Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Performance Measures-Comprehensive Centers Program Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.283B, 49031-49040 [2018-21089]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49031-49040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21089]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2018-OESE-0069]


Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Performance 
Measures--Comprehensive Centers Program Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.283B

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

ACTION: Proposed priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
(Assistant Secretary), U.S. Department of Education (Department) 
proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance 
measures under the Comprehensive Centers program. The Assistant 
Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
performance measures for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2019 and 
later years. We intend to use the priorities, requirements, and 
definitions to award grants to eligible applicants seeking to provide 
capacity-building services to State educational agencies (SEAs), 
regional educational agencies (REAs), local educational agencies 
(LEAs), and schools that improve educational outcomes for all students, 
close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before October 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``How to Use Regulations.gov.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about this notice of proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and performance measures, address them to 
Kim Okahara, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 
3E204, Washington, DC 20202-6132.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to 
include in their comments only information that they wish to make 
publicly available.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Okahara, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E204, Washington, DC 20202-
6135. Telephone: (202) 453-6930. Email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance 
measures. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
performance measures, we urge you to identify clearly the specific 
section or sections of the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and performance measures that each of your comments 
addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance 
measures.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
performance measures. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and performance measures by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also 
inspect the comments in person in Room 3E204, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday 
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and performance measures. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The Comprehensive Centers program supports the 
establishment of not less than 20 Comprehensive Centers to provide 
capacity-building services to SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools that 
improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, 
and improve the quality of instruction.

    Program Authority: Section 203 of the Educational Technical 
Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).

    Background: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

[[Page 49032]]

(ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),\1\ holds 
States accountable for closing achievement gaps and ensuring that all 
children, regardless of race, ethnicity, family income, English 
language proficiency, or disability, receive a high-quality education 
and meet challenging State academic standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this document, unless otherwise indicated, 
citations to the ESEA refer to the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ETAA authorizes support for not less than 20 grants to local 
entities, or consortia of such entities, with demonstrated expertise in 
providing capacity-building services in reading, mathematics, science, 
and technology, especially to low-performing schools and districts, 
including the administration and implementation of programs authorized 
under the ESEA. Under section 203(a)(2) of the ETAA, the Department is 
required to establish at least one Center in each of the 10 geographic 
regions served by the Department's Regional Educational Laboratories 
(RELs) authorized under section 941(h) of the Educational Research, 
Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994. The proposed 
funding for Regional Centers established under the ETAA must take into 
consideration the school-age population, proportion of economically 
disadvantaged students, increased cost burdens of service delivery in 
rural areas, and number of schools identified for improvement under 
ESEA section 1111(d). Accordingly, the regions for the proposed 
Regional Centers take into account total SEAs, LEAs, REAs, SEAs, and 
LEAs eligible for the Small, Rural School Achievement Program and the 
Rural Low-Income School Program, schools, and the associated RELs.
    The Department conducted a competition in 2012 and made five-year 
awards to 15 Regional Centers and seven Content Centers. The 15 
Regional Centers provided direct technical assistance to SEAs within 
their assigned geographic region through a variety of approaches, such 
as identifying best practices and resources, providing training, and 
helping States plan strategically and engage key stakeholders. In 
addition, seven Content Centers provided specialized support in the 
following key areas: Standards and assessments implementation, great 
teachers and leaders, school turnaround, enhancing early learning 
outcomes, college- and career-readiness and success, building State 
capacity and productivity, and innovations in learning. Content Centers 
developed materials, such as guides, tools, and training modules, and 
they provided direct technical assistance to States in collaboration 
with Regional Centers.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In 2016, the Department established a National Comprehensive 
Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities pursuant 
to provisions included in the ESSA. The Center is authorized as part 
of the Comprehensive Centers program and managed by the Office of 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. See https://improvingliteracy.org/ for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 13, 2017, the Department granted waivers to extend the 
performance period of the Comprehensive Centers from October 1, 2017, 
through September 30, 2019 (82 FR 13452). The Department concluded it 
would be in the public interest to hold a competition only after all 
new statutory requirements under the reauthorized ESEA went into 
effect. Delaying the competition until after the Department and States 
began to implement the new provisions under the ESEA allowed applicants 
to familiarize themselves with the new statutory requirements and 
submit applications that better serve States under the new law.
    Additionally, pursuant to authority granted to the Secretary in 
Title III of Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 
(Pub. L. 114-113), and subsequent Consolidated Appropriations Acts, 
Comprehensive Center services may be provided to the Bureau of Indian 
Education (BIE) and schools within its jurisdiction.

Proposed Priorities

    We propose two priorities. The Assistant Secretary may use one or 
more of these priorities for the FY 2019 Comprehensive Centers program 
competition or for any subsequent competition.
    Background: In accordance with ETAA section 206, the Secretary 
established 10 Regional Advisory Committees (RACs) to identify each 
region's most critical educational needs and develop recommendations 
for technical assistance to meet those needs. The RACs met and engaged 
their respective constituencies between July 19, 2016, and August 26, 
2016. Final RAC reports were published in October 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The full reports are available at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/rac/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While specific needs and recommendations varied by region, the 
three highest needs identified across all 10 RACs were: College and 
career readiness; ensuring equity and addressing issues of 
disproportionality; and supporting the lowest performing schools.\4\ 
Education stakeholders noted that identified needs were not mutually 
exclusive and there is considerable overlap between implementing the 
ESEA, ensuring equity, equitable distribution of highly effective 
teachers and leaders, and improving assessments and accountability 
systems.\5\ Key recommendations for services to meet those needs 
included: Engage stakeholders from different groups in the SEAs' 
decision-making processes; facilitate cross-group collaboration to 
strengthen partnerships; create or compile resources, tools, and best 
practice guides that incorporate specific contexts (e.g., rural 
populations or particular subgroups); disseminate evidence-based (as 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1) research and guides; develop or identify 
training and professional development; and promote community and 
stakeholder engagement.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See page 5, A Cross-Regional Advisory Committee Analysis at: 
https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/rac/.
    \5\ Ibid.
    \6\ Ibid., pages 5-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the RAC findings and recommendations and the 
requirements of both the ESEA and the ETAA, the Department believes 
that the best way to assist State-led reform efforts is to focus 
Comprehensive Centers on implementing and scaling evidence-based 
programs, practices, and interventions that directly benefit those 
eligible to receive Comprehensive Center services (recipients): (1) 
Recipients that have high percentages or numbers of students from low-
income families; (2) recipients that are implementing comprehensive 
support and improvement activities or targeted support and improvement 
activities; and (3) recipients in rural areas.
    In order for States to effectively implement and scale-up evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions, we propose that Regional 
Centers deliver intensive services to help their assigned States 
advance through the following phases of implementation: Conducting 
needs assessments, developing logic models, selecting appropriate 
evidence-based practices, planning for the implementation of evidence-
based practices, implementing evidence-based practices, and evaluating 
the implementation of evidence-based practices. We also propose that 
the National Center deliver universal services to help all States 
address common high-leverage problems, common implementation 
challenges, and emerging education trends.

[[Page 49033]]

    By delineating which Centers will deliver universal, targeted, and 
intensive services, the proposed model minimizes duplication of 
Comprehensive Center resources and enables more coherent, coordinated, 
and efficient service delivery to all States.
    The FY 2019 Comprehensive Centers program logic model provided in 
this document outlines the expected inputs, types of services, outputs, 
and outcomes that, when taken together, we believe are more likely to 
result in organizational structures and systems that ensure high-
quality services and supports for disadvantaged students and students 
from low-income families.

Priority 1: Regional Centers

    Regional Centers must provide high-quality intensive capacity-
building services to State clients and recipients to identify, 
implement, and sustain effective evidence-based practices that support 
improved educator and student outcomes. As appropriate, capacity-
building services must assist clients and recipients in: (1) Carrying 
out approved ESEA Consolidated State Plans with preference given to the 
implementation and scaling up of evidence-based programs, practices, 
and interventions that directly benefit recipients that have high 
percentages or numbers of students from low-income families as 
referenced in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA secs. 1113(a)(5) and 
1111(d)) and recipients that are implementing comprehensive support and 
improvement activities or targeted support and improvement activities 
as referenced in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)); (2) 
implementing and scaling-up evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions that address the unique educational obstacles faced by 
rural populations; (3) carrying out corrective actions (e.g., 
addressing audit findings as a result of monitoring conducted by the 
Department); and (4) working with the National Center to identify 
trends and best practices, and develop cost-effective strategies to 
make their work available to as many REAs, LEAs, and schools in need of 
support as possible.
    Applicants must propose to operate a Regional Center in one of the 
following regions:

Region 1: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont
Region 2: Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island
Region 3: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania
Region 4: Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia
Region 5: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Region 6: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Region 7: Indiana, Michigan, Ohio
Region 8: Illinois, Iowa
Region 9: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Region 10: North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming
Region 11: Colorado, Nebraska
Region 12: Kansas, Missouri
Region 13: Arizona, Bureau of Indian Education, New Mexico, Oklahoma
Region 14: Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas
Region 15: California, Nevada, Utah
Region 16: Alaska, Oregon, Washington
Region 17: Idaho, Montana
Region 18: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated 
States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau
Region 19: American Samoa, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands

Priority 2: National Center

    The National Center must provide high-quality universal (e.g., 
policy briefs) and targeted (e.g., peer-to-peer exchanges and 
communities of practice that convene SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools on a 
particular topic) capacity-building services to address the following: 
Common high-leverage problems identified in Regional Center State 
service plans (as outlined in Program Requirement (a)(1)), common 
findings from finalized Department monitoring reports or audit 
findings, common implementation challenges faced by States and Regional 
Centers, and emerging national education trends. As appropriate, 
universal and targeted capacity-building services must assist Regional 
Center clients and recipients to: (1) Implement approved ESEA 
Consolidated State Plans, with preference given to implementing and 
scaling evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that 
directly benefit entities that have high percentages or numbers of 
students from low-income families as referenced in Title I, Part A of 
the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5) and 1111(d)) and recipients that are 
implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or 
targeted support and improvement activities as referenced in Title I, 
Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)); and (2) implement and scale 
evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that address the 
unique educational obstacles faced by rural populations. The work of 
the National Center must include the implementation of effective 
strategies for reaching and supporting as many SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and 
schools in need of services as possible.

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)).

Proposed Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary proposes the following requirements for 
this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any 
year in which this program is in effect. See Proposed Definitions for 
all definitions proposed to be used in these requirements.
    Background: The Comprehensive Centers will provide capacity-
building services at a time when States, districts, and schools are 
moving forward with implementing approved ESEA Consolidated State Plans 
and have greater flexibility in supporting and growing local 
innovations, including evidence-based interventions. In this period of 
transition, Centers must be responsive to State contexts (e.g., 
strengths, needs, priorities, and initiatives), knowledgeable of 
existing State strengths and resources (e.g., business and industry 
partners), and able to promote self-sufficiency and sustainability.
    The Department believes leadership support throughout the SEA is 
critical to ensuring that Centers provide services that advance State-
led efforts to implement and scale-up evidence-based programs, 
practices, and interventions. When proposing annual service plans to 
the Department, we propose to require Regional Centers to demonstrate 
that they consulted with and garnered commitment from Chief State 
School Officers (CSSOs) or their designees

[[Page 49034]]

(clients) prior to carrying out capacity-building services. We also 
propose to require Centers to identify recipients of capacity-building 
services, such as SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and school teams, in consultation 
with the CSSO.
    In addition to maintaining strong relationships with SEA 
leadership, under the proposed requirements, Centers must conduct 
routine exploration of client and recipient needs. This exploration 
process must utilize multiple perspectives from the Center, State 
clients and recipients, and multiple data sources, such as key Federal 
and State documents. The Department believes that frequent 
communication with State clients and recipients is necessary for 
Centers to identify high-leverage problems; assemble and deploy 
interdisciplinary teams with appropriate subject-matter expertise; 
meaningfully collaborate with Department-funded technical assistance 
providers carrying out projects in States; serve as credible partners 
to national organizations, businesses, and industry; periodically 
assess client satisfaction; and monitor progress on agreed-upon 
outcomes, outputs, and milestones. To that end, Centers are encouraged 
to develop cost-effective strategies for continuous and timely input 
from their full range of clients on both State and local needs and the 
quality of services provided.
    In order for Regional Centers and the National Center to be 
credible partners and valued service providers to States, we believe 
that each Center must implement a robust personnel management system 
that enables timely access to nationally recognized experts in the 
content areas (e.g., improving accountability systems, improving 
standards and assessments, and improving educator talent) identified 
through routine needs assessments, as well as enduring access to 
professional staff (e.g., staff with expertise in organizational 
development, project management, coaching, communications and outreach, 
and program evaluation).

    Note: The details and parameters of the Department's 
expectations and involvement will be included in the cooperative 
agreement with each grantee.

    (a) Program Requirements for Regional Centers:
    (1) Develop a service plan annually in consultation with each 
State's CSSO that includes the following elements: High-leverage 
problems to be addressed, phase of implementation (e.g., needs 
assessment), capacity-building services to be delivered, key personnel 
responsible, key Department-funded technical assistance partners, 
milestones, outputs, outcomes, and, if appropriate, fidelity measures. 
The annual service plan must be an update to the Center's five-year 
plan submitted as part of the Center's application. The annual service 
plan elements must also correspond to the relevant sections of the 
program logic model.
    (2) Develop and implement an effective personnel management system 
that enables the Center to efficiently obtain and retain the services 
of nationally recognized content experts and other consultants with 
direct experience working with SEAs, REAs, and LEAs. Personnel must 
demonstrate that they have the appropriate expertise to deliver 
quality, intensive services that meet client and recipient needs 
similar to those in the region to be served.
    (3) Develop and implement an effective communications system that 
enables routine and ongoing exploration of client and recipient needs 
as well as feedback on services provided. The system must enable 
routine monitoring of progress toward agreed-upon outcomes, outputs, 
and milestones; periodic assessment of client satisfaction; and timely 
identification of changes in State contexts that may impact success of 
the project. The communications system must include processes for 
outreach activities (e.g., regular promotion of services and products 
to clients and potential and current recipients, particularly at the 
local level), regular engagement and coordination with the National 
Center and partner organizations (e.g., other federally funded 
technical assistance providers), use of feedback loops across 
organizational levels (Federal, State, and local), and regular 
engagement of stakeholders involved in or impacted by proposed 
services.
    (4) Collaborate with the National Center to support client and 
recipient participation in learning opportunities (e.g., multi-State 
and cross-regional peer-to-peer exchanges on high-leverage problems) 
and support participation of Regional Center staff in learning 
opportunities (e.g., peer-to-peer exchanges on effective coaching 
systems), with the goal of reaching as many REAs, LEAs, and schools in 
need of services as possible while also providing high-quality 
services.
    (5) Identify and enter into partnership agreements with regional 
educational laboratories, national organizations, businesses, and 
industry for the purpose of supporting States in the implementation and 
scale-up of evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions as 
well as reducing duplication of services to States.
    (6) Be located in the region the Center serves. The Project 
Director must be full-time (1.0) and located in the region that the 
Center serves. Key personnel must also be able to provide onsite 
services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate to 
achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in 
State service plans.
    (7) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award under this 
document, demonstrate that it has secured client and partner 
commitments to carry out proposed service plans.
    (b) Program Requirements for the National Center:
    (1) Develop a service plan annually in consultation with the 
Department and Regional Centers. The service plan must take into 
account commonalities in identified high-leverage problems in Regional 
Center State service plans, finalized Department monitoring and audit 
findings, implementation challenges faced by Regional Centers and 
States, and emerging national education trends. The annual service plan 
must be an update to the Center's five-year plan submitted as part of 
the Center's application. The annual service plan must include, at a 
minimum, the following elements: High-leverage problems to be 
addressed, capacity-building services to be delivered, key personnel 
responsible, milestones, outputs, and outcome measures. The annual 
service plan must also include evidence that the Center involved 
Regional Centers in identifying targeted and universal services that 
complement Regional Center services to improve client and recipient 
capacity.
    (2) Maintain the Comprehensive Center network website, with an 
easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized 
standards for accessibility.
    (3) Develop and implement an effective personnel management system 
that enables the Center to retain and efficiently obtain the services 
of education practitioners, researchers, policy professionals, and 
other consultants with direct experience with SEAs, REAs, and LEAs. 
Personnel must have a proven record of publishing in peer-reviewed 
journals, presenting at national conferences, or delivering quality 
adult learning experiences that meet client and recipient needs.
    (4) Disseminate information (e.g., instructional videos, toolkits, 
and briefs) and evidence-based practices to a variety of education 
stakeholders, including the general public, via multiple mechanisms 
such as the Comprehensive Center network website,

[[Page 49035]]

social media, and other channels as appropriate.
    (5) Disseminate Regional Center State service plans, Center annual 
performance reports, and other materials through the Comprehensive 
Center network website and other channels as appropriate.
    (6) Collaborate with Regional Centers to implement learning 
opportunities for recipients (e.g., multi-State and cross-regional 
peer-to-peer exchanges on high-leverage problems) and develop learning 
opportunities for Regional Center staff to address implementation 
challenges (e.g., peer-to-peer exchanges on effective coaching systems 
for district teams).
    (7) Develop and implement an effective communications system that 
enables routine and ongoing exploration of Regional Center client and 
recipient needs. The system must enable routine monitoring of progress 
toward agreed-upon outcomes, outputs, and milestones; periodic 
assessment of client satisfaction; and timely identification of changes 
in Federal or State contexts that may impact success of the project. 
The communications system must include processes for outreach 
activities (e.g., regular promotion of services and products to clients 
and potential and current recipients), use of feedback loops across 
organizational levels (Federal, State, and local), regular engagement 
and coordination with the Department, Regional Centers, and partner 
organizations (e.g., federally funded technical assistance providers), 
and engagement of stakeholders involved in or impacted by proposed 
school improvement activities.
    (8) Identify potential partners and enter into partnership 
agreements with other federally funded technical assistance providers, 
industry, national associations, and other organizations to support the 
implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based programs, practices, 
and interventions.
    (9) Identify a full-time (1.0 FTE) project director capable of 
managing all aspects of the Center.
    (10) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award under this 
document, demonstrate that it has secured client and partner 
commitments to carry out proposed service plans.
    (c) Application Requirements for All Centers:
    (1) Present applicable State, regional, and local data 
demonstrating the current needs related to building capacity to 
implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions. Reference, as appropriate, information related to the 
Department's finalized monitoring and audit findings.
    (2) Demonstrate expert knowledge of statutory requirements, 
regulations, and policies related to programs authorized under ESEA and 
current education issues and policy initiatives for supporting the 
implementation and scaling up of evidence-based programs, practices, 
and interventions.
    (3) Consistent with the priorities and requirements for this 
program, demonstrate expertise and experience in the following areas:
    (i) Managing budgets; selecting, coordinating, and overseeing 
multiple consultant and sub-contractor teams; and leading large-scale 
projects to deliver tools, training, and other services to governments, 
agencies, communities, businesses, schools, or other organizations.
    (ii) Designing and implementing performance management processes 
with staff, subcontractors, and consultants that enable effective 
hiring, developing, supervising, and retaining a team of subject-matter 
experts and professional staff.
    (iii) Identifying problems and conducting root-cause analysis; 
developing and implementing logic models, organizational assessments, 
strategic plans, and process improvements; and sustaining the use of 
evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions.
    (iv) Monitoring and evaluating activities, including, but not 
limited to: Compiling data, conducting interviews, developing tools to 
enhance capacity-building approaches, conducting data analysis using 
statistical software, interpreting results from data using widely 
acceptable quantitative and qualitative methods, and developing 
evaluation reports.
    (3) Provide copies of memoranda of understanding (MOU) with 
Department-funded technical assistance providers, including the REL(s) 
in the region that the Center serves, that are charged with supporting 
comprehensive, systemic changes in States or Department-funded 
technical assistance providers with particular expertise (e.g., early 
learning) that can augment the applicant's ability to align 
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and 
services to meet the purposes of the Centers.
    (4) Describe the current research on adult learning principles, 
coaching, and implementation science that will inform the applicant's 
capacity-building services, including how the applicant will promote 
self-sufficiency and sustainability of State-led school improvement 
activities.
    (5) Present a proposed communications plan for working with 
appropriate levels of the education system (e.g., SEAs, REAs, LEAs, 
schools) to ensure there is communication between each level and that 
there are processes in place to support, and continuously assess, the 
implementation of evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions. The applicant must describe how it will engage in 
meaningful consultation with a broad range of stakeholders (e.g., 
principals, teachers, families, community members, etc.). The ideal 
applicant will propose effective strategies for receiving ongoing and 
timely input on the needs of its clients and the usefulness of its 
services.
    (6) Present a proposed evaluation plan for the project. The 
evaluation plan must describe the criteria for determining the extent 
to which: Milestones were met; outputs were met; recipient outcomes 
(short-term, mid-term, and long-term) were met; and capacity-building 
services proposed in State service plans were implemented as intended.
    (7) Present a logic model informed by research or evaluation 
findings that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) 
explaining how the project is likely to improve or achieve relevant and 
expected outcomes. This logic model must align with the Comprehensive 
Centers program logic model, communicate how the project will achieve 
its expected outcomes (short-term, mid-term, and long-term) and provide 
a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the 
project consistent with the applicant's evaluation plan.\7\ Include a 
description of underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, 
and theories, as well as the relationships and linkages among these 
variables, and any empirical support for this framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Figure 1--Comprehensive Centers program logic model (as 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1) in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (8) Include an assurance that, if awarded a grant, the applicant 
will assist the Department with the transfer of pertinent resources and 
products and maintain the continuity of services to States during the 
transition to this new award period, as appropriate, including by 
working with the FY 2012 Comprehensive Center on Building State 
Capacity and Productivity to migrate products, resources, and other 
relevant project information to the National Center's Comprehensive 
Center network website.
    (d) Application Requirements for Regional Centers: In addition to 
meeting the application requirements for all

[[Page 49036]]

Centers in paragraph (c) a Regional Center applicant must--
    (1) Describe the proposed approach to intensive capacity-building 
services, including identification of intended recipients and alignment 
of proposed capacity-building services to meet client needs. The 
applicant must also describe how it intends to measure the readiness of 
clients and recipients to work with the applicant; measure client and 
recipient capacity across the four capacity-building dimensions, 
including available resources; and measure the ability of the client 
and recipients to build capacity at the local level.
    (e) Application Requirements for the National Center: In addition 
to meeting the application requirements for all Centers in paragraph 
(c), a National Center applicant must:
    (1) Demonstrate expertise and experience in leading digital 
engagement strategies to attract and sustain involvement of education 
stakeholders, including, but not limited to: Implementing a robust web 
and social media presence, overseeing customer relations management, 
providing editorial support, and collecting and analyzing web 
analytics.
    (2) Describe the intended recipients of and the proposed approach 
to targeted capacity-building services, including how the applicant 
intends to collaborate with Regional Centers to identify potential 
recipients and how many it has the capacity to reach; measure the 
readiness and capacity of potential recipients across the four 
dimensions; and continuously engage potential recipients over the five-
year period.
    (3) Describe the intended recipients of and the proposed approach 
to universal capacity-building services, including how the applicant 
intends to: Measure the quality of the products and services developed 
to address common high-leverage problems; how many recipients it plans 
to reach; support recipients in the selection, implementation, and 
monitoring of evidence-based practices and interventions; and improve 
knowledge of emerging national education trends.

Proposed Definitions

    Background: The Department proposes the establishment of the 
following definitions for the Comprehensive Centers program. The 
proposed definitions are intended to (1) clarify expectations for 
Centers and (2) uniformly apply and utilize terms and definitions from 
the Department and other federally funded technical assistance Centers.
    Proposed Definitions: The Assistant Secretary proposes the 
following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of 
these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect. The 
proposed definitions are:
    Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an 
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous 
improvement and achieve expected outcomes.
    The four dimensions of capacity-building services are:
    (1) Human capacity: Development or improvement of individual 
knowledge, skills, technical expertise, and ability to adapt and be 
resilient to policy and leadership changes.
    (2) Organizational capacity: Structures that support clear 
communication and a shared understanding of an organization's visions 
and goals, and delineated individual roles and responsibilities in 
functional areas.
    (3) Policy capacity: Structures that support alignment, 
differentiation, or enactment of local, State, and Federal policies and 
initiatives.
    (4) Resource capacity: Tangible materials and assets that support 
alignment and use of Federal, State, private, and local funds.
    The three tiers of capacity-building services are:
    (1) Intensive: Assistance often provided on-site and requiring a 
stable, ongoing relationship between the Regional Center staff and 
their clients and recipients, as well as periodic evaluations and 
feedback strategies. This category of capacity-building services should 
support increased recipient capacity in more than one capacity 
dimension and improved outcomes at one or more system levels.
    (2) Targeted: Assistance based on needs common to multiple clients 
and recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship is 
established between the recipient(s), Regional Center(s), and the 
National Center. This category of capacity-building services includes 
one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic 
planning or hosting national or regional conferences. It can also 
include less labor-intensive events that extend over a period of time, 
such as facilitating a series of conference calls on single or multiple 
topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients. 
Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered targeted 
capacity-building services.
    (3) Universal capacity-building services: Assistance and 
information provided to independent users through their own initiative, 
involving minimal interaction with National Center staff and including 
one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by National 
Center staff. This category of capacity-building services also includes 
information or products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, policy 
briefs, or research syntheses, downloaded from the Center's website by 
independent users. Brief communications by National Center staff with 
recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered universal 
services.
    High-leverage problems means problems that (1) if addressed could 
result in substantial improvements for many students or for key 
subgroups of students as defined in ESEA section 1111(c) and (d); (2) 
are priorities for education policymakers, particularly at the State 
level; and (3) require intensive capacity-building services to achieve 
outcomes that address the problem.
    Milestone means an activity that must be completed. Examples 
include: Identification of key district administrators responsible for 
professional development, sharing key observations from needs 
assessment with district administrators and identified stakeholders, 
logic model, plan for State-wide professional development, 
identification of subject matter experts, and conducting train-the-
trainer sessions.
    Outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-building services. 
Examples include: 95 percent of district administrators reported 
increased knowledge; 2 districts reported improved cross-agency 
coordination; and 3 districts reported identification of 2.0 FTE 
responsible for professional development.
    Outputs means products and services that must be completed. 
Examples include: Needs assessment, logic model, training modules, 
evaluation plan, and 12 workshop presentations.

    Note: A product output under this program would be considered a 
deliverable under the open licensing regulations at 2 CFR 3474.20.

    Regional educational agency, for the purposes of the Comprehensive 
Centers program, means ``Tribal Educational Agency'' as defined in ESEA 
section 6132(b)(3), as well as other educational agencies that serve 
regional areas.
    Service plan project means a series of interconnected capacity-
building services designed to achieve recipient outcomes and outputs. A 
service plan project includes, but is not limited to, a well-defined 
high-leverage problem, an approach to capacity-building services, 
intended recipients, key personnel, expected outcomes, expected 
outputs, and milestones.

Proposed Performance Measures

    Background: While we are not required to seek comment on the

[[Page 49037]]

Department's Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) 
performance measures, the Department believes the development of 
effective performance measures can benefit from public input and 
invites public comment to help inform the final performance measures 
for the Comprehensive Centers program. Although the Department will 
consider the public comments, the Department is not limited by the 
terms of the proposed performance measures or public comment on those 
measures in establishing final performance measures. The Department 
recognizes that the Centers strive to provide useful, high-quality 
services, while also attempting to reach as many recipients in need of 
support as possible. We are particularly interested in receiving input 
on measures that address usefulness to the recipients and the reach and 
scope of the services provided.
    The proposed performance measures are intended to assess the extent 
to which Comprehensive Centers: (1) Achieved high client \8\ 
satisfaction; (2) served a wide range of recipients; \9\ (3) 
implemented capacity-building activities with fidelity; and (4) 
achieved recipient outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Client means Chief State School Officers or designees.
    \9\ Recipients means those eligible for Comprehensive Center 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Performance Measures

    Measure 1: The extent to which Comprehensive Center clients are 
satisfied with the quality, usefulness, and relevance of services 
provided.
    Measure 2: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers provide 
services and products to a wide range of recipients.
    Measure 3: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate 
that capacity-building services were implemented as intended.
    Measure 4: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate 
recipient outcomes were met.
    Comprehensive Centers Program Logic Model: Figure 1 is a diagram of 
the FY 2019 Comprehensive Centers program logic model. A logic model 
refers to a framework that identifies key project components, inputs, 
processes, outputs, and short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes and 
impacts and describes the theoretical and operational relationships 
among the key project components and relevant outcomes. The 
Comprehensive Centers program logic model inputs include but are not 
limited to SEA and LEA staff, implementation and organizational 
expertise, content area expertise, and Federal funding, staff, and 
regulations. Processes include capacity-building services that help 
recipients to develop needs assessments and logic models, select 
evidence-based practices, and planning for and assisting in the 
implementation of evidence-based practices. Outputs include products, 
data, and information to assist in the implementation and evaluation of 
evidence-based practices, such as needs assessments and logic models. 
Short-term outcomes include increased individual and organizational 
capacity in four dimensions: Human, organizational, policy, and 
resource. Mid-term outcomes include improving SEA and LEA capacity to 
plan, implement, and evaluate school improvement programs in order to 
improve policies, practices, and systems to implement and evaluate 
school improvement programs. Long-term outcomes include improved 
educational opportunities and academic outcomes for disadvantaged and 
low-income students.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

[[Page 49038]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE18.002


[[Page 49039]]


BILLING CODE 4000-01-C

Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Performance Measures

    We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and performance measures in a notice in the Federal Register. We will 
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
performance measures after considering responses to the proposed 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance measures and 
other information available to the Department. We are not precluded 
from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, 
performance measures, or selection criteria, subject to meeting 
applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year 
in which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and performance measures 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, 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 proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new rule 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. For Fiscal Year 2018, any new incremental costs 
associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the 
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because the 
proposed regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of 
Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
    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 proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and performance measures only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net 
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes 
that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in 
Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would 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.
    Summary of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance 
measures would not impose significant costs on eligible research 
organizations, institutions, agencies, institutions of higher 
education, or partnerships among such entities, or individuals that 
would receive assistance through the Comprehensive Centers program. We 
also believe that the benefits of implementing the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and performance measures justify any 
associated costs.
    The Department believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and performance measures would result in the selection of 
high-quality applications to establish Centers that are most likely to 
build the capacity of SEAs in order to improve educational outcomes for 
all students. Through the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and performance measures, we seek to provide clarity as to 
the scope of activities we expect to support with program funds. A 
potential applicant would need to consider carefully its capacity to 
implement a project successfully.
    The Department further believes that the costs imposed on an 
applicant by the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
performance measures would be largely limited to paperwork burden 
related to preparing an application and that the benefits of preparing 
an application and receiving an award would justify any costs incurred 
by the applicant. This is because, during the project period, the costs 
of actually establishing a Center and carrying out activities under a 
Comprehensive Centers program grant would be paid for with program 
funds and any matching funds. Thus, the costs of establishing a 
Comprehensive Center using these proposed priorities,

[[Page 49040]]

requirements, definitions, and performance measures would not be a 
significant burden for any eligible applicant, including a small 
entity.
    Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information 
collection requirements.
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA): These proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and performance measures do not contain any 
information collection requirements.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. 
Small Business Administration Size Standards define ``small entities'' 
as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below 
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small 
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts), 
with a population of less than 50,000.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action could 
affect are eligible research organizations, agencies, institutions of 
higher education, or partnerships among such entities, or individuals. 
The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on an applicant by the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance 
measures would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an 
application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would 
outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the Comprehensive Centers program is voluntary. 
For this reason, the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and performance measures would impose no burden on small entities 
unless they applied for funding under the Comprehensive Centers program 
using the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
performance measures. We expect that in determining whether to apply 
for Comprehensive Center funds, an eligible entity would evaluate the 
requirements of preparing an application and implementing a 
Comprehensive Center, and any associated costs, and weigh them against 
the benefits likely to be achieved by implementing a Center. An 
eligible entity would probably apply only if it determines that the 
likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application and 
implementing a project. The likely benefits of applying for a 
Comprehensive Centers program grant include the potential receipt of a 
grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through 
its development of an application, such as the use of such application 
to create partnerships with other entities in order to assist SEAs.
    The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and performance measures would not impose any additional 
burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the entity would 
face in the absence of the proposed action. That is, the length of the 
applications those entities would submit in the absence of the proposed 
regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an application would 
likely be the same.
    Further, this proposed regulatory action could help a small entity 
determine whether it has the interest, need, or capacity to implement 
activities under the program and, thus, prevent a small entity that 
does not have such an interest, need, or capacity from absorbing the 
burden of applying.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it 
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided 
under this program. The Secretary invites comments from small eligible 
entities as to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action 
would have a significant economic impact on them and, if so, requests 
evidence to support that belief.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations 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: September 24, 2018.
Frank Brogan,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2018-21089 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P