time 
and significant and sustainable compensation for teachers that serve in 
leadership roles.
    Discussion: We appreciate this commenter's suggestion and agree it 
is important to articulate clearly strategies for facilitating the 
development of effective educators into school leaders.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (a) to include language allowing 
the offer to educators of incentives, such as additional compensation 
or planning time.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: In order to ensure consistent application of the terms 
``rural local educational agencies'' and ``high-poverty schools'' 
throughout the priorities, we believe it necessary to refer to 
applicable definitions throughout the priorities.
    Changes: We have added ``as defined in this notice'' to subparts 
(c)(ii) and (c)(iii) of the priority.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that, in addition to attracting 
effective educators, discretionary grant program applicants should be 
able to focus on retaining effective educators. Another commenter 
suggested adding ``or preparing'' to subpart (e) (now subpart (f)) to 
signal that prospective teachers may have already been recruited to the 
teaching profession and now need to be adequately prepared.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestion, and agree 
that retaining effective educators is a worthy endeavor to ensure all 
students have access to effective educators.
    Changes: We have added the phrases ``or retain'' and ``or 
preparing'' to subparts (e) and (f), respectively.
    Comment: Numerous commenters supported the priority as a means to 
focus on both providing a good training foundation for teachers, and 
the importance of sustained professional development to encourage 
teacher effectiveness. One commenter suggested adding the word 
``training'' to subpart (e), as training and professional development 
are important for retaining qualified individuals who are recruited as 
teachers and school leaders. A few commenters supported the recruitment 
of a diverse body of teachers as part of this priority. One commenter 
encouraged the inclusion of adult education in discretionary grants, 
noting that professional development and leadership focused on adult 
education are critical for the effectiveness of the adult education 
teaching workforce.
    Discussion: The priority seeks to support grant programs that help 
teachers and school leaders acquire the tools they need to play a 
crucial role in supporting high-need schools and to design a culture of 
success for all children. Subparts (c) and (f) mention the use of 
innovative strategies, high-quality preparation, and professional 
development for teachers and educators, and the Department considers 
teacher training to be addressed by professional development. We also 
agree that in the recruitment of teachers, principals, and other school 
leaders mentioned in subpart (e), it is important that these 
individuals reflect the growing diversity of the student population. We 
appreciate the mention of adult education, an important role of the 
Department, and note that these activities would not be excluded under 
this priority and that the Department currently administers 
discretionary grant programs that support educator professional 
development and CTE. The Department expresses its commitment to this 
diversity among educators under subpart (b) of this priority, which 
supports the recruitment of effective educators who increase diversity.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the 
implementation of subpart (d) of this priority. One commenter opposed 
the use of merit-based pay in developing or implementing innovative 
staffing or compensation models to attract educators. Another commenter 
opposed this subpart because, in the opinion of the commenter, the 
concept of effectiveness has been used to punish teachers at the State 
level. With regard to teacher compensation, some commenters also 
encouraged fair pay or salary supplements for teachers in comparison to 
other school district employees. A few commenters requested that the 
subpart recognize the perspective and representation of teachers, 
school leaders, and organizations that represent them.
    Discussion: We appreciate this feedback on developing innovative 
staffing or compensation models. However, we would note that this 
priority does not provide a prescriptive approach to this objective, 
and in fact encourages innovative solutions to attract effective 
educators. While we do not define effectiveness under these priorities, 
we firmly believe that both research and experience support the strong 
link between teacher effectiveness and student academic 
performance.\21\ We encourage State and local entities to identify 
effective teachers as it relates to their specific student population 
and to engage educators in decision-making processes, but decline to 
include such requirements in the priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Teachers Matter: Understanding Teachers' Impact on Student 
Achievement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2012. https://www.rand.org/pubs/corporate_pubs/CP693z1-2012-09.html; Rivkin, S.G., 
Hanushek, E.A., and Kain, T.A. ``Teachers, Schools, and Academic 
Achievement.'' Econometrica 73, no. 2 (2005): 417-58; Nye, B., 
Konstantopoulos, S., and Hedges, L.V. ``How Large are Teacher 
Effects?'' Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26, no. 3 
(2004):237-257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters provided feedback about specific

[[Page 9123]]

approaches, curricula, or frameworks to promote effective instruction. 
Commenters gave feedback supporting programs and models such as: Common 
planning time, specific literacy programs, train-the-trainer model, 
interprofessional education and interprofessional practice, cultural 
competency training, data training, customized support, environmental 
and sustainability programs, whole learner training, using evidence-
based strategies, involving community partners, strengthening content 
knowledge, improving pedagogical techniques or strategies, and using 
science centers.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' commitment to supporting 
effective instruction and providing educators with high-quality 
professional development. While the Department supports programs that 
help retain educators and support them in reaching their full 
potential, we do not endorse any specific program or approach for 
professional development. In addition, we seek to maintain maximum 
flexibility for our programs and grantees and decline to add the 
specific strategies offered by commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters noted the importance of special 
education providers and specialized instructional support personnel, 
and expressed concern that they were not specifically mentioned in the 
priority. Examples of such staff include, but are not limited to: 
Social workers, psychologists, and counselors; school nurses; 
occupational and physical therapists; speech language pathologists; 
extended-day support staff; audiologists; and creative arts therapists. 
Two commenters asked that we clarify if the term ``educator'' includes 
general and special education teachers, specialized instructional 
support personnel, and school leaders. Additionally, a number of 
commenters noted that general educators should be equipped and receive 
professional development to work effectively with students with 
disabilities in inclusive classroom settings.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the numerous 
types of personnel who serve our Nation's students, in particular those 
who work with students with disabilities. The Department considers the 
term ``educator'' to encompass educational support staff as well as 
teachers, and this includes special educators. We do note, however, 
that school leaders are addressed separately in these priorities. 
Additionally, nothing in the priority would preclude a grantee from 
targeting services to any or all of the personnel mentioned in these 
comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted that grants for innovative instruction 
and learning methods should be available to educators in nonpublic 
schools. Conversely, another commenter supported restricting subpart 
(c) to public schools.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters for this feedback and note 
that these priorities apply to the Department's discretionary grant 
programs, and the eligible recipients of those grants are generally set 
out by Congress and outlined in statute. We decline to impose further 
restrictions on eligibility by restricting the use of any part of this 
priority to a certain type of school. As such, eligible recipients of 
grants and related services are based on the eligibility requirements 
of the given program and its statute, and are not set forth in these 
priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested developing a subpart under this 
priority that would focus on directing resources for high-quality 
instruction toward rural LEAs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for rural LEAs, 
and would direct the commenter to subpart (c)(ii), as well as the new 
subpart (d)(ii) (discussed below), which encourage projects to promote 
strategies to provide schools located in communities served by rural 
LEAs with access to effective educators and school leaders.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about attracting, 
retaining, training, and providing professional development for 
teachers in a variety of areas. Commenters would like to see greater 
emphasis on educator preparation programs at colleges and universities, 
and ongoing professional development in teacher leader skills 
development; increased personalization of professional development for 
educators; and special attention to preparing educators who are able to 
teach in early college or dual certification high-school/college 
programs. Additionally, a number of commenters suggested one-year pre-
service residencies, alternative prep programs and added paths for 
paraprofessionals to become educators.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' commitment to supporting 
effective instruction and providing educators with high-quality 
professional development and their concerns on this topic. We feel that 
the particular concerns of these commenters are covered, broadly, by 
subpart (c) of this priority, as strategies for increasing student 
access to effective teachers. Additionally, nothing in the priority 
would preclude a grantee from utilizing any or all of the training and 
professional development approaches mentioned by the commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters requested that we separate Priority 8 
into two priorities; specifically, one that focuses on teacher quality 
and another that focuses on principals and school leadership quality. 
Another commenter suggested that professional development focus on the 
career continuum for educators.
    Discussion: We appreciate commenters' suggestion that we divide 
this priority into two priorities; however, we believe that splitting 
the language into two subparts would better address the necessary focus 
on both groups while also recognizing that different strategies may be 
necessary to support teachers than principals and other school leaders. 
Nothing in this priority precludes the professional development from 
focusing on continuums for educators.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (c) and added a new subpart (d). 
Subpart (c) is now focused on ``effective educators,'' with the term 
``educators'' being inclusive of teachers as well as other school 
personnel. The new subpart (d) focuses on ``effective principals or 
other school leaders.'' Additionally, we revised subparts (c)(i) and 
(d)(i) to clarify that each subpart should focus on schools served by 
the project funded using either of these subparts, rather than schools 
generally.
    Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for preparation 
involving teachers of all content areas, including those coming from 
other career pathways, specialized instructional support personnel, and 
related service providers.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for preparation 
of all educators. Subpart (c) allows for flexibility in promoting 
innovative strategies to increase students' access to effective 
teachers and school leaders. Additionally, nothing in the priority 
would preclude a grantee from providing teacher preparation programming 
consistent with what is mentioned by the commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters promoted the importance of building 
relationships with students and families as a means to improve student 
outcomes. One commenter suggested adding an additional priority to 
focus on

[[Page 9124]]

increased professional development to engage families in their child's 
education.
    Discussion: We agree that strong connections between schools, 
families, and communities are important for creating a culture of 
academic success. We address the importance of these connections under 
Priority 9, subparts (b) and (e), which support effective family 
engagement in their students' education, and partnerships with 
community-based organizations, respectively.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters requested the term ``computer science'' 
be added to the STEM subjects listed in Priority 8(f) [now subpart 
(g)].
    Discussion: After review, computer science will be incorporated 
into what is now subpart (g) to be consistent with language in Priority 
6.
    Changes: We have added computer science to the list of subjects in 
final subpart (g).
    Comment: One commenter requested the addition of language for an 
additional population under Priority 8, subpart (c), to include schools 
with high proportions of students identified as experiencing 
homelessness. Another commenter requested that the needs of English 
learners be addressed throughout Priority 8.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters support for both of these 
student populations. It is important to note that nothing in the 
priority would preclude an applicant from focusing its project's 
services on either group. In addition, the inclusion of high-poverty 
schools in updated subparts (c) and (d) may often also capture schools 
with large populations of English learners or students experiencing 
homelessness.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked for clarity on how the Department will 
define ``effectiveness'' in terms of the priority.
    Discussion: The Department has decided not to define the term 
``effectiveness'' in the context of these priorities in order to allow 
grantees the flexibility necessary to implement their programs in a 
manner that is appropriate for their students and communities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that computer science be 
added to final subpart (g) to mirror Priority 6 and emphasize the 
importance of increasing the number of educators across elementary and 
secondary education who can teach computer science.
    Discussion: We appreciate these comments and agree that it is 
critical to increase the number of educators equipped to teach computer 
science. Many students, especially in rural areas, lack access to 
computer science courses, and while online programs can help these 
courses work at scale, it is essential to ensure well-prepared 
educators are able to reach students in these subject areas nationwide.
    Changes: We have added computer science to the list of subjects in 
Priority 8(g).

Priority 9--Promoting Economic Opportunity

    Comment: Multiple commenters offered their support for Priority 9 
and its emphasis on reducing academic or non-academic barriers to 
economic mobility and increasing educational opportunities. Some 
commenters discussed what this priority might mean for the level of 
resources able to support the work. Additionally, in their support for 
this priority, multiple commenters appreciated that the priority 
identified particular priority areas, such as family engagement, 
students who are homeless, and the role of partnerships in supporting 
students and families.
    Discussion: We agree with commenters on the need to more 
effectively use resources to support students (and their families) so 
that they have all of the tools that they need to be successful in the 
classroom and beyond, including by providing support related to both 
academic and non-academic factors. This priority includes a subpart on 
family engagement, which is inclusive of military families, and this 
subpart is one of many ways in which the Supplemental Priorities can be 
used to positively impact family engagement, including family literacy. 
We also agree that it is important to focus on students whose 
environments and other challenges make it more difficult for them to 
complete an educational program. Lastly, we support community-based 
organizations that can create strong partnerships with schools, LEAs, 
or States to provide supports and services to students and families.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters, beyond indicating their support for 
the inclusion of subpart (d) focused on kindergarten preparedness, 
referenced the need for a stronger emphasis on early childhood 
education. Commenters recommended amending the language of the subpart 
to include specific reference to quality early childhood education, 
particularly quality preschool.
    Discussion: We appreciate the strong support of commenters for 
subpart (d) on kindergarten preparedness. The goal of this subpart is 
to promote kindergarten readiness, which can be achieved in multiple 
ways, including by supporting families and communities to access 
quality early childhood education. Thus, we have revised this subpart 
to allow for maximum flexibility in helping ensure children enter 
kindergarten ready to succeed in school and in life.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (d) by deleting, ``to help more 
children obtain requisite knowledge and skills to be prepared 
developmentally.''
    Comment: Multiple commenters proposed a greater focus on non-
academic factors, like social-emotional skills, mental health, and 
cultural factors. Others suggested ways students could benefit through 
exposure to the arts.
    Discussion: We agree that non-academic factors contribute to 
academic success, and this priority would allow State and local 
education leaders to more effectively use their resources to support 
success in classrooms and beyond. Furthermore, we believe that Priority 
4 specifically focuses on a number these non-academic factors, 
identifying the development of positive personal relationships; 
determination, perseverance, the ability to overcome obstacles; self-
esteem through perseverance and earned success; problem-solving skills; 
and self-regulation. We do not believe additional language needs to be 
included in the priority to specifically name the additional non-
academic factors proposed by the commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters referenced the importance of community 
colleges in supporting the promotion of economic opportunity, and 
wanted to ensure that references to institutions of higher education or 
postsecondary education would be inclusive of community colleges.
    Discussion: We agree that community colleges play a central role in 
supporting students and their families; we do not believe the language 
currently in Priority 9 that pertains to postsecondary education 
excludes community colleges from consideration.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A couple of commenters proposed edits or additional 
language to the background section that accompanies the proposed 
priority to emphasize different points, such as corporal punishment, 
poverty, and diversity.
    Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the 
background section included in the NPP, which

[[Page 9125]]

explains our rationale for this proposed priority. We do not include 
background sections for priorities in the NFP, nor are the background 
sections considered part of the final priorities. Therefore, we are not 
making any changes in response to these comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters recommended adding adult learners to 
the priority, emphasizing the importance on focusing on adults to 
ensure economic opportunity for all, including those adults with 
dependents.
    Discussion: While the focus of this priority is on promoting 
economic opportunity for students and families, we do not believe the 
intent of this priority is to exclude adult learners. We are revising 
the language to make clear that adult learners may be a part of the 
population served under this priority in order to promote economic 
opportunity for students and families. We have also revised the 
introductory language so that discretionary grant competitions that use 
this priority could focus solely on the root of the priority (i.e., 
projects designed to increase educational opportunities by reducing 
academic or non-academic barriers to economic mobility) or require that 
the proposed project meet both the root and one or more of the subparts 
in Priority 9 (i.e., subparts (a) through (e)). We believe this will 
allow for maximum flexibility in using these priorities to address 
child or adult populations within discretionary grant programs.
    Changes: We have revised the introduction to the priority by 
removing the term ``for children.'' We have also revised the 
introductory language to be clear that projects may (or may not) be 
required to address one or more of subparts (a) through (e). In 
addition, we have revised subpart (a) by replacing the phrase ``parents 
and children'' with the term ``individuals.''
    Comment: A couple of commenters emphasized the importance of STEM 
education and suggested that STEM can support the stated goal of 
Priority 9 to promote economic opportunity.
    Discussion: We agree that STEM education is important and that our 
Nation's economic competitiveness depends on our ability to improve and 
expand STEM learning and engagement and have indicated this focus 
through Priority 6. As such, we do not believe an additional reference 
to STEM is needed within Priority 9.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that partnerships with community-
based organizations constitute a viable and strong approach to 
supporting students and families, and requested that we emphasize 
community-based partnerships and community-based organizations within 
the priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree with the importance 
of community-based organizations in supporting students and families.
    Changes: We have edited subpart (e) to allow for maximum 
flexibility in the types of partnerships with community-based 
organizations that could be addressed under this subpart.
    Comment: One commenter proposed that we add a subpart to the 
priority focused on equity in school funding.
    Discussion: We believe that this priority is meant to provide 
flexibility to State and local education leaders to determine how to 
best use all resources to support students and their families. As such, 
we do not believe an additional subpart is necessary regarding the 
allocation and use of funds at the State and local levels.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters proposed edits to subpart (c) of the 
priority, with the proposed edits focused on specific populations such 
as students with disabilities, as well as ensuring rigor in the 
pathways to a regular high school diploma or recognized postsecondary 
credentials.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important to recognize that some 
students face challenges that make it more difficult for them to 
complete an educational program. We appreciate the commenters' emphasis 
on the quality of the alternative paths and ensuring that there are 
multiple paths to a regular high school diploma or postsecondary 
credentials, especially for students with disabilities. However, we do 
not believe that revisions to the priority are necessary to allow for 
particular ways to offer economic opportunity because the existing 
language offers the flexibility to State and local education leaders to 
determine the appropriate paths for the students and families they 
serve and how to best ensure that student needs are protected. 
Moreover, the language of subpart (c) references to the defined term of 
``regular high school diploma,'' as defined in section 8101(43) of the 
ESEA, requiring compliance with this defined term.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter raised concerns that this priority could be 
used to require a particular curriculum.
    Discussion: This priority, along with the other priorities, does 
not require nor endorse any particular curriculum, program, or 
intervention. Furthermore, under the Department of Education 
Organization Act, the Secretary is not authorized to exercise any 
direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, or program of 
instruction at any school or institution of higher education (see 20 
U.S.C. 3403).
    Changes: None.

Priority 10--Encouraging Freedom of Speech and Civil Interactions in a 
Safe Educational Environment

    Comment: Many commenters expressed general support for Priority 10. 
Some of these commenters also requested additions to the priority, 
while supporting it generally. Specifically, several commenters 
suggested adding language to support the connection between civics 
education, social studies, and positive and safe educational 
environments.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 10. 
With regard to civics education and social studies, the Department 
agrees that these content areas are important and may have positive 
impacts on students and school environments. We note that the 
Department gives significant attention to civics and related social 
studies in Priority 4. Accordingly, we do not think such a change to 
Priority 10 is necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for Priority 10 but 
called for greater alignment and integration of Priority 10 with the 
other priorities.
    Discussion: We agree that activities to promote improved school 
climate and safer and more respectful interactions in a positive and 
safe educational environment can be enhanced by alignment and 
integration with activities addressed in other of the Secretary's 
priorities. These priorities give States and LEAs, as well as 
individual schools, the flexibility to tailor and implement programs 
and policies that best reflect their needs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters recommended changes to Priority 10. 
For example, commenters requested a greater emphasis on the following: 
Certain approaches to implementing school disciplinary policies; early 
learning; using evidence and strategically measuring outcomes; bullying 
prevention; preventing discrimination against students of all genders; 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students; students with 
disabilities; students of color; inclusive school environments; 
prevention of cyberbullying; usage of school-based health and wellness 
programs and PBIS; prevention of expulsions and suspensions; and the 
promotion of teacher safety. One

[[Page 9126]]

commenter suggested addressing not only victims of bullying, violence, 
and disruptive behaviors, but those students engaged as well.
    Additionally, a few commenters requested elaboration on the meaning 
of some terms associated with Priority 10. Specifically, some 
commenters requested that the Department articulate the systemic and 
societal aspects of bullying and one commenter expressed concern that 
not clarifying ``effective strategies'' could lead to disparities in 
discipline practices and loss of social-emotional supports for students 
with high needs. A few commenters suggested adding additional 
statistics, the role of educators, and usage of disciplinary measures 
to the background section.
    Discussion: We recognize that school leaders, teachers, and 
professors must ensure that schools and institutions of higher 
education are safe for students to learn. As a way to ensure such an 
environment, all of the strategies listed above could be proposed by 
grant applicants. In order to provide maximum flexibility for 
applicants to identify strategies that address their contexts and needs 
and ensure a safe environment that supports learning, minimizes 
disruptions, and increases respect for differing perspectives, we 
decline to specify strategies in Priority 10. With regard to defining 
terms associated with Priority 10, the Department believes that 
discretionary grant programs should be provided with sufficient 
flexibility in adapting their efforts around this priority to the 
populations they serve, and, therefore, we are not proposing any 
additional definitions under this priority.
    Additionally we acknowledge the commenter's suggestion to add 
statistics as well as the role of educators and usage of disciplinary 
measures to the background section. We also understand, as commenters 
suggested, that these policies can impact different types of learners 
and different subgroups in important ways. We remind commenters that 
all grant programs carried out using these priorities must be done so 
in accordance with existing State and Federal laws. In addition, while 
many of the principles outlined above are important, we decline to 
limit the flexibility of grantees to meet local and individual needs. 
Moreover, as the background section is not part of the final 
priorities; we do not think it is necessary to make the requested 
changes.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters provided feedback about specific 
approaches, curricula, or frameworks to improve school climate and 
create more positive and safe educational environments. Commenters gave 
feedback supporting approaches and models, such as: Bullying 
prevention, school safety, PBIS, multi-tiered systems of support 
(MTSS), Title IV-A, the Be a Friend First program, service year 
programs, social-emotional learning, restorative justice and discipline 
programs, promoting inclusive and diverse school environments, family 
and parent involvement, interactive engagement, promoting inclusion, 
nonpunitive discipline methods, and supportive school disciplinary 
policies.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' commitment to the goals 
of Priority 10, and various approaches to promoting it. While we 
support programs that help advance many of these goals, we do not 
endorse any specific approach or program, and applicants are free to 
propose projects aligning with many of these goals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter opposed the Secretary's priorities, 
including Priority 10. The commenter opposed subpart (c) [now subpart 
(a)] in particular, stating the Department is manufacturing a crisis 
around free speech in educational institutions. Another commenter 
expressed support for the proposed Priority 10 area of protecting free 
speech, but requested the wording be changed to focus on ``educated'' 
free speech. Another commenter added that the Department should focus 
on institutions of higher education in its efforts to protect free 
speech, while another suggested more narrowly focusing on the open 
discussion of diverse viewpoints. One commenter also raised concerns 
around the cost of security associated with protecting free speech, and 
another recommended that the Department make clear that in promoting 
free speech, it is not supporting speech that contributes to a hostile 
or bullying environment.
    Discussion: We appreciate these contributions to the public debate 
about free speech at educational institutions. The challenges to free 
speech on college campuses are particularly acute where students 
wishing to speak freely have been prevented from doing so due to speech 
codes, which are all too common among the Nation's postsecondary 
institutions. Violence has arisen in response to peaceful speech. 
Topics such as the cost of protecting fundamental rights including free 
speech, the value of listening to diverse viewpoints, the academic 
freedom debate over which perspectives are academically reasonable 
among educated persons, the difference between promoting free speech 
and promoting the content of particular speech, the difference between 
speech and conduct, and the importance of free speech for children as 
well as adults are all topics on which applicants may choose to develop 
projects under this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested separating the issues of 
elementary and secondary school safety and college climate into two 
different priorities.
    Discussion: We believe that the priority and its subparts, as 
written, allow the necessary flexibility for grantees to address safety 
and climate in both elementary and secondary school and college 
environments. Because programs may choose a specific subpart of the 
priority to use in a competition, and therefore could focus only on 
elementary and secondary school safety or on college climate, there 
would be no practical impact in creating separate priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters provided feedback regarding various 
types of school discipline, including aversive and exclusionary 
discipline (i.e., suspension, expulsion, restraint and seclusion), 
``zero tolerance'' policies and discipline involving law enforcement. 
Some commenters provided data regarding the use of these discipline 
tactics on different student groups, particularly minorities and 
students with disabilities, and expressed concern about the 
disciplinary strategies used on young children. Multiple commenters 
recommended that the Department should instead focus on approaches or 
programs that are evidence-based and on disciplinary strategies, such 
as PBIS, MTSS, restorative practices, trauma informed care, conflict 
management, fully integrated learning supports, crisis prevention, and 
de-escalation.
    Discussion: We appreciate and share the commenters' commitment to 
improving school climate and eliminating bullying, harassment, and 
discrimination. We believe that creating positive and safe learning 
environments can only occur when the diverse needs of all students are 
considered. Although we support strategies that advance these goals, we 
do not endorse any specific approach or program. The priority also 
would not prevent applicants from proposing projects that use 
strategies such as those suggested by the commenters.
    Changes: We have revised what is now subpart (b) to specify that 
the positive and safe learning environments

[[Page 9127]]

under this priority must support the needs of all students.
    Comment: One commenter requested various wording changes to the 
title of the priority as well as a revision to the text of subpart (b) 
to clarify the intent of this priority. Specifically, the commenter 
requested that the title of the priority clearly state the intent of 
encouraging free speech and civil interactions in a safe learning 
environment and repeated this suggestion in the text of subpart (b).
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree in the importance 
of clearly articulating the intent of this priority. We have revised 
the title and final subpart (c) for clarity.
    Changes: We have focused the title of this priority on freedom of 
speech and respectful interactions in a safe educational environment. 
We also removed reference to ``enhance the learning environment'' in 
subpart (c) as it was redundant with the language at the start of this 
subpart. Finally, we reordered this priority.

Priority 11--Ensuring That Service Members, Veterans, and Their 
Families Have Access to High-Quality Educational Options

    Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for Priority 11 and 
the prioritization of supporting military- or veteran-connected 
students and adults and programs within this priority, and emphasizing 
a focus on service members, veterans, and their families throughout the 
priorities. Additionally, in their support for the priority, multiple 
commenters encouraged particular emphasis within the priority. 
Specifically, multiple commenters emphasized the role of community-
based partnerships in providing educational choices. One commenter 
encouraged considering access to high-quality educational opportunities 
and support for educators to ensure the needs of military- or veteran-
connected students are met. Another commenter emphasized the role of 
libraries in supporting military- or veteran-connected students.
    Discussion: We agree a focus on the needs of military- or veteran-
connected students is important, including access to adult education 
programs as well as other postsecondary credentials, including degrees 
and certificate opportunities. We also believe that several types of 
organizations, including community-based partnerships and libraries, 
can play integral roles in projects to ensure that service members, 
veterans, and their families have access to high-quality educational 
choices. Thus, we do not believe that additional emphasis within the 
priority is necessary. We also note that the proposed definition of 
``military- or veteran-connected student'' includes individuals in 
early learning and development programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters expressed their opposition to the 
educational choice aspect of the priority. A few commenters raised 
concerns about the Military Interstate Children's Compact and how 
educational choice, as defined in this notice, may not provide families 
with equitable opportunities. Other commenters expressed concern over 
the perception that educational choice does not align with the ESEA and 
that the priority may divert funds from public schools.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding 
educational choice as it relates to military- or veteran-connected 
students. We believe in providing families with access to quality 
educational options, noting that families should be free to choose the 
school that is right for their child. We are committed to improving 
access to high-quality preschool, elementary, and postsecondary 
educational options, offering meaningful choice to families, and 
providing families with the information and tools they need to make 
these important decisions.
    We support the Military Interstate Children's Compact and recognize 
that the compact only applies to public schools. However, this priority 
applies to the academic needs of all family members of service members 
or veterans. Recent research has shown that a solid proportion of 
military parents have had experiences outside of traditional public 
schools, with a solid proportion of military parents reporting 
experiences at charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling for 
at least one-half of the school year.\22\ It is important to note that 
the Military Interstate Children's Compact is not a Federal mandate or 
program but, rather, a voluntary State initiative. Thus, while the 
Department will continue to spotlight and support the Military 
Interstate Children's Compact, it would not be within the Department's 
jurisdiction to recommend the inclusion of private schools in the 
compact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ DiPerna, P., Burke, L.M., and Ryland, A. (2017). Surveying 
the Military Family: What America's Servicemembers, Veterans, and 
Their Spouses Think About K-12 Education and the Profession. 
Available at: www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/EdChoice%20military%20survey.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding concerns as to what this priority would mean for public 
schools, we believe that equal access and opportunity--being for 
choice--is not incompatible with supporting public schools. To avoid 
confusion expressed by some commenters that the title of this priority 
intended to limit this priority to projects addressing ``educational 
choice'', as defined in this notice, we are revising the title of the 
priority.
    Moreover, this priority will be used in programs that complement 
the program statute, rather than replacing statutory requirements under 
Federal law and must be aligned with the language of a given program, 
where applicable.
    Changes: We have revised the title of this priority to clarify that 
the title is not meant to reference the definition of ``educational 
choice'' included this NFP.
    Comment: A few commenters emphasized the use of data in conjunction 
with this priority, specifically transparency of information at the 
State and institution of higher education levels. Specifically, one 
commenter encouraged the Department to use this priority to support 
States in meeting the requirements of the ESEA to disaggregate 
performance data for military- or veteran-connected students. Another 
commenter encouraged transparency by institutions of higher education 
regarding which credits the institution will accept for military 
training and experience.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' interest in making data 
available and transparent for military- or veteran-connected students 
and agree that making data transparent is critical in equipping 
families with the information they need to make the best educational 
choices. We believe that this priority, as written, could be used to 
support projects that disaggregate performance data, as high-quality 
data are necessary for understanding and appropriately addressing the 
academic needs of military- or veteran-connected students. Regarding 
transparency in higher education, each institution of higher education 
determines if it will accept certain credits and how they will be 
applied. Accrediting bodies require accredited institutions to have a 
publicly accessible transfer of credit policy, and it is not within our 
authority to require specific transfer credit policies; however, we 
believe that making such information as transparent as possible can 
support students in making informed choices about their educational 
options.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 9128]]

    Comment: A few commenters raised concerns about the applicability 
of GI Bill benefits to this priority as well as some of the other 
priorities, especially those that provide noncredit certificates or 
part-time enrollment.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns about the 
applicability of GI Bill benefits to this priority as well as others. 
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for the 
administration of education and training programs for veterans and 
service persons, reservists, and dependents of veterans under Chapters 
30, 32, 35, and 36 of title 38, and Chapter 1606 of title 10, United 
States Code; thus, we cannot make the type of changes as requested by 
the commenters. We believe that the priority helps ensure service 
members, veterans, and their families are well-informed educational 
consumers when utilizing their GI Bill benefits.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters proposed specific edits to the priority 
language itself. These edits include recommendations to explicitly note 
educational supports, postsecondary education, workforce training, and 
implementation of the IDEA as ways to address the academic needs of 
military- or veteran-connected students.
    Discussion: We believe that the priority, as written, offers 
maximum flexibility to address the academic needs of this population, 
and would not exclude the recommendations offered by commenters when 
such strategies are aligned with the objectives of a particular 
discretionary grant program.
    Changes: None.

Definitions

    Comment: One commenter appreciated the comprehensive definition of 
``educational choice'' provided. Another commenter supported the 
definition of ``educational choice'' but noted concerns to address when 
finalizing the definition, including ensuring parents understand what 
rights under the law may be impacted by moving their child out of the 
public school system; that schools benefiting from public funds should 
maintain protections, accountability, and rights for children and 
students, including compliance with the IDEA, Section 504, ADA, and 
other civil rights laws; that funding follows the student; and that 
privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and Family Rights and Education 
Privacy Act (FERPA) are upheld. One commenter recommended that the 
Department add language to the definition of ``educational choice'' to 
recognize that educational choice means quality choices. One commenter 
suggested revising the definition of ``children or students with high 
needs'' to include chronically absent students and students with 
multiple disciplinary incidents.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support and suggestions regarding the 
definition of ``educational choice.'' We agree that the choices offered 
to children and students must be high-quality choices. We also agree 
that all schools should be transparent regarding, and accountable for, 
results. However, schools governed under different structures will do 
this differently. All schools--and any activities funded by a program 
using this definition--must still comply with all applicable Federal, 
State, and local laws. Furthermore, use of this definition does not 
change current State obligations to adhere to reporting requirements 
established under the ESEA and the IDEA related to accountability in 
accordance with Federal law and their State plans, to the extent those 
requirements apply to a school a family chooses for their child 
pursuant to a program that uses this definition of ``educational 
choice.'' We decline to make a change to the definition of ``children 
or students with high needs'' to include chronically absent students 
and students with multiple disciplinary incidents, but those students 
would not necessarily be excluded from projects using this definition.
    Changes: We have revised the term ``personalized path for 
learning'' within the definition of ``educational choice'' to read ``a 
high-quality personalized path for learning.''
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the definition of 
``educational choice'' emphasizes use of public funds for private 
education.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern, but disagree 
that the definition of ``educational choice'' indicates a preference 
for private schools. Indeed, the first option provided under the 
definition indicates a wide variety of public school options, including 
traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet 
schools, public online education providers, and other public education 
providers.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department add a 
definition for ``intermediary'' not-for-profit organizations that 
support community-based partnerships, and support their role by adding 
specific references to the defined term in priorities 2, 6, and 8.
    Discussion: We believe that the role of partnerships is highlighted 
and addressed under priorities 2, 6, and 9. Since intermediary 
organizations, as defined by the commenter, would not be precluded from 
specific subparts of these priorities as currently written, we do not 
believe it is necessary for the Department to define the term.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: In reviewing the definition of ``educational choice,'' 
we felt it was important to allow maximum flexibility for discretionary 
grant programs to include evidence.
    Changes: We have revised the term ``and'' to ``or'' in the 
reference to evidence-based approaches in the definition of 
``educational choice.''
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: In reviewing the language across the priorities, we 
felt it would be helpful to define the terms ``children or students 
with disabilities'', ``disconnected youth'' and ``English learners'' to 
clarify the meaning of the terms and to provide consistency across 
Department programs that use these definitions within the discretionary 
grant process.
    Changes: We have added ``Children or students with disabilities'', 
``Disconnected youth'', and ``English learners'' to the Final 
Definitions section of this notice.

Final Priorities

    The Secretary establishes the following priorities for use in any 
Department discretionary grant program.

Priority 1--Empowering Families and Individuals To Choose a High-
Quality Education That Meets Their Unique Needs

    Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Increasing the proportion of students with access to 
educational choice (as defined in this notice).
    (b) Increasing access to educational choice (as defined in this 
notice) for one or more of the following groups of children or 
students:
    (i) Children or students in communities served by rural local 
educational agencies (as defined in this notice).
    (ii) Children or students with disabilities (as defined in this 
notice).
    (iii) English learners (as defined in this notice).
    (iv) Students in schools identified for comprehensive or targeted 
support and improvement in accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), 
(c)(4)(D), or

[[Page 9129]]

(d)(2)(C)-(D) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
amended.
    (v) Students who are living in poverty (as defined under section 
1113(a)(5)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
amended) and are served by high-poverty schools (as defined in this 
notice), or are low-income individuals (as defined under section 312(g) 
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).
    (vi) Disconnected youth (as defined in this notice).
    (vii) Migratory children.
    (viii) Low-skilled adults.
    (ix) Students who are Indians, as defined in section 6151 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
    (x) Military- or veteran-connected students (as defined in this 
notice).
    (xi) Children or students who are academically far below grade 
level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school 
diploma, or who are at risk of not graduating with a regular high 
school diploma on time.
    (xii) Children or students who are homeless.
    (xiii) Children or students who are or have been incarcerated.
    (xiv) Children or students who are or were previously in foster 
care.
    (xv) Children in early learning settings.
    (c) Developing or increasing access to evidence-based (as defined 
in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) innovative models of educational choice (as 
defined in this notice).

Priority 2--Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education 
With an Increased Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and Providing 
Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers

    Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Implementing strategies that ensure education funds are spent 
in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, 
including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (b) Supporting innovative strategies or research that have the 
potential to lead to significant and wide-reaching improvements in the 
delivery of educational services or other significant and tangible 
educational benefits to students, educators, or other Department 
stakeholders.
    (c) Reducing compliance burden within the grantee's operations 
(including on subgrantees or other partners working to achieve grant 
objectives or being served by the grant) in a manner that decreases 
paperwork or staff time spent on administrative functions, or other 
measurable ways that help education providers to save money, benefit 
more children or students, or improve results.
    (d) Demonstrating innovative paths to improved outcomes by 
applicants that meet the requirements in 34 CFR 75.225(a)(1)(i) and 
(ii).
    (e) Strengthening development capabilities to increase private 
support for institutions.
    (f) Demonstrating matching support for proposed projects:
    (i) 10% of the total amount of the grant.
    (ii) 50% of the total amount of the grant.
    (iii) 100% of the total amount of the grant.
    (g) Partnering with one or multiple local or State entities, such 
as schools, local educational agencies or State educational agencies, 
businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or institutions of higher 
education, to help meet the goals of the project.

Priority 3--Fostering Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining 
Knowledge and Skills

    Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Improving collaboration between education providers and 
employers to ensure student learning objectives are aligned with the 
skills or knowledge required for employment in in-demand industry 
sectors or occupations (as defined in section 3(23) of the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014).
    (b) Developing or implementing pathways to recognized postsecondary 
credentials (as defined in section 3(52) of the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA)) focused on career and technical 
skills that align with in-demand industry sectors or occupations (as 
defined in section 3(23) of WIOA). Students may obtain such credentials 
through a wide variety of education providers, such as: Institutions of 
higher education eligible for Federal student financial aid programs, 
nontraditional education providers (e.g., apprenticeship programs or 
computer coding boot camps), and providers of self-guided learning.
    (c) Providing work-based learning experiences (such as internships, 
apprenticeships, and fellowships) that align with in-demand industry 
sectors or occupations (as defined in section 3(23) of the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014).
    (d) Creating or expanding innovative paths to a recognized 
postsecondary credential or obtainment of job-ready skills that align 
with in-demand industry sectors or occupation (as defined in section 
3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA)), 
such as through career pathways (as defined in section 3(7) of WIOA). 
Such credentials may be offered to students through a wide variety of 
education providers, such as providers eligible for Federal student 
financial aid programs, nontraditional education providers, and 
providers of self-guided learning.
    (e) Creating or expanding opportunities for individuals to obtain 
recognized postsecondary credentials through the demonstration of prior 
knowledge and skills, such as competency-based learning. Such 
credentials may include an industry-recognized certificate or 
certification, a certificate of completion of an apprenticeship, a 
license recognized by the State involved or Federal Government, or an 
associate or baccalaureate degree.
    (f) Creating or expanding opportunities for students to obtain 
recognized postsecondary credentials in science, technology, 
engineering, mathematics, or computer science (as defined in this 
notice).

Priority 4--Fostering Knowledge and Promoting the Development of Skills 
That Prepare Students To Be Informed, Thoughtful, and Productive 
Individuals and Citizens

    Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Fostering knowledge of the common rights and responsibilities 
of American citizenship and civic participation, such as through civics 
education consistent with section 203(12) of the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act.
    (b) Supporting projects likely to improve student academic 
performance and better prepare students for employment, responsible 
citizenship, and fulfilling lives, including by preparing children or 
students to do one or more of the following:
    (i) Develop positive personal relationships with others.
    (ii) Develop determination, perseverance, and the ability to 
overcome obstacles.
    (iii) Develop self-esteem through perseverance and earned success.
    (iv) Develop problem-solving skills.
    (v) Develop self-regulation in order to work toward long-term 
goals.

[[Page 9130]]

    (c) Supporting instruction in time management, job seeking, 
personal organization, public and interpersonal communication, or other 
practical skills needed for successful career outcomes.
    (d) Supporting instruction in personal financial literacy, 
knowledge of markets and economics, knowledge of higher education 
financing and repayment (e.g., college savings and student loans), or 
other skills aimed at building personal financial understanding and 
responsibility.

Priority 5--Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children With 
Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents

    Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Ensuring children or students with disabilities (as defined in 
this notice) are offered the opportunity to meet challenging objectives 
and receive educational programs that are both meaningful and 
appropriately ambitious in light of each child's or student's 
circumstances by improving one or more of the following:
    (i) Academic outcomes.
    (ii) Functional outcomes.
    (iii) Development of skills leading to postsecondary education, 
competitive integrated employment, or independent living.
    (iv) Social or emotional development.
    (b) Ensuring coursework, books, or other materials are accessible 
to children or students with disabilities (as defined in this notice).
    (c) Developing opportunities for students who are gifted and 
talented (as defined in section 8101(27) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended), particularly students 
with high needs (as defined in this notice) who may not be served by 
traditional gifted and talented programs, so that they can reach their 
full potential, such as by providing a greater number of gifted and 
talented students with access to challenging coursework or other 
materials.

Priority 6--Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM) 
Education, With a Particular Focus on Computer Science

    Projects designed to improve student achievement or other 
educational outcomes in one or more of the following areas: Science, 
technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in this 
notice). These projects may be required to address one or more of the 
following priority areas:
    (a) Increasing the number of educators adequately prepared to 
deliver rigorous instruction in STEM fields, including computer science 
(as defined in this notice), through recruitment, evidence-based (as 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) professional development strategies 
for current STEM educators, or evidence-based retraining strategies for 
current educators seeking to transition from other subjects to STEM 
fields.
    (b) Supporting student mastery of key prerequisites (e.g., Algebra 
I) to ensure success in all STEM fields, including computer science 
(notwithstanding the definition in this notice); exposing children or 
students to building-block skills (such as critical thinking and 
problem-solving, gained through hands-on, inquiry-based learning); or 
supporting the development of proficiency in the use of computer 
applications necessary to transition from a user of technologies, 
particularly computer technologies, to a developer of them.
    (c) Identifying and implementing instructional strategies in STEM 
fields, including computer science, that are supported by either--
    (i) Strong evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1); or
    (ii) Strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 
77.1).
    (d) Expanding access to and participation in rigorous computer 
science (as defined in this notice) coursework for traditionally 
underrepresented students such as racial or ethnic minorities, women, 
students in communities served by rural local educational agencies (as 
defined in this notice), children or students with disabilities (as 
defined in this notice), or low-income individuals (as defined under 
section 312(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).
    (e) Increasing access to STEM coursework, including computer 
science (as defined in this notice), and hands-on learning 
opportunities, such as through expanded course offerings, dual-
enrollment, high-quality online coursework, or other innovative 
delivery mechanisms.
    (f) Creating or expanding partnerships between schools, local 
educational agencies, State educational agencies, businesses, not-for-
profit organizations, or institutions of higher education to give 
students access to internships, apprenticeships, or other work-based 
learning experiences in STEM fields, including computer science (as 
defined in this notice).
    (g) Other evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) 
and innovative approaches to expanding access to high-quality STEM 
education, including computer science.
    (h) Utilizing technology for educational purposes in communities 
served by rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice) 
or other areas identified as lacking sufficient access to such tools 
and resources.
    (i) Utilizing technology to provide access to educational choice 
(as defined in this notice).
    (j) Working with schools, municipal libraries, or other partners to 
provide new and accessible methods of accessing digital learning 
resources, such as by digitizing books or expanding access to such 
resources to a greater number of children or students.
    (k) Supporting programs that lead to recognized postsecondary 
credentials (as defined in section 3(52) of the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act (WIOA)) or skills that align with the skill needs 
of industries in the State or regional economy involved for careers in 
STEM fields, including computer science.
    (l) Making coursework, books, or other materials available as open 
educational resources or taking other steps so that such materials may 
be inexpensively and widely used.

Priority 7--Promoting Literacy

    Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Promoting literacy interventions supported by strong evidence 
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), including by supporting educators with the 
knowledge, skills, professional development (as defined in section 
8101(42) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
amended), or materials necessary to promote such literacy 
interventions.
    (b) Providing families with evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 
77.1 or the ESEA) strategies for promoting literacy. This may include 
providing families with access to books or other physical or digital 
materials or content about how to support their child's reading 
development, or providing family literacy activities (as defined in 
section 203(9) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act).
    (c) Facilitating the accurate and timely use of data by educators 
to improve reading instruction and make informed decisions about how to 
help children or students build literacy skills while protecting 
student and family privacy.
    (d) Integrating literacy instruction into content-area teaching 
using practices supported by either--
    (i) Strong evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1); or

[[Page 9131]]

    (ii) Strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 
77.1).
    (e) Supporting the development of literacy skills to meet the 
employment and independent living needs of adults using practices 
supported by strong evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).

Priority 8--Promoting Effective Instruction in Classrooms and Schools

    Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Developing new career pathways for effective educators to 
assume leadership roles while maintaining instructional 
responsibilities and direct interaction with students, and offering 
these educators incentives, such as additional compensation or planning 
time.
    (b) Supporting the recruitment or retention of educators who are 
effective and increase diversity (including, but not limited to, racial 
and ethnic diversity).
    (c) Promoting innovative strategies to increase the number of 
students who have access to effective educators in one or more of the 
following:
    (i) Schools that will be served by the project.
    (ii) Schools that are located in communities served by rural local 
educational agencies (as defined in this notice); or
    (iii) High-poverty schools (as defined in this notice).
    (d) Promoting innovative strategies to increase the number of 
students who have access to effective principals or other school 
leaders in one or more of the following:
    (i) Schools that will be served by the project.
    (ii) Schools that are located in communities served by rural local 
educational agencies (as defined in this notice); or
    (iii) High-poverty schools (as defined in this notice).
    (e) Developing or implementing innovative staffing or compensation 
models to attract or retain effective educators.
    (f) Recruiting or preparing promising students and qualified 
individuals from other fields to become teachers, principals, or other 
school leaders, such as mid-career professionals from other 
occupations, former military personnel, or recent graduates of 
institutions of higher education with records of academic distinction 
who demonstrate potential to become effective teachers, principals, or 
other school leaders.
    (g) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, 
or professional development for, teachers or other educators of 
science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined 
in this notice).

Priority 9--Promoting Economic Opportunity

    Projects designed to increase educational opportunities by reducing 
academic or nonacademic barriers to economic mobility. These projects 
may be required to address one or more of the following priority areas:
    (a) Aligning Federal, State, or local funding streams to promote 
economic mobility of low-income individuals (as defined under section 
312(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).
    (b) Building greater and more effective family engagement in the 
education of their children or students.
    (c) Creating or supporting alternative paths to a regular high 
school diploma (as defined in section 8101(43) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended) or recognized 
postsecondary credentials (as defined in section 3(52) of the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act) for students whose environments outside 
of school, disengagement with a traditional curriculum, homelessness, 
or other challenges make it more difficult for them to complete an 
educational program.
    (d) Increasing the number of children who enter kindergarten ready 
to succeed in school and in life by supporting families and 
communities.
    (e) Creating or expanding partnerships with community-based 
organizations to provide supports and services to students and 
families.

Priority 10--Protecting Freedom of Speech and Encouraging Respectful 
Interactions in a Safe Educational Environment

    Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Protecting free speech in order to allow for the discussion of 
diverse ideas or viewpoints.
    (b) Creating positive and safe learning environments that support 
the needs of all students, including by providing school personnel with 
effective strategies.
    (c) Developing positive learning environments that promote strong 
relationships among students and school personnel to help prevent 
bullying, violence, and disruptive actions that diminish the 
opportunity for each student to receive a high-quality education.

Priority 11--Ensuring That Service Members, Veterans, and Their 
Families Have Access to High-Quality Educational Options

    Projects that are designed to address the academic needs of 
military- or veteran-connected students (as defined in this notice).

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, 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)).

Final Definitions

    The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any 
Department discretionary grant program that uses one or more of these 
priorities.
    Children or students with disabilities means children with 
disabilities as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA) or individuals defined as having a disability under Section 
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) (or children or 
students who are eligible under both laws).
    Children or students with high needs means children or students at 
risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance 
or support, such as children and students who are living in poverty, 
who are English learners (as defined in this notice), who are 
academically far below grade level, who have left school before 
receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not 
graduating with a regular high school diploma on time, who are 
homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, or who 
are

[[Page 9132]]

children or students with disabilities (as defined in this notice).
    Computer science means the study of computers and algorithmic 
processes and includes the study of computing principles and theories, 
computational thinking, computer hardware, software design, coding, 
analytics, and computer applications.
    Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a 
tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and 
tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of 
computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, 
securing, and using digital information.
    In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science 
emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving 
to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply 
computation in our digital world.
    Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday 
activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word 
processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers 
in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects.
    Disconnected youth means individuals between the ages of 14 and 24, 
who are both low-income and either homeless, in foster care, involved 
in the juvenile justice system, unemployed and not enrolled in an 
educational institution, or at risk of dropping out of an educational 
institution.
    Educational choice means the opportunity for a child or student (or 
a family member on their behalf) to create a high-quality personalized 
path for learning that is consistent with applicable Federal, State, 
and local laws; is in an educational setting that best meets the 
child's or student's needs; and, where possible, incorporates evidence-
based activities, strategies, or interventions. Opportunities made 
available to a student through a grant program are those that 
supplement what is provided by a child's or student's geographically 
assigned school or the institution in which he or she is currently 
enrolled and may include one or more of the options listed below:
    (1) Public educational programs or courses including those offered 
by traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet 
schools, public online education providers, or other public education 
providers.
    (2) Private or home-based educational programs or courses including 
those offered by private schools, private online providers, private 
tutoring providers, community or faith-based organizations, or other 
private education providers.
    (3) Internships, apprenticeships, or other programs offering access 
to learning in the workplace.
    (4) Part-time coursework or career preparation, offered by a public 
or private provider in person or through the internet or another form 
of distance learning, that serves as a supplement to full-time 
enrollment at an educational institution, as a stand-alone program 
leading to a credential, or as a supplement to education received in a 
homeschool setting.
    (5) Dual or concurrent enrollment programs or early college high 
schools (as defined in section 8101(15) and (17) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended), or other programs that 
enable secondary school students to begin earning credit toward a 
postsecondary degree or credential prior to high school graduation.
    (6) Access to services or programs for aspiring or current 
postsecondary students not offered by the institution in which they are 
currently enrolled to support retention and graduation.
    (7) Other educational services including credit-recovery, 
accelerated learning, or tutoring.
    English learners means individuals who are English learners as 
defined in section 8101(20) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965, as amended, or individuals who are English language 
learners as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act.
    High-poverty school means a school in which at least 50 percent of 
students are from low-income families as determined using one of the 
measures of poverty specified under section 1113(a)(5) of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. For middle 
and high schools, eligibility may be calculated on the basis of 
comparable data from feeder schools. Eligibility as a high-poverty 
school under this definition is determined on the basis of the most 
currently available data.
    Military- or veteran-connected student means one or more of the 
following:
    (a) A child participating in an early learning and development 
program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student 
enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education 
who has a parent or guardian who is a member of the uniformed services 
(as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101, in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine 
Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, or Public Health Service) or is a veteran of the 
uniformed services with an honorable discharge (as defined by 38 U.S.C. 
3311).
    (b) A student who is a member of the uniformed services, a veteran 
of the uniformed services, or the spouse of a service member or 
veteran.
    (c) A child participating in an early learning and development 
program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student 
enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education 
who has a parent or guardian who is a veteran of the uniformed services 
(as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101).
    Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency 
that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 
program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized 
under Title V, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, as amended. Eligible applicants may determine whether a 
particular district is eligible for these programs by referring to 
information on the Department's website at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.

    Notes:  This notice does not preclude us from proposing 
additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection 
criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
    This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which 
we choose to use one or more of these priorities and definitions, we 
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    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,

[[Page 9133]]

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 stated in the 
Executive order.
    This regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject 
to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the 
Department proposes for notice and comment, or otherwise promulgates, 
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and 
that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2017, any new 
incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset 
by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. 
Although this regulatory action is a significant regulatory action, the 
requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply because this 
regulatory action is a ``transfer rule'' not covered by the Executive 
order.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action 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 upon 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 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 final priorities and definitions only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits will justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the 
approach that will 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.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action will not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated 
with this regulatory action are those resulting from regulatory 
requirements and those we have determined are necessary for 
administering the Department's programs and activities.

Discussion of Costs and Benefits

    The final priorities and definitions would impose minimal costs on 
entities that would receive assistance through the Department's 
discretionary grant programs. Additionally, the benefits of this 
regulatory action outweigh any associated costs because it would result 
in the Department's discretionary grant programs encouraging the 
submission of a greater number of high-quality applications and 
supporting activities that reflect the Administration's educational 
priorities.
    Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant 
program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on 
applicants by the final priorities are limited to paperwork burden 
related to preparing an application for a discretionary grant program 
that is using one or more of the final priorities in its competition. 
Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with 
program funds, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for 
any eligible applicants, including small entities.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: For these reasons as 
well, the Secretary certifies that the final priorities and definitions 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    Intergovernmental Review: Some of the programs affected by the 
final priorities and definitions are 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 these programs.
    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 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: February 27, 2018.
Betsy DeVos,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2018-04291 Filed 2-27-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P