Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional Development Program, 41372-41379 [2020-13426]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41372-41379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13426]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 263

RIN 1810-AB54
[Docket ID ED-2019-OESE-0068]


Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional 
Development Program

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

ACTION: Final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations that govern the 
Professional Development (PD) program, authorized under title VI of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), to 
implement changes to title VI resulting from the enactment of the Every 
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). These final regulations update, clarify, 
and improve the current regulations. These regulations pertain to 
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.299B.

DATES: These regulations are effective August 10, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Hernandez-Marshall, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: 202-205-1909. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These regulations implement statutory 
changes made to the PD program in section 6122 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 
7442) by the ESSA and make other changes to better enable the 
Department and grantees to meet the objectives of the program.
    We published a notice of proposed rulemaking for this program 
(NPRM) in the Federal Register on October 11, 2019 (84 FR 54806).
    Publication of the control number notifies the public that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

[[Page 41373]]

approved these information collection requirements under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995. These regulations apply to applications for the 
PD program for fiscal year (FY) 2020 and subsequent years. In addition, 
the most recently-funded cohort of PD grantees, which received grants 
for FY 2018, may use the flexibility offered by the definition of 
``local educational agency (LEA) that serves a high proportion of 
Indian students'' in these regulations, in arranging teaching or 
administrative placements for project graduates as of the effective 
date of these regulations.
    In the preamble of the NPRM, we discussed on pages 54807-54811 the 
major changes proposed in that document. These included the following:
     Amending Sec.  263.2 to include institutions of higher 
education (IHEs) that are accredited to provide a Native American 
language certificate and making conforming changes to other provisions.
     Adding to Sec.  263.3 a definition of ``local educational 
agency (LEA) that serves a high proportion of Indian students'' and 
making conforming changes to other provisions.
     Adding in new Sec.  263.5 application requirements, 
including an application requirement for a letter of support from an 
LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students.
     Amending renumbered Sec.  263.6 to add priorities for 
administrator training for work in Tribal educational agencies (TEAs), 
and for administrator training for school start-ups.
     Amending renumbered Sec.  263.7 to add new selection 
criteria.
    These final regulations contain two substantive changes from the 
NPRM, which we fully explain in the Analysis of Comments and Changes 
section of this preamble, in addition to several technical changes.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPRM, 14 
parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the regulations since publication of the NPRM 
follows. We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do 
not address technical and other minor changes.

General

    Comments: We received comments from multiple parties expressing 
support for the PD program and for the program's expansion to include 
Native language certification. One commenter noted that allowing 
American Indian language certificate-earners access to the program 
should lead to greater student achievement.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for this program.
    Changes: None.

Qualifying Job Placements That Satisfy the Service Payback Obligation 
and Letter of Support Application Requirement (Sec. Sec.  263.3, 263.5, 
263.12(c)(1))

    Comments: Nine commenters stated their support for the Department's 
definition of ``local educational agency (LEA) that serves a high 
proportion of Indian students'' in Sec.  263.3. One of those nine 
parties suggested including schools as well as LEAs in the definition. 
One of the commenters was supportive of the definition but stated that 
it benefitted mainly teacher placement in rural areas. Four of the 
commenters suggested expanding the definition in a variety of ways for 
both qualifying employment and for the application requirement of a 
letter of support from an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian 
students, citing concerns about the source of evidentiary data that 
would be used to determine whether or not a proposed LEA meets the 
definition. For instance, one of the commenters was concerned that LEA 
and State-level data are often inaccurate and often undercount the 
number of American Indian/Alaska Native students. Several of these 
commenters suggested allowing Tribes to identify LEAs that would serve 
as qualifying placement, even if the LEA, or the school in which the 
participant works, did not have a high proportion of Indian students; 
other commenters suggested that the local Tribe be the entity to 
determine what data source to use for evidence of meeting the 
definition of ``high proportion.'' One of the commenters recommended 
using five percent to measure whether an LEA has a high proportion of 
Indian students. This commenter asked the Department to establish five 
percent as a non-binding threshold for ``high proportion'' in order to 
provide a clearer guideline. Another commenter suggested allowing all 
LEAs that receive Title VI formula grant funds to be considered 
qualifying employment.
    Discussion: We appreciate the many positive and supportive 
responses we received regarding the definition of ``LEA that serves a 
high proportion of Indian students.'' In response to the comment asking 
that schools as well as LEAs be considered in the definition of ``high 
proportion,'' the Department's new definition of ``LEA that serves a 
high proportion of Indian students'' does, in fact, include 
consideration of schools as well as LEAs. The definition provides an 
alternative test under which service in a particular school that has a 
high proportion of Indian students compared to other LEAs in the State 
qualifies even if the LEA as a whole in which the participant works 
does not have a high proportion of Indian students. We do not believe 
it is currently clear whether the program will mainly benefit 
placements in rural areas, but this is something that the Department 
will be able to track in the years to come. The statutory text is clear 
that job placement must correspond to LEAs with high proportions of 
Native students.
    With regard to concerns about evidentiary data sources, the 
Department agrees that it should consider a variety of different types 
of data in analyzing whether LEAs or schools constitute qualifying 
employment locations, and that local Tribes can play an important role 
in helping identify accurate data for the Indian student population. 
For example, an applicant's letter of support from an LEA may use as 
evidence its Indian student count based on valid and complete Title VI 
formula grant program Indian Student Eligibility Certification (``ED 
506'') Forms (OMB Number: 1810-0021) to show a high proportion as 
compared to the proportion in other LEAs in the State. Tribes can 
provide critical aid to LEAs in ensuring the LEAs have complete and 
valid forms for all Indian students, in order to increase the accuracy 
of this count.
    In the NPRM, the Department solicited public comment on sources of 
evidence beyond demographic information on State and district report 
cards; however, we received no suggestions on this topic. The 
Department plans to further examine this issue and develop technical 
assistance for applicants regarding the types of evidentiary data that 
would be considered in determining ``high proportion'' for qualifying 
placement. In addition, the Department plans to publish on the 
program's website the average school-level and school district-level 
Indian student population, by State, after publishing the notice 
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year 2020, so that 
applicants will have that data for comparison purposes in choosing 
which LEAs to ask for letters of support. We do not, however, support 
allowing Tribes to identify an LEA that serves as qualifying placement 
without any specific criteria, as this runs counter to the legislative 
intent to place Indian teachers and administrators in schools and LEAs 
that

[[Page 41374]]

serve a high proportion of Indian students.
    We decline to accept the suggestion of a threshold of five percent. 
We heard during Tribal consultation that a specific percentage cut-
point would eliminate as job placements those LEAs that are located in 
States with very small Native student populations, even though the 
particular school or LEA may have a larger percentage than the State 
average. We are aware that the nationwide population of American 
Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) students is approximately one percent of 
all students, and we believe that a comparative analysis better meets 
the statutory purposes of this program. We also reject the suggestion 
of allowing all LEAs with Title VI formula grants to serve as 
qualifying placement because the formula grant program funds LEAs with 
as few as 10 AI/AN students--and even fewer in the three States 
excluded by statute from this minimum--a number that is highly unlikely 
to represent a ``high proportion'' of the student body.
    Changes: None.

Application Requirements (Sec.  263.5)

    Comments: One party recommended that, to ensure that participant 
training supports the Native students to be served, each grantee should 
be required to submit a letter of support from nearby Tribes to verify 
that Tribal consultation has occurred with LEAs, consistent with the 
ESEA consultation requirement for certain LEAs.
    Discussion: The Department strongly agrees that participants should 
be trained to understand the unique needs of Native students, and the 
Tribal role in informing that work. To that end, the program 
regulations address these issues in multiple respects. First, the 
selection criteria, under quality of project services in Sec.  263.7(d) 
of these final regulations, address cultural training by providing 
points for projects that prepare participants to adapt teaching and/or 
administrative practices to meet the breadth of Indian student needs. 
Second, the PD program grant competitions have consistently 
incentivized Tribal engagement by awarding competitive preference 
points to applicants whose lead entity is a Tribe, Tribal College or 
University (TCU), or Tribal organization, as well as points to non-
Tribal entities that apply in consortium with a Tribe, TCU, or Tribal 
organization. These priority points implement the statutory requirement 
in section 6143 of the ESEA that we give preference to Tribal entities 
in awarding grants. More than two-thirds of the 43 grantees awarded 
from 2016 and 2018 received these points.
    If an IHE applies that is not a TCU, and is not in consortium with 
a Tribe, we strongly encourage that IHE to involve or consult with any 
local Tribes in designing and implementing their project. As explained 
above, historically we have awarded additional points to IHEs that 
apply in consortium with Tribes, Tribal organizations, or TCUs, under 
the priority in renumbered Sec.  263.6(a)(2); including a Tribe as a 
partner in a project more effectively ensures that Tribal views are 
heard than does consultation.
    Finally, with regard to the commenter's suggestion to require an 
applicant to submit a letter from Tribes to evidence that Tribal 
consultation has occurred, we agree that the requirement in section 
8538 of the ESEA for certain affected LEAs to consult with Tribes prior 
to submitting an application does apply to this program, if an affected 
LEA is the applicant for this program in consortium with an IHE or TCU. 
Affected LEAs are those LEAs that have 50 percent Indian student 
population or received a Title VI formula grant of more than $40,000. 
The consultation must provide for the opportunity for officials from 
Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations to meaningfully and substantively 
contribute to the application. Although we have rarely, if ever, 
received applications for this program from LEAs or SEAs, we have added 
an application requirement to Sec.  263.5 to highlight this important 
statutory requirement in section 8538 of the ESEA for affected LEAs.
    Changes: We have added a new paragraph (d) to Sec.  263.5 to 
include the application requirement described above.

Priority for Administrator Training for Work in TEAs (Sec.  263.6(b))

    Comments: One commenter was concerned that program participants 
would have difficulty completing on-the-job administrator training in a 
TEA if they were already full-time employees while completing an 
administrator training program. The commenter also asked if a job in a 
TCU, such as professor or administrator, would qualify as service 
payback, under the assumption that a TCU is a TEA. Finally, the 
commenter expressed their hope that roles such as language and cultural 
curriculum coordinator, instructional coach, and Department chair, in 
either a BIE-funded school or LEA with a large Native student 
population, would count as qualifying employment.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that an administrator training 
program participant's on-the-job training in a TEA could pose a 
challenge if they were also employed full-time as a teacher or other 
school staff. For this reason, the Department's new priority allows 
grantees flexibility to determine the length of time that the on-the-
job training would need to take place. For example, a grantee may 
implement the on-the-job training in a TEA over the summer, when 
existing school jobs are likely on hiatus. Another option would be to 
allow the participant to seek a brief leave from their full-time job.
    With regard to whether or not a job in a TCU would serve as 
qualifying employment under the new priority for pre-service 
administrator training for work in a TEA, TEA is defined in these final 
PD program regulations as an agency, department, or instrumentality of 
a Tribe that is primarily responsible for Tribal students' elementary 
and secondary education. A TCU, however, does not provide elementary or 
secondary education but rather post-secondary education. Therefore, a 
participant could not complete service payback in any IHE or TCU, 
unless that entity directly operates an elementary or secondary school.
    On the issue of whether leadership roles such as instructional 
coordinator, Department chair, and similar positions are qualifying 
employment, this question is not unique to the new priority under which 
the question was posed but is also relevant to the existing priority 
for administrator training. Section 6122(h) of the ESEA requires that 
the participant perform work related to the training received. Thus, 
assuming that the job is in an LEA or BIE-funded school at the 
elementary or secondary level, if the position requires the degree and 
certification for which the participant received the training benefit, 
then the employment qualifies for service payback.
    Changes: None.

Other Issues

    Comments: None.
    Discussion: As a result of our further review of the proposed 
regulations since publication of the NPRM, we have made two additional 
changes. First, we made a change to renumbered Sec.  263.7. We are no 
longer including what we proposed as paragraph (d)(5) in the NPRM 
because, upon further review, we realized that information was captured 
in paragraph (c)(2). Second, we have revised renumbered Sec.  263.8(b) 
regarding a participant's leave of absence. The existing regulations 
require that the participant have completed 12 months

[[Page 41375]]

of training before a project director can grant a leave of absence. 
However, we have learned that in some cases, teacher and administrator 
training programs are designed to be completed within one year, 
essentially prohibiting participants in these programs from being able 
to request a leave of absence from the program. The original language 
presumed that 12 months of program completion translated into having 
completed at least half of the program.
    Changes: We have omitted proposed Sec.  263.7(d)(5). We have 
revised Sec.  263.8(b) to allow grant project directors to approve a 
participant's leave of absence only after the participant has completed 
at least 50 percent of their training.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined 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 final 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 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. For Fiscal Year 2020, any new incremental costs 
associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the 
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. These final 
regulations are not a significant regulatory action. Therefore, the 
requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
    We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those 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 regulations 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 these final regulations are consistent with 
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The potential costs associated 
with these final regulatory changes are minimal, while there are 
greater potential benefits. For PD grants, applicants may anticipate 
minimal additional costs in developing their applications due to the 
new required letter of support that the applicant must obtain from an 
LEA under Sec.  263.5, estimated at two hours of additional work. We 
anticipate no additional time spent reporting participant payback 
information in the Professional Development Program Data Collection 
System (PDPDCS) and the costs of carrying out these activities would 
continue to be paid for with program funds. The benefits include 
enhancing project design and quality of services to better meet the 
objectives of the programs with the result being more participants 
successfully completing their programs of study and obtaining 
employment as teachers and administrators. Elsewhere in this section, 
under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we identify and explain burdens 
specifically associated with information collection requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that these final regulations will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define 
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently 
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and 
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are 
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated 
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are 
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government 
overseeing a population below 50,000.
    The small entities that will be affected by these final regulations 
are LEAs, IHEs, TCUs, Tribes, and Tribally operated schools receiving 
Federal funds under this program. The final regulations will not have a 
significant economic impact on the small entities affected because the 
regulations do not impose excessive regulatory burdens or require 
unnecessary Federal supervision. The final regulations will impose 
minimal requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds, 
including reporting of participant payback information. We note that 
grantees that will be subject to the minimal requirements imposed by 
these final regulations will be able to meet the costs of compliance 
using Federal funds provided through the Indian Education Discretionary 
Grant programs.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Sections 263.5 and 263.7 contain information collection 
requirements.

[[Page 41376]]

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), 
the Department of Education has submitted a copy of these sections and 
related application forms to OMB for its review and approval. In 
accordance with the PRA, the OMB control number associated with the PD 
final regulations, related application forms, and ICRs for Sec. Sec.  
263.5 and 263.7 is OMB 1894-0006.
    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the 
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection 
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    Table A-1 illustrates the status of both the previous collections 
and the collections under these final regulations associated with this 
program:

                               Table A-1--PD Program Information Collection Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Burden under
  OMB control No.       Relevant            Expiration         Previous burden     final rule      Action under
                      regulations                               (total hours)    (total hours)      final rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1810-0580.........  Sections 263.5,  June 30, 2021...........  Applicants:      0..............  Discontinue
                     263.6, and                                 1,500.                            this
                     263.7.                                                                       collection and
                                                                                                  use 1894-0006.
1894-0006.........  Sections 263.5,  January 31, 2021........  0..............  Applicants:      Use this
                     263.6, and                                                  1,500.           collection.
                     263.7.
1810-0698.........  Section 263.12.  August 31, 2022.........  Grantees:        Grantees:        Use this
                                                                2,040;           2,040;           collection.
                                                                Participants:    Participants:
                                                                660;             660;
                                                                Employers: 304.  Employers: 304.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to the requirements of 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.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    In the NPRM we requested comments on whether the proposed 
regulations would require transmission of information that any other 
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
    Based on the response to the NPRM and on our review, we have 
determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of 
information that any other agency or authority of the United States 
gathers or makes available.

Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local elected officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism 
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.
    In the NPRM we solicited comments on whether any sections of the 
proposed regulations could have federalism implications and encouraged 
State and local elected officials to review and provide comments on the 
proposed regulations. In the Public Comment section of this preamble, 
we discuss any comments we received on this subject.
    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 at www.govinfo.gov. 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.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.299B Professional 
Development Program.)

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 263

    Business and industry, College and universities, Elementary and 
secondary education, Grant programs--education, Grant programs--
Indians, Indians--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Scholarships and fellowships.

Frank T. Brogan,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of 
Education amends part 263 of title 34 of the Code of the Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 263--INDIAN EDUCATION DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for subpart A continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442, unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  263.1 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1) removing the word ``people'' and adding, in its 
place, the word ``students'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(4); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(1).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  263.1  What is the Professional Development program?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Provide pre- and in-service training and support to qualified 
Indian individuals to become effective teachers, principals, other 
school leaders, administrators, teacher aides,

[[Page 41377]]

paraprofessionals, counselors, social workers, and specialized 
instructional support personnel;
    (3) Improve the skills of qualified Indian individuals who serve in 
the education field; and
    (4) Develop and implement initiatives to promote retention of 
effective teachers, principals, and school leaders who have a record of 
success in helping low-achieving Indian students improve their academic 
achievement, outcomes, and preparation for postsecondary education or 
employment.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Perform work related to the training received under the program 
and that benefits Indian students in an LEA that serves a high 
proportion of Indian students, or to repay all or a prorated part of 
the assistance received under the program; and
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  263.2 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (5);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  263.2  Who is eligible to apply under the Professional 
Development program?

    (a) * * *
    (1) An institution of higher education, or a TCU;
    (2) A State educational agency in consortium with an institution of 
higher education or a TCU;
    (3) A local educational agency (LEA) in consortium with an 
institution of higher education or a TCU;
    (4) An Indian tribe or Indian organization in consortium with an 
institution of higher education or a TCU; or
    (5) A BIE-funded school in consortium with at least one TCU, where 
feasible.
    (b) BIE-funded schools are eligible applicants for--
* * * * *
    (2) A pre-service training program when the BIE-funded school 
applies in consortium with an institution of higher education that 
meets the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Eligibility of an applicant that is an institution of higher 
education or a TCU, or an applicant requiring a consortium with any 
institution of higher education or TCU, requires that the institution 
of higher education or TCU be accredited to provide the coursework and 
level of degree or Native American language certificate required by the 
project.

0
4. Amend Sec.  263.3 by:
0
a. Removing the definition of ``Bureau-funded school''; b. Adding the 
definition of ``BIE-funded school'';
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Full-time student'';
0
d. Removing the definition of ``Indian institution of higher 
education'';
0
e. In paragraph (5) of the definition of ``Indian organization'', 
adding the phrase ``or TCU'' after the phrase ``any institution of 
higher education'';
0
f. Revising the definitions of ``induction services'' and ``institution 
of higher education'';
0
g. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``local educational 
agency (LEA) that serves a high proportion of Indian students'', 
``Native American'', and ``Native American language'';
0
h. Adding, in the definition of ``Pre-service training'' the words ``, 
or licensing or certification in the field of Native American language 
instruction'' after the word ``degree''; and
0
i. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``qualifying 
employment'', ``Tribal College or University (TCU)'', and ``Tribal 
educational agency''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  263.3  What definitions apply to the Professional Development 
program?

* * * * *
    BIE-funded school means a Bureau of Indian Education school, a 
contract or grant school, or a school for which assistance is provided 
under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988.
* * * * *
    Full-time student means a student who--
    (1) Is a candidate for a baccalaureate degree, graduate degree, or 
Native American language certificate, as appropriate for the project;
    (2) Carries a full course load; and
    (3) Is not employed for more than 20 hours a week.
* * * * *
    Induction services means services provided--
    (1)(i) By educators, local traditional leaders, or cultural 
experts;
    (ii) For the one, two, or three years of qualifying employment, as 
designated by the Department in the notice inviting applications; and
    (iii) In LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students;
    (2) To support and improve participants' professional performance 
and promote their retention in the field of education and teaching, and 
that include, at a minimum, these activities:
    (i) High-quality mentoring, coaching, and consultation services for 
the participant to improve performance.
    (ii) Access to research materials and information on teaching and 
learning.
    (iii) Assisting new teachers with use of technology in the 
classroom and use of data, particularly student achievement data, for 
classroom instruction.
    (iv) Clear, timely, and useful feedback on performance, provided in 
coordination with the participant's supervisor.
    (v) Periodic meetings or seminars for participants to enhance 
collaboration, feedback, and peer networking and support.
* * * * *
    Institution of higher education (IHE) has the meaning given that 
term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1001(a)).
    Local educational agency (LEA) that serves a high proportion of 
Indian students means--
    (1) An LEA, including a BIE-funded school, that serves a high 
proportion of Indian students in the LEA as compared to other LEAs in 
the State; or
    (2) An LEA, including a BIE-funded school, that serves a high 
proportion of Indian students in the school in which the participant 
works compared to other LEAs in the State, even if the LEA as a whole 
in which the participant works does not have a high proportion of 
Indian students compared to other LEAs in the State.
    Native American means ``Indian'' as defined in section 6151(3) of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, which includes 
Alaska Native and members of federally-recognized or State-recognized 
Tribes; Native Hawaiian; and Native American Pacific Islander.
    Native American language means the historical, traditional 
languages spoken by Native Americans.
* * * * *
    Qualifying employment means employment in an LEA that serves a high 
proportion of Indian students.
* * * * *
    Tribal college or university (TCU) has the meaning given that term 
in section 316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1059c(b)).
    Tribal educational agency (TEA) means the agency, department, or 
instrumentality of an Indian Tribe that is primarily responsible for 
supporting Tribal students' elementary and secondary education.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  263.4 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(2);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (c)(3) and adding, in 
its place, a semicolon; and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(4) and (5).

[[Page 41378]]

    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  263.4  What costs may a Professional Development program include?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Teacher mentoring programs, professional guidance, and 
instructional support provided by educators, local traditional leaders, 
or cultural experts, as appropriate for teachers for up to their first 
three years of employment as teachers; and
    (5) Programs designed to train traditional leaders and cultural 
experts to assist participants with relevant Native language and 
cultural mentoring, guidance, and support.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  263.5 through 263.12  [Redesignated]

0
6. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  263.5 through 263.12 as Sec. Sec.  263.6 
through 263.13.

0
7. Add a new Sec.  263.5 to read as follows:


Sec.  263.5  What are the application requirements?

    An applicant must--
    (a) Describe how it will--
    (1) Recruit qualified Indian individuals, such as students who may 
not be of traditional college age, to become teachers, principals, or 
school leaders;
    (2) Use funds made available under the grant to support the 
recruitment, preparation, and professional development of Indian 
teachers or principals in LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian 
students; and
    (3) Assist participants in meeting the payback requirements under 
Sec.  263.9(b);
    (b) Submit one or more letters of support from LEAs that serve a 
high proportion of Indian students. Each letter must include--
    (1) A statement that the LEA agrees to consider program graduates 
for employment;
    (2) Evidence that the LEA meets the definition of ``LEA that serves 
a high proportion of Indian students''; and
    (3) The signature of an authorized representative of the LEA;
    (c) If applying as an Indian organization, demonstrate that the 
entity meets the definition of ``Indian organization'';
    (d) If it is an affected LEA that is subject to the requirements of 
section 8538 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
amended (ESEA), consult with appropriate officials from Tribe(s) or 
Tribal organizations approved by the Tribes located in the area served 
by the LEA prior to its submission of an application, as required under 
ESEA section 8538; and
    (e) Comply with any other requirements in the application package.

0
8. Amend redesignated Sec.  263.6 by:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i), removing the phrase ``Indian 
institution of higher education'' wherever it appears and adding, in 
its place, ``TCU'';
0
b. Adding a heading to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2);
0
c. Removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B);
0
d. Adding the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(D);
0
f. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii);
0
g. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(D), removing the word ``jobs'' and adding, 
in its place, ``employment'';
0
h. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii);
0
i. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(D), removing the word ``jobs'' and adding, 
in its place, the word ``employment'';
0
j. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
0
k. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  263.6  What priority is given to certain projects and applicants?

    (a) * * *
    (1) Tribal Applicants. * * *
    (2) Consortium Applicants, Non-Tribal Lead. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Training in the field of Native American language instruction;
    (ii) Provide induction services, during the award period, to 
participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, for the 
period of time designated by the Department in the notice inviting 
applications, while participants are completing their work-related 
payback in schools in LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian 
students; and
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Provide induction services, during the award period, to 
participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, for the 
period of time designated by the Department in the notice inviting 
applications while administrators are completing their work-related 
payback as administrators in LEAs that serve a high proportion of 
Indian students; and
* * * * *
    (3) Pre-service administrator training for work in Tribal 
educational agencies. The Secretary establishes a priority for projects 
that--
    (i) Meet the requirements of the pre-service administrator training 
priority in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
    (ii) Include training on working for a TEA, and opportunities for 
participants to work with or for TEAs during the training period; and
    (iii) Include efforts by the applicant to place participants in 
administrator jobs in TEAs following program completion.
    (4) Pre-service administrator training for school start-ups. The 
Secretary establishes a priority for projects that--
    (i) Meet the requirements of the pre-service administrator training 
priority in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
    (ii) Include training to support the capacity of school leaders to 
start new schools that serve Indian students, such as charter schools 
or schools transitioning from BIE-operated to Tribally controlled; and
    (iii) Include efforts by the applicant to place participants in 
administrator jobs with entities planning to start or transition a 
school to serve Indian students.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend redesignated Sec.  263.7 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. In paragraph (c)(1)(iv), removing the word ``jobs'' and adding, in 
its place, the word ``employment'';
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (3);
0
d. Amending paragraph (d)(1) by removing the phrase ``schools with 
significant Indian populations'' and adding, in its place, the phrase 
``LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students'';
0
e. Adding to the end of paragraph (d)(3) the phrase ``and that offer 
qualifying employment opportunities'';
0
f. Adding paragraph (d)(5); and
0
g. Removing paragraph (e)(3).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  263.7  How does the Secretary evaluate applications for the 
Professional Development program?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) The extent to which LEAs with qualifying employment 
opportunities exist in the project's service area, as demonstrated 
through a job market analysis, and have provided a letter of support 
for the project.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project has a plan for 
recruiting and selecting participants, including students who may not 
be of traditional college age, that ensures that program participants 
are likely to complete the program.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed project will incorporate the 
needs of potential employers, as identified by a

[[Page 41379]]

job market analysis, by establishing partnerships and relationships 
with LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students and 
developing programs that meet their employment needs.
    (d) * * *
    (5) The extent to which the applicant will assist participants in 
meeting the service obligation requirements.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  263.8 by revising paragraph (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  263.8  What are the requirements for a leave of absence?

* * * * *
    (b) The project director may approve a leave of absence, for a 
period not longer than 12 months, provided the participant has 
completed a minimum of 50 percent of the training in the project and is 
in good standing at the time of request.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  263.9 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the word ``people'' and adding, in its 
place, the word ``students'' and removing the words ``school that has a 
significant Indian population'' and adding, in their place, the words 
``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students''; and
0
b. Adding a note at the end of this section.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  263.9  What are the payback requirements?

* * * * *
    Note to Sec.  263.9: For grants that provide administrator 
training, a participant who has received administrator training and 
subsequently works for a Tribal educational agency that provides 
administrative control or direction of public schools (e.g., BIE-funded 
schools or charter schools) satisfies the requirements of paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.


Sec.  263.11  [Amended]

0
12. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  263.11 by removing the word 
``people'' in paragraph (b)(1) and adding, in its place, the phrase 
``students in an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian 
students''.

0
13. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  263.12 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(1)(ii);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(1)(iii) as paragraph (c)(1)(iv) and 
adding a new paragraph (c)(1)(iii);
0
c. Removing in paragraph (c)(2) the word ``seven'' and adding, in its 
place, the word ``thirty''; and
0
d. Revising the authority citation.
    The addition and revision read as follows:


Sec.  263.12  What are the grantee post-award requirements?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) A statement explaining that work must be in an ``LEA that 
serves a high proportion of Indian students,'' and the regulatory 
definition of that phrase; and
* * * * *
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442, 25 U.S.C. 5304, 5307)

[FR Doc. 2020-13426 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P