Proposed Priorities-Effective Educator Development Division Programs, 20471-20475 [2021-08193]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20471-20475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0045]


Proposed Priorities--Effective Educator Development Division 
Programs

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

ACTION: Proposed priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes priorities 
for the following programs of the Effective Educator Development 
Division (EED): Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (TSL), 
Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.374A; Teacher Quality Partnerships 
(TQP), ALN 84.336S; and Supporting Effective Educator Development 
(SEED), ALN 84.423A. We may use these priorities for competitions in 
fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years. We propose these priorities to 
focus on educator development, leadership, and diversity in the various 
EED programs in order to improve the quality of teaching and school 
leadership.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 20, 2021.

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 ``FAQ.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priorities, address 
them to Orman Feres, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue 
SW, Room 3C124, Washington, DC 20202.
    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: Orman Feres, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3C124, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6921. 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. To ensure that your comments have maximum 
effect in developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to 
clearly identify the specific section of the proposed priorities that 
each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the 
proposed priorities. 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 our programs.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priorities by accessing Regulations.gov. 
Due to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Department 
buildings are currently not open to the public. However, upon reopening 
you may also inspect the comments in person in room 3C124, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 
p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays.
    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 the proposed priorities. 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 Programs: We are proposing priorities for use in three 
Department programs: TSL, SEED, and TQP. The purpose of TSL is to 
assist States, local educational agencies, and nonprofit organizations 
to develop, implement, improve, or expand comprehensive performance-
based compensation systems (PBCS) or human capital management systems 
(HCMS) for teachers, principals, and other school leaders (especially 
for teachers, principals, and other school leaders in high-need schools 
who raise student academic achievement and close the achievement gap 
between high- and low-performing students). In addition, a portion of 
TSL funds may be used to study the effectiveness, fairness, quality, 
consistency, and reliability of PBCS or HCMS for teachers, principals, 
and other school leaders (educators). The SEED program provides funding 
to increase the number of highly effective educators by supporting the 
implementation of evidence-based practices that prepare, develop, or 
enhance the skills of educators. SEED grants allow eligible entities to 
develop, expand, and evaluate practices that can serve as models to be 
sustained and disseminated. The purposes of the TQP program are to 
improve student achievement; improve the quality of prospective and new 
teachers by improving the preparation of prospective teachers and 
enhancing professional development activities for new teachers; hold 
teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education 
accountable for preparing teachers who meet applicable State 
certification and licensure requirements; and recruit highly qualified 
individuals, including minorities and individuals from other 
occupations, into the teaching force.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3. TSL: Section 2211-2213 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 20 
U.S.C. 6631-6633. SEED: Section 2242 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 6672. TQP: 
Sections 200-204 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 
U.S.C. 1021-1022c.
    Proposed Priorities: This document contains two proposed 
priorities.

[[Page 20472]]

    Proposed Priority 1--Supporting Educators and Their Professional 
Growth.
    Background:
    In Proposed Priority 1, the Department emphasizes the importance of 
promoting the continued development and growth of educators, including 
through leadership opportunities. It is well established that teacher 
effectiveness contributes greatly to student academic outcomes, yet 
there is variation in teacher effectiveness within and across schools, 
including significant inequity in students' access to effective 
teachers, particularly for students from low-income backgrounds, 
students of color, and students with disabilities.
    As such, it is essential to attract and retain a well-qualified, 
experienced, effective, and diverse pool of skilled educators, to 
ensure that they have access to high-quality comprehensive preparation 
programs that have high standards for successful completion, and to 
ensure that they are prepared to teach diverse learners (e.g., through 
co-teaching models, dual certifications, universal design for 
learning). Equally important is supporting and retaining qualified and 
effective educators through practices such as creating or enhancing 
opportunities for professional growth, including through leadership 
opportunities, reforming compensation and advancement systems, creating 
conditions for successful teaching and learning, advanced educator 
certification such as national board teacher or principal 
certification, and through paying the tuition of effective current 
teachers seeking an additional certification in these areas.
    This proposed priority focuses on strengthening teacher 
recruitment, selection, preparation (such as through partnerships with 
institutions of higher education to implement educator residencies that 
include one year of high-quality clinical experiences (prior to 
becoming the teacher of record) in high-need schools), support, 
development, effectiveness, recognition, and retention in ways that are 
consistent with the Department's policy goals of supporting teachers as 
the professionals they are, improving outcomes for all students, and 
ensuring that students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, 
students with disabilities, and other historically underserved students 
have equal access to qualified, experienced, and effective educators.
    Proposed Priority:
    Projects that are designed to increase the number and percentage of 
well-prepared, experienced, effective, and diverse educators--which may 
include one or more of the following: Teachers, principals, 
paraprofessionals, or other school leaders as defined in section 
8101(44) of the ESEA--through evidence-based strategies (as defined in 
34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) incorporating one or more of the following:
    (a) Adopting, implementing, or expanding efforts to recruit, 
select, prepare, support, and develop talented, diverse individuals to 
serve as mentors, instructional coaches, principals, or school leaders 
in high-need schools (as may be defined in the program's authorizing 
statute or regulations) who have the knowledge and skills to 
significantly improve instruction.
    (b) Implementing practices or strategies that support high-need 
schools (as may be defined in the program's authorizing statute or 
regulations) in recruiting, preparing, hiring, supporting, developing, 
and retaining qualified, experienced, effective, diverse educators.
    (c) Increasing the number of teachers with State or national 
advanced educator certification or certification in a teacher shortage 
area, as determined by the Secretary, such as special education or 
bilingual education.
    (d) Providing high-quality professional development opportunities 
to all educators in high-need schools (as may be defined in the 
program's authorizing statute or regulations) on meeting the needs of 
diverse learners, including students with disabilities and English 
learners.
    Proposed Priority 2--Increasing Educator Diversity.
    Background:
    In Proposed Priority 2, the Department recognizes that diverse 
educators will play a critical role in ensuring equity in our education 
system, as discussed in ``The State of Racial Diversity in the Educator 
Workforce'' report published by the Department in 2016: www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf. As that report highlights, research shows that diversity 
in schools, including racial diversity among teachers, can provide 
significant benefits to students. While students of color are expected 
to make up 56 percent of the student population by 2024, the elementary 
and secondary educator workforce is still overwhelmingly white.\1\ In 
fact, the most recent U.S. Department of Education National Teacher and 
Principal Survey (NTPS), a nationally representative survey of teachers 
and principals, showed that 80 percent of public school teachers 
identified as white. This figure has hardly changed in more than 15 
years as a similar survey conducted by the Department in 2000 found 
that 84 percent of teachers identified as white.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``white'' in this report refers to a socially 
constructed category of individuals who self-identify as white and 
non-Hispanic. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 
Education Statistics. ``Table 209.10: Number and percentage 
distribution of teachers in public and private elementary and 
secondary schools, by selected teacher characteristics: Selected 
years, 1987-88 through 2017-18.'' Digest of Education Statistics, 
2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_209.10.asp?current=yes.
    \2\ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics. ``Table 209.10: Number and percentage distribution of 
teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools, by 
selected teacher characteristics: Selected years, 1987-88 through 
2017-18.'' Digest of Education Statistics, 2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_209.10.asp?current=yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Improving educator diversity--including racial, cultural, and 
linguistic diversity--can help all students. Diverse educators are 
positive role models for all students in breaking down negative 
stereotypes and preparing students to live and work in a multiracial 
society. In addition to providing advantages for all students, the 
racial diversity of the teaching workforce can help to close the 
achievement gap,\3\ emerging research \4\ suggests. Both quantitative 
and qualitative studies find that diverse educators can improve the 
school experiences of all students; further, diverse educators \5\ 
contribute to improved academic outcomes while serving as strong role 
models for students.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Redding, Christopher. ``A Teacher Like Me: A Review of the 
Effect of Student-Teacher Racial/Ethnic Matching on Teacher 
Perceptions of Students and Student Academic and Behavioral 
Outcomes.'' Review of Educational Research, 89 (2019) 499-535.
    \4\ Egalite, Anna, Brian Kisida, and Marcus A. Winters. 
``Representation in the Classroom: The Effect of Own-race Teachers 
on Student Achievement,'' Economics of Education Review, 45 (April 
2015) 44-52.
    \5\ Grissom, Jason, Sarah Kabourek, and Jenna Kramer. ``Exposure 
to same-race or same-ethnicity teachers and advanced math course-
taking in high school: Evidence from a diverse urban district,'' 
Teachers College Record, 122 (2020) 1-42.
    \6\ Grissom, Jason and Christopher Redding. ``Discretion and 
disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-
achieving students of color in gifted programs.'' AERA Open, 2, 
(2016) 1-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One report suggests that, compared with their peers, educators of 
color are more likely to (1) have higher expectations of students of 
color (as measured by higher numbers of referrals to gifted programs); 
\7\ (2) confront issues of racism; (3) They also serve as

[[Page 20473]]

advocates and cultural brokers; and (4) develop more trusting 
relationships with students, particularly those with whom they share a 
cultural background.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Lindsay, Constance and Cassandra Hart. ``Exposure to Same-
race Teachers and Student Disciplinary Outcomes for Black Students 
in North Carolina.'' Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39 
(2017) 485-510.
    \8\ Ferguson, Ronald. ``Teachers' Perceptions and Expectations 
and the Black-White Test Score Gap.'' Urban Education, 38, (2003) 
460-507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A 2014 report shows that, despite the critical role that teachers 
of color can play in helping students of color succeed, every State has 
a higher percentage of students of color than educators of color.\9\ 
The teaching force has become slightly more diverse in recent years. 
But recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics 
(NCES) estimates that the elementary and secondary student population 
will continue to become less white and more diverse.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Boser, Ulrich. ``Teacher Diversity Revisited: A New State-
by-State Analysis,'' Center for American Progress (2014).
    \10\ Hussar, William, and Tabitha Bailey. Projections of 
Education Statistics to 2028 (NCES 2020-024). U.S. Department of 
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: 
Author (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless current trends change, the disparity between the racial 
makeup of students and teachers may increase further, fueling the need 
for substantially more progress in increasing teacher diversity.
    This proposed priority is designed to address educator diversity 
through a broader lens of equity and inclusion due to emerging evidence 
that emphasizing diversity without a parallel focus on equity and 
inclusion can minimize the potential benefits of such efforts. As one 
recent reported concluded: ``While the data shows important differences 
in the practices of organizations with greater diversity, a singular 
focus on diversity without a commensurate focus on equity and inclusion 
will not maximize the potential benefits. We see striking evidence that 
organizations that approach diversity, equity, and inclusion in 
parallel have the greatest likelihood of realizing the benefits, such 
as staff engagement and retention.'' \11\ To this end, the proposed 
priority focuses on addressing recruitment, outreach, preparation, 
support, retention, and advancement of educators while advancing 
diversity, equity, and inclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Padamsee, Xiomara, and Becky Crowe. ``Unrealized Impact: 
The Case for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,'' Oakland, CA: 
Promise54, July 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority:
    Under this priority, applicants must develop projects that are 
designed to improve the recruitment, outreach, preparation, support, 
development, and retention of a diverse educator workforce through 
adopting, implementing, or expanding one or more of the following:
    (a) Educator diversity goals, timelines, and action plans at the 
State, district, or school level, including incorporating input from 
diverse educators.
    (b) High-quality, comprehensive teacher preparation programs that 
have a track record of attracting, supporting, graduating, and placing 
underrepresented teacher candidates, and that include one year of high-
quality clinical experiences (prior to becoming the teacher of record) 
in high-need schools (as may be defined in the program's authorizing 
statute or regulations).
    (c) High-quality, comprehensive teacher preparation programs in 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (eligible institutions 
under part B of title III and subpart 4 of part A title VII of the 
HEA), Hispanic Serving Institutions (eligible institutions under 
section 502 of the HEA), Tribal Colleges and Universities (eligible 
institutions under section 316 of the HEA), or other Minority Serving 
Institutions (eligible institutions under title III and title V of the 
HEA) that include one year of high-quality clinical experiences (prior 
to becoming the teacher of record) in high-need schools as may be 
defined in the program's authorizing statute or regulations) and that 
incorporate best practices for attracting, supporting, graduating, and 
placing underrepresented teacher candidates.
    (d) Reforms to teacher preparation programs to improve the 
diversity of teacher candidates, including changes to ensure 
underrepresented teacher candidates are fully represented in program 
admission, completion, placement, and retention as educators.
    (e) Educator candidate support and preparation strategies and 
practices focused on underrepresented teacher candidates, and which may 
include ``grow your own programs,'' which typically recruit middle or 
high school students, paraprofessionals, or other school staff and 
provide them with clear pathways and intensive support to enter into 
the teaching profession.
    (f) Professional growth and leadership opportunities for diverse 
educators, including opportunities to influence school, district, or 
State policies and practices in order to improve educator diversity.
    (g) High-quality professional development on addressing bias in 
instructional practice and fostering an inclusive, equitable, and 
supportive workplace and school climate for educators.
    (h) Data systems and reporting structures to provide accurate, 
public, and timely data about the racial and other demographics of the 
educator workforce that can be used to support efforts to diversify the 
workforce and to measure progress toward teacher and school leader 
diversity at the State, district, or school level.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    Final Priorities:
    We will announce the final priorities in a document published in 
the Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities after 
considering responses to the proposed priorities and other information 
available to the Department. This document does not preclude us from 
proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, 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 the priorities, we invite applications 
through a notice inviting applications in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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--

[[Page 20474]]

    (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.
    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 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 the proposed priorities only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of 
anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that the proposed priorities 
are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with the Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that this proposed regulatory action would 
not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation 
in our programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with 
grant funds. As a result, the proposed priorities would not impose any 
particular burden except when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for 
a grant. The proposed priorities would help ensure that the 
Department's Effective Educator Development programs select high-
quality applicants to implement activities that meet the goals of the 
respective programs. We believe these benefits would outweigh any 
associated costs.

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand.
    The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed 
priorities easier to understand, including answers to questions such as 
the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
     Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or 
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and 
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce 
their clarity?
     Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if 
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
     Could the description of the proposed regulations in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed regulations 
easier to understand?
    To send any comments that concern how the Department could make the 
proposed priorities easier to understand, see the instructions in the 
ADDRESSES section.
    Intergovernmental Review: These programs are subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for these programs.

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 
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 this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are school districts, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit 
organizations. Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or 
eligible entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase 
in the number of applications prepared and submitted annually for 
competitive grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the 
proposed priorities would significantly impact small entities beyond 
the potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and 
receiving, competitive grants from the Department.

[[Page 20475]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed priorities contain information collection requirements 
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006; the 
proposed priorities do not affect the currently approved data 
collection.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    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 the 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.

Ruth Ryder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-08193 Filed 4-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P