Final Priorities and Definitions-Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs, 70612-70641 [2021-26615]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 235 (Friday, December 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70612-70641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26615]



[[Page 70611]]

Vol. 86

Friday,

No. 235

December 10, 2021

Part II





Department of Education





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





34 CFR Part 75





Final Priorities and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental Priorities 
and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 235 / Friday, December 10, 2021 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 70612]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 75

[Docket ID ED-2021-OPEPD-0054]


Final Priorities and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental 
Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priorities and definitions.

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

SUMMARY: In order to support a comprehensive and ambitious education 
agenda, the Secretary issues six priorities and related definitions for 
use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs 
that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use 
an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or 
use one or more of the priority's subparts. These priorities and 
definitions replace the Supplemental Priorities published in the 
Federal Register on March 2, 2018, the Opportunity Zones final priority 
published on November 27, 2019, and the Remote Learning priority 
published on December 30, 2020. However, if a notice inviting 
applications (NIA) published before the effective date of this notice 
of final priorities and definitions included one or more of those 
priorities, the included priorities apply to that competition.

DATES: These priorities and definitions are effective January 10, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Nkemjika Ofodile-Carruthers, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W308, 
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 401-4389. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Secretary has outlined a 
comprehensive and ambitious education agenda that reflects the 
Secretary's vision for American education. This vision is based on a 
fundamental respect for the dignity and potential of every student and 
their access to educational opportunity. These final priorities are 
aligned with evidence-based (as defined in this document) and capacity-
building approaches to addressing various interconnected policy issues 
in the Nation's education system. These final priorities and 
definitions may be used across the Department of Education's (the 
Department) discretionary grant programs to further the Department's 
mission, which is ``to promote student achievement and preparation for 
global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring 
equal access.''
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: Through 
this regulatory action, we establish six supplemental priorities and 
associated definitions. Each major provision is discussed in the Public 
Comment section of this document.
    Costs and Benefits: The final priorities and definitions will 
impose minimal costs on entities that receive assistance through the 
Department's discretionary grant programs. Application submission and 
participation in a discretionary grant program are voluntary. The 
Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the final 
priorities are limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an 
application for a discretionary grant program that is using one or more 
of the final priorities in its competition. Because the costs of 
carrying out activities will be paid for with program funds, the costs 
of implementation will not be a burden for any eligible applicants, 
including small entities.
    We believe that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any 
associated costs because it will result in the submission of a greater 
number of high-quality discretionary grant applications and supporting 
activities that reflect the Administration's educational priorities.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
    We published a notice of proposed supplemental priorities and 
definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register on June 30, 2021 (86 FR 
34664). That document contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the priorities and definitions.
    There are differences between the proposed priorities and 
definitions and the final priorities and definitions established in 
this notice of final priorities and definitions (NFP), as discussed in 
the Analysis of Comments and Changes section in this document.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 100 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities and definitions.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under 
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general 
comments regarding concerns not directly related to the proposed 
priorities or definitions.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities and definitions since publication of 
the NPP follows.

General Comments

    Comments: Many commenters expressed general support for all the 
proposed priorities, and one commenter also expressed support for the 
definitions. We also recognize that it is important to engage broad 
stakeholders and have incorporated many of the comments throughout the 
priorities.
    Some of these commenters also expressed support in specific areas. 
For example, two commenters expressed appreciation for the emphasis on 
the needs of students and educators. A third commenter expressed 
similar support for the emphasis on the needs of students and added, 
more broadly, support for the focus on schools and families. Two 
commenters noted the importance of understanding the impact of the 
novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with one adding that it is 
critical to prioritize actions that will increase educational equity 
and create a more diverse education workforce. Other commenters 
supported the emphasis the priorities place on specific topic areas 
relating to, or subgroups of, children. For example, two commenters 
noted the emphasis these priorities have on students with disabilities. 
Another commenter noted, along with their support, that they thought it 
was important to focus Department grant programs on first-generation 
students from low-income backgrounds. A separate commenter supported 
the overall emphasis throughout the priorities on early learning, while 
another commenter expressed overall support for the focus on mental 
health. Another commenter expressed appreciation for the 
acknowledgement of the need to address staffing shortages and the use 
of universal design for learning. This same commenter specifically 
noted that students with disabilities, particularly students with Down 
syndrome, will only benefit from each of these priorities if grantees 
include such students. The commenter further indicated that students 
with significant cognitive disabilities have been frequently left out 
of key grant programs.
    Other commenters believed that the priorities could have a positive 
impact on education more broadly. For example, one commenter stated 
that these priorities are crucial to the immediate and ongoing work of 
recovery and transformation in our education system to meet the needs 
of all learners, while another commenter appreciated the thoughtful 
systems-level approach to equitably distribute

[[Page 70613]]

resources. Finally, one commenter expressed hope that the priorities 
bring noticeable change in education.
    Discussion: We appreciate the overwhelming support for the 
priorities and welcome the additional comments and suggestions. We 
agree with the commenters on the importance of focusing on the critical 
needs of educators, schools, families, and students, including students 
with disabilities, including those with significant cognitive 
disabilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested changes to the background section 
of the NPP where the Department discussed its intent that, where 
technology is referenced in the priorities and definition, the 
technology be accessible to English learners, and to individuals with 
disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 
of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as 
applicable. The commenter asked that we also specify that limited 
English proficient parents should have meaningful access to information 
about technology, including technology support and information on data 
collection, storage, and sharing. The commenter also requested that 
instructional technology be developed with English learners in mind and 
that teachers know how to select appropriate and high-quality digital 
tools that can be adapted for English learner instructional strategies 
in a virtual environment. For example, instructional technology could 
include embedded language support features and allow for verbal peer-
to-peer interaction.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation for changes to the 
background to include supports for limited English proficient parents 
and to ensure that instructional technology is developed with English 
learners in mind. We agree that Priority 1(e) should address this 
concern as technology supported learning experienced must be inclusive 
of English learners. We do not include a background section in the NFP, 
nor is the background section considered part of the final priorities.
    Changes: In priority 1(e), we have included language to specify 
that access to high-quality, technology supported learning experiences 
be accessible and usable by English learners.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that we require grantees to 
report on their progress in amplifying the voices and experiences of 
families, providers, and community partners. In addition, the commenter 
recommended requiring grantees to disaggregate data to the extent 
possible by race/ethnicity, language, and disability status.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment. Reporting requirements for 
grant programs are established separately for each grant program based 
on program requirements. The Secretary's supplemental priorities are 
not, by design, the place for establishing reporting requirements. For 
this reason, we are not making any changes in response to this comment.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested using the term ``early learning 
and education'' instead of ``education'' throughout the priorities to 
emphasize the birth through college model. The commenter also suggested 
using ``children and students'' instead of ``students,'' and ``Pre-K 
starting at birth'' instead of ``K-12.''
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter's interest in ensuring that 
the priorities are inclusive of young learners. We interpret the terms 
``education'' and ``students'' throughout the priorities to be, in 
general, inclusive of early learning and children, respectively. Where 
appropriate, we have specified specific groups of students. Further, 
``early learning'' is defined to include programs that provide early 
care and education for children from birth to kindergarten entry. 
Therefore, we decline to make any changes in response to this comment.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter stated that prioritizing vulnerable 
students in underserved school districts should be a top priority for 
the Department.
    Discussion: We agree that prioritizing vulnerable students in 
underserved school districts is important. The establishment of these 
priorities is one of many actions the Department is taking to focus on 
vulnerable students in underserved school districts. The priorities 
repeatedly reference ``underserved students,'' and the definition of 
``underserved students'' includes students who may be vulnerable for a 
variety of reasons.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended adding career and technical 
education centers to the listings of educational settings as these 
centers are often not included in funding conversations.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion and agree 
that a focus on career and technical education centers should be added 
to specific priorities to ensure that they are intentionally included 
in the discussion.
    Changes: We have added ``career and technical education programs'' 
to subpart (a) of Priority 2, subpart (h)(1)(ii) of Priority 3, and 
subpart (f) of Priority 4.
    Comments: Several commenters suggested adding additional 
priorities. One commenter suggested a priority focused on improving the 
effectiveness of principals. Another commenter suggested a science, 
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) priority. A third commenter 
proposed a priority to address other factors that impact educational 
attainment and outcomes, through a whole-child approach to young 
children's success. A fourth commenter recommended making school 
diversity its own priority. That commenter also suggested using more 
explicit language on ``school integration'' and ``desegregation'' 
throughout the priorities, in addition to the U.S. Supreme Court's 
terminology--``school diversity'' and ``reduction of racial 
isolation.''
    Discussion: We appreciate these thoughtful recommendations for 
additional priorities. The priorities, as proposed, address each of 
these topics. Priority 2 focuses on STEM by including a subpart that 
calls attention to the inequities related to access to and success in 
rigorous and engaging approaches to STEM coursework. In addition, the 
Department has funded and continues to fund many projects with a STEM 
focus.
    Regarding a new priority to address other factors that impact 
educational attainment and outcomes, projects that focus on whole-child 
strategies would be included under both Priority 1 and Priority 4. 
Priority 1 supports projects that address the impacts of COVID-19 by 
providing resources and supports to meet the basic health and safety 
needs of students and educators. Priority 4 is for projects designed 
specifically to improve students' social, emotional, academic, and 
career development.
    Finally, school diversity is addressed specifically in Priority 2. 
Overall, the Department is committed to equity and adequacy of 
resources for underserved students. One way we think this can be 
accomplished is by examining the sources of inequities. For this 
reason, proposed subpart (b)(13) of Priority 2 supports developing or 
implementing specific policies or practices to address racial and 
socioeconomic diversity by improving data collection methods to 
identify trends in and contributors to stratification and barriers to 
diversity.
    Given that each of the additional proposed topics are addressed in 
the existing priorities, including improving the effectiveness of 
principals and the use of school integration and

[[Page 70614]]

desegregation, we are not making any changes in response to these 
comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters made suggestions regarding the use of 
the term ``educator.'' These commenters highlighted the lack of clarity 
on who the term includes, with many concerned it might be construed to 
mean only teachers, pointing out inconsistencies in how the term was 
used in the proposed priorities. For example, if ``educators'' is meant 
to include persons who are not teachers, then the commenters argued 
that subpart (f)(3) of Priority 3, which uses the phrase ``educator and 
school leader,'' is confusing. As such, many commenters recommended 
including principals and other school leaders in addition to educators 
to highlight the important role school leaders play and noted that this 
would be consistent with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(ESEA). Additionally, other commenters recommended including early 
learning educators among the educators addressed in Priority 3, also 
citing consistency with the ESEA. One commenter requested that 
specialized instructional support personnel be included, and another 
commenter noted the importance of school psychologists. Lastly, a 
couple of commenters requested that when discussing diverse educators, 
Priority 3 specifically mention educators with disabilities, 
emphasizing the importance of students with disabilities seeing 
successful educators with disabilities and the abilities of those 
diverse educators.
    Discussion: We appreciate that the use of ``educator'' could cause 
confusion regarding who is included under this term. Our use of 
``educator'' is meant to include all professionals working to educate 
students and impact student learning, recognizing that all these 
professionals play important roles. Additionally, the term ``diverse 
educators'' is intended to include educators from all backgrounds that 
are underrepresented in the workforce, including educators with 
disabilities. As such, we are adding a definition of ``educator'' to 
explain more clearly what is meant by the term and to be inclusive of 
the groups that commenters noted, and we are clarifying usage of 
``educator'' throughout the priorities where it is unclear.
    Changes: We have added a definition of ``educator,'' which includes 
early childhood educators, teachers, principals and other school 
leaders, specialized instructional support personnel (e.g., school 
psychologists, counselors, school social workers), paraprofessionals, 
and faculty. Additionally, in Priority 2, subpart (a)(2),(b)(2)-(4), 
and throughout Priority 3, subpart (b), we have replaced the references 
to ``teachers'' with references to ``educators'' for consistency. In 
proposed subpart (f)(3) of Priority 3, we have removed ``and school 
leaders.''
    Although the Department did not propose definitions of ``teacher'' 
and ``principal'' in the NPP, we have revised the final definitions, 
based on this and other comments, to include a definition of 
``educator.'' While it was always our intent to include early learning 
professionals within the broader group of educators, we have added a 
definition of ``educator'' to the final definitions that includes 
``early learning educator.''
    Changes: We have added ``early learning educator'' to the new 
definition of ``educator.''
    Comments: One commenter suggested the Department define Pre-K 
students as a separate subgroup with specific needs outside of K-12 
education. More specifically, the commenter suggested that we clarify 
that each of the final priorities would support projects in the early 
learning context, to the extent applicable.
    Discussion: We appreciate this comment and agree with it, in part, 
as we agree with supporting projects that address early learning but do 
not think we need a separate subgroup definition. Priorities 2, 3, 4, 
and 6 share a focus on underserved students and the definition of 
``underserved student'' includes children in early learning 
environments as one of the groups of learners upon which a project may 
focus.
    Changes: We are revising the introductory paragraph within 
priorities 2, 3, 4, and 6 to include that the focus of the projects 
should include underserved students.
    Comments: One commenter asked that, through the priorities, we 
specifically promote certificate programs, such as programs that award 
licensed practical nursing or cybersecurity certificates, which could 
benefit students with disabilities who have individualized educational 
programs.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for the comment. We agree that 
certificate programs can provide important career pathways to students, 
including students with disabilities. Priority 5 addresses the types of 
programs described by the commenter and encourages projects designed to 
increase postsecondary access, affordability, success, and completion 
for underserved students, which may include under subpart (j) projects 
that connect children or students with disabilities, adults with 
disabilities, and disconnected youth to resources designed to improve 
independent living and the achievement of employment outcomes. 
Accordingly, no change is needed, as Priority 5 would allow the 
projects proposed by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter urged the Department to include student and 
educator voices in each of the topic areas to engage students in the 
overall education process.
    Discussion: We agree that students and educators, as applicable, 
should be included in the design, development, and implementation of 
projects proposed under these priorities. However, where appropriate to 
the program and the competition, the Department may include in the NIA 
the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, through which a proposed 
project will be evaluated on the extent to which the proposed project 
encourages participant or beneficiary involvement and to which the 
services to be provided by the proposed project involve the 
collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness 
of project services. We think this approach is a more tailored way to 
promote involvement by the relevant affected stakeholders, which may 
include students and educators, on a program-by-program basis. 
Therefore, we have not made any changes in response to this comment.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Five commenters suggested revising the introductory note 
about accessibility of technology to ensure it references all 
applicable Federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA) and the ESEA. The commenters also suggested adding 
language to reinforce the need for technology to be universally 
designed and fully accessible, as well as to be interoperable with 
assistive technology. A sixth commenter stated that the technology 
should be usable by English learners and individuals with disabilities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation for changes to the 
background to ensure it is consistent with all Federal requirements and 
for the suggested improvements. We do not include a background section 
in the NFP, nor is the background section considered part of the final 
priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes in response to 
these comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters suggested addressing rural education in 
the priorities. One urged caution in adding supplemental priorities to 
rural-serving programs without funding

[[Page 70615]]

increases; the other recommended maintaining the priority related to 
rural applicants in the Administrative Priorities for Discretionary 
Grant Programs published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85 
FR 13640) and requested that additional attention be given to rural 
education under each supplemental priority. These commenters also 
provided suggestions related to funding for rural education. One 
recommended providing additional funding to address the needs of rural 
education, particularly educator compensation and training; the other 
commenter requested the Department work to ensure that all districts 
have equal opportunities to apply for and receive funding and noted 
concerns that some school districts do not apply for discretionary 
grants because they believe the Department favors the largest school 
districts.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for their suggestions. In 
preparing for each program's grant competition, the Department takes 
care in deciding which priorities to apply and when, considering, in 
part, eligible entities' capacity for addressing the priorities. 
Nevertheless, we appreciate the commenter's caution about the use of 
supplemental priorities for rural-serving programs. Regarding the 
administrative priority for rural applicants (85 FR 13640), this 
priority remains in effect and will be available for use by the 
Department, as appropriate.
    Regarding the comment about additional funding for rural education, 
we consider these priorities to be one mechanism for generating 
additional funds for rural-serving programs. Rural-serving programs may 
apply for the Department's discretionary grants to which these 
priorities will apply. Finally, while the comment about ensuring that 
all districts have equal opportunities to apply for and receive funding 
is beyond the scope of the supplemental priorities, the Department's 
procedures for awarding discretionary grants include a variety of 
safeguards and technical assistance to ensure fair grant competitions. 
For example, for almost all the Department's grant competitions, 
program staff recruit application reviewers from outside the Federal 
Government. And, while Department staff screen applications to ensure 
that they meet all program requirements, the non-Federal reviewers read 
and independently score the applications assigned to them.
    Changes: None.

Priority 1--Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Students, Educators, 
and Faculty

    Comments: Several commenters expressed their support for Priority 
1, its focus on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and recognition 
of the challenges underserved students experienced before the pandemic. 
Commenters especially appreciated the focus on students' social, 
emotional, mental health, and academic needs; technology access for 
students and educators and how to best address the ``digital divide''; 
using an evidence base; and the background discussion of the priority 
that emphasized afterschool and summer programs, focus on the whole 
child, and community and family engagement. One commenter appreciated 
the alignment of this priority with the needs of community colleges. In 
its support for the priority, one commenter recommended prioritizing 
underserved students, while another commenter expressed that they would 
like to see a focus on all age groups from infants to young adults, as 
well as educators and families. Another commenter recommended 
prioritizing Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to 
provide resources for HBCUs to address the needs of their students.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the priority and that 
commenters found strong connections between the priority and the needs 
they are seeing in the field. Regarding prioritizing underserved 
students, Priority 1 focused on ``the students most impacted by the 
pandemic,'' but we believe that, as we did in the other priorities, we 
should include a focus on underserved students. We also define 
``underserved students'' to include age groups from infants to young 
adults, and the educators and families that support those students. We 
also agree that it is important that all institutions, especially 
institutions that work directly with underserved students, have the 
resources needed to address Priority 1 to address the needs of and 
fully support their students who are largely underserved populations 
impacted by the pandemic.
    Changes: We have added ``with a focus on underserved students'' to 
the lead-in paragraph of Priority 1. Additionally, to address this 
comment, in Priority 2, we have added new subpart (b) that allows the 
Department to prioritize community colleges, HBCUs, Tribal Colleges and 
Universities (TCUs), or Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). 
Accordingly, proposed subpart (b) of Priority 2 has been redesignated 
as final subpart (a)(2).
    Comments: A couple of commenters proposed that Priority 1 be used 
as a competitive preference priority, with one commenter recommending 
that this priority be used as a competitive preference priority in the 
FY 2022 Charter School Programs (CSP) competitions.
    Discussion: These priorities are intended to be a menu of options 
for use in our discretionary grant programs. The Department may choose 
which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are appropriate for a 
particular program competition, as well as the appropriate level of 
funding and selection criteria. If the Department chooses to use a 
supplemental priority, it also will designate in the notice inviting 
applications whether the priority will be used as an absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational priority in the grant 
competition.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended the addition of a new subpart 
to Priority 1 focused on comprehensive plans to address literacy gaps 
from the pandemic and remote learning.
    Discussion: We agree that the pandemic has had significant impacts 
on learning, including on literacy development. Although we appreciate 
the commenter's recommendations for how this priority could be expanded 
to include a focus on literacy, we want to clarify that the priority 
does not prohibit the projects described by the commenter, and that 
there are already elements that support such models, for example 
subpart 1(g). Applicants have the discretion to determine what approach 
or intervention will best address the priority and meet the needs of 
the targeted population.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters encouraged applicants to consider the 
views of students in addressing the issues under the priority, 
especially focusing on student engagement in decision-making and 
community asset-mapping. Another commenter suggested strengthening the 
priority by including family impacts from the pandemic, not just 
student- and educator-specific impacts, including opportunities to 
address the needs of families in addition to needs of students' and 
educators.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important to be able to reengage 
and support student learning to address COVID-19 impacts, and that 
students and educators, as applicable should be included in the design, 
development and implementation of projects

[[Page 70616]]

proposed under these priorities. Student engagement and voice can be a 
part of projects addressing this priority as proposed, and we believe 
that applicants are best suited to determine how to engage students to 
address the priority. Likewise, we recognize that the pandemic has had 
an impact on everyone, not only students and educators, but their 
families as well. We believe that addressing students' needs can 
include addressing the needs of the families that support those 
students but agree with the commenter's recommendation that the 
priority should explicitly refer to reengaging families.
    Changes: We have added ``and their families'' at the end of subpart 
(a) of Priority 1.
    Comments: Though Priority 1 is focused on addressing the impacts of 
COVID-19, one commenter encouraged the Department not to use this 
priority to support ``vouchers,'' citing the Education Stabilization 
Fund-Rethink K12 Education Models, which established microgrants for 
parents. The commenter noted the importance of this priority focusing 
on public school students.
    Discussion: We recognize that across the various COVID-19 relief 
programs established by Congress, there have been different 
requirements, priorities, and eligible applicants. This priority is 
designed to address the students most impacted by the pandemic, with a 
focus on underserved students. The priority does not include any 
reference to ``vouchers''; eligibility for a program, including whom a 
program may serve, is determined by a program's statutory authority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters recommended that Priority 1 
specifically address the needs of early learning programs, and 
recommended changes to the background section to reference these needs 
and the mental health needs of children in early learning programs 
related to the pandemic.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation for additions to the 
background for the priority to discuss early learning. We do not 
include background sections for priorities in the NFP, nor are the 
background sections considered part of the final priorities. Therefore, 
we are not making any changes in response to this comment. Regarding 
focusing on the mental health needs for children in early learning, 
since the proposed priority refers to ``underserved students,'' and the 
definition of ``underserved students'' includes ``children in early 
learning environments,'' the proposed priority's focus on students' 
mental health needs includes students in early learning programs. 
Accordingly, changes to the priority are not necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported subpart (a) of Priority 1, 
especially the emphasis on community asset-mapping, with one commenter 
recommending using U.S. Census data to look more specifically at 
household disparities from the pandemic. Additionally, commenters noted 
that this priority will help supplement the other funding States are 
receiving and will help minimize burden on educators, students, and 
families. While supportive of the priority, a few commenters 
recommended additions to this subpart. One commenter noted the 
significant impacts of the pandemic on English learners and requested 
that this subpart address learning and language needs of these 
students. This commenter also recommended a focus on reengaging 
``virtual drop-out'' students who disengaged because of remote 
learning. Other commenters recommended that we add language to the 
priority to ensure that State and district needs are assessed and 
measured, looking not only at academic indicators but also at student 
well-being, school culture, and broader indicators of reengagement, 
with one commenter suggesting a focus on reengagement at the early 
learning level. Given the varying impacts of the pandemic on students, 
one commenter proposed additional language focused on assessing the 
needs of specific subgroups of students, including children or students 
with disabilities, and the potential extension of eligibility for 
services for students with disabilities based on this assessment of 
needs. Finally, one commenter recommended that while full community 
engagement in community asset-mapping and the data generated are 
important, the asset-mapping does not need to be perfect and that 
funding under the priority be used to serve as many students as 
possible.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments supporting this subpart and 
the importance of community asset-mapping. We agree that there are a 
range of data points that can be used to assess needs, including U.S. 
Census data, State and local data, and data from community partners. We 
also agree that reengagement of all groups of students is important, 
including students attending school in-person and those participating 
in remote learning. The priority is focused on the students most 
impacted by the pandemic, and we agree that these include English 
learners and children or students with disabilities as discussed by 
commenters. Given the focus on students most affected by the pandemic, 
we do not think additional language identifying specific groups of 
students is necessary, but we agree that ensuring that the assessment 
considers subgroups of students is valuable. As a result, we have added 
language to clarify that the assessment may include an assessment of 
subgroups of students. We agree that States and districts need to work 
with students with disabilities and their families but do not think 
additional language in the priority is necessary for this work to be 
carried out. Lastly, the intent of the subpart is to reengage students 
and address the impacts of COVID-19, and applicants have the discretion 
to determine what approach or intervention will best address the 
priority and meet the needs of the targeted population.
    Changes: We have clarified in subpart (a) of Priority 1 that any 
assessment of student disengagement may include a focus on subgroups of 
students.
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported subpart (b) of Priority 1 
and appreciated the focus on health and safety needs, especially the 
inclusion of educators along with students. One commenter recommended a 
focus on underserved communities, given the impact of the pandemic on 
those communities. Another commenter encouraged inter-agency 
collaboration to address health and safety needs, including 
collaboration with State departments of education, food and nutrition 
agencies, public health departments, and other providers.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments in support of subpart (b) 
and agree that health and safety needs of both students and educators 
need to continually be assessed and addressed. We also agree that 
collaboration with relevant agencies and providers can help to 
successfully provide for the health and safety needs of students and 
educators, and such collaboration would be permitted under this 
subpart.
    This priority is focused on those most impacted by the pandemic, 
and as noted above, we have added ``underserved students'' to the lead-
in paragraph of Priority 1 to focus on those groups. In addition, 
Priority 6 addresses inter-agency collaboration and could be used in 
conjunction with this priority, so we do not think any changes to the 
subpart are necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A few commenters expressed support for subpart (c) of 
Priority 1 and suggested that mental health be maintained in this 
subpart.

[[Page 70617]]

One commenter recommended that funding be used to address shortages in 
mental health professionals and that the subpart include language 
allowing the use of multi-tiered systems of supports to address the 
social and emotional needs of students. One commenter requested that 
the approaches to addressing these needs be culturally and 
linguistically responsive. Another commenter recommended a new subpart 
focused on community engagement and the importance of partnerships to 
support emotional, physical and mental health, and academic needs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for this subpart 
of the priority and agree that addressing students' mental health needs 
is especially important given the impacts on mental health caused by 
the pandemic. Addressing mental health needs includes ensuring the 
appropriate mental health professionals are involved. We also recognize 
the potentially positive impacts of well-designed, well-executed multi-
tiered systems of supports, which we include in Priority 4. Such an 
approach to addressing mental health needs would be permitted under 
this subpart, so we do not think additional language is necessary in 
this subpart of Priority 1. We recognize the importance of addressing 
students' needs in culturally and linguistically inclusive ways, 
recognizing and valuing all students' identities, cultures, and 
potential, and are adding language to address this issue similar to 
that used in other priorities. Lastly, we agree that community 
engagement and partnerships can be beneficial to addressing students' 
social, emotional, mental health, and academic needs. Applicants have 
the discretion to determine what approach or intervention, including 
necessary partnerships, will best address the priority and meet the 
needs of the targeted population. In addition, Priority 6 addresses 
inter-agency collaboration and could be used in conjunction with this 
priority.
    Changes: We have specified in subpart (c) of Priority 1 that 
project approaches must be inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, 
culture, language, and disability status.
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported subpart (d) of Priority 1. 
One commenter recommended that this subpart emphasize the recruitment 
and retention of educators and educator preparation programs. Another 
commenter recommended that the subpart reference a specific report on 
teachers of color and include a focus on educators and staff of color.
    Discussion: We appreciate support for this subpart. We do not think 
the suggested additions to subpart (d) are necessary because Priority 
3--Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional Growth to 
Strengthen Student Learning--focuses on educator preparation, 
recruitment, and retention, as well as educator diversity and the needs 
of diverse educators. Applicants have the discretion to determine what 
approach or intervention will best address the priority and meet the 
needs of the targeted population, which may include specific groups of 
educators most impacted by COVID-19. Lastly, we do not cite specific 
reports in the text of the priorities and therefore decline to include 
the suggested references.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters noted their appreciation for subpart 
(e) of Priority 1 and the Department's recognition that those most 
impacted by the pandemic often have significant technology needs. 
Several commenters made recommendations for additional language related 
to technology for children or students with disabilities to ensure the 
technology complies with laws, such as the Children's Online Privacy 
Protection Act (COPPA), and is ``accessible,'' ``useable,'' and 
``interoperable.'' One commenter requested that district and school 
administrators ensure that any future technology schools and districts 
obtain is accessible for children or students with disabilities. 
Commenters recommended that English learners also be addressed in this 
subpart, noting that English learners similarly have unique needs. One 
commenter recommended that this subpart also ensure that families 
understand the technology being used. A couple of commenters suggested 
that the subpart require that the professional development educators 
receive is ``collaborative'' and ``sustained,'' and another commenter 
recommended that coaching be included along with professional 
development. Another commenter requested changes to the background 
section of the NPP where the Department discussed its intent that, 
where technology is referenced in the priorities and definition, the 
technology be accessible to English learners and to individuals with 
disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 
of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as 
applicable. Lastly, one commenter suggested that the subpart include 
language regarding the continued use of remote learning and service 
delivery, especially in the case of school psychologists.
    Discussion: We agree with commenters that technology access 
continues to be a barrier for many students, and we share commenters' 
concern about accessibility for all students, including children or 
students with disabilities and English learners. To address this issue, 
we have added language to this subpart to ensure that technology meets 
the accessibility needs of children or students with disabilities, and 
to also clarify that technology must support English learners. We do 
not think it is necessary to add language regarding future technology 
purchases by districts and schools because the subpart already requires 
that technology be accessible. Regarding professional development, we 
agree that professional development may benefit from being 
collaborative and sustained; however, the degree to which it need to be 
collaborative and sustained may depend on the type of technology and 
the educator's level of comfort and experience. As to maintaining 
remote learning and service delivery, applicants have the discretion to 
determine what approach or intervention will best address the priority 
and meet the needs of the targeted population.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (e) of Priority 1 to provide that 
technology-supported learning experiences must be useable and 
interoperable after in addition to accessible by children or students 
with disabilities, as well as English learners. We have also provided 
that related professional development should be sustained and 
collaborative, as appropriate.
    Comments: One commenter suggested including universal design for 
learning in subpart (f) of Priority 1 as an example of an evidence-
based intervention.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for the suggestion and agree 
that universal design for learning is an example of an evidence-based 
intervention. We do not believe that it needs to be specifically 
mentioned in this subpart for a prospective applicant to propose to use 
it and note that it is already included in the definitions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested decoupling personalized learning 
from extended learning time and technology as both can enhance 
learning, however, personalized learning is not dependent on extended 
learning time or technology. The commenter stated that applicants 
should enable evidence-based interventions, by leveraging technology 
where appropriate, to support personalized in-person student

[[Page 70618]]

learning as well as evidence-based supplemental activities and, where 
possible, to increase parent and community engagement.
    Discussion: We want the current language of the subpart to allow 
for personalized learning and extended learning time and technology, 
however, would agree that there are also other evidence-based 
interventions that could be used by potential grantees. We decline to 
make further changes to the language.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter noted that Priority 1 does not clearly 
include afterschool and summer learning options, and suggested 
splitting subpart (f) of Priority 1 into two subparts to highlight the 
importance of afterschool and summer learning programs. Specifically, 
the commenter proposed that subpart (f) refer to the use of technology 
to enable evidence-based interventions to support personalized in-
person student learning; and that we create a new subpart (g) focused 
on evidence-based supplemental activities that extend learning time and 
increase student engagement and, where possible, parent engagement. The 
commenter also recommended that the proposed subpart (g) contain 
examples of activities that extend learning time, such as comprehensive 
afterschool and summer programs and work with community partners.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and agree that 
afterschool and summer learning programs are important and should be 
explicitly mentioned. We have not adopted the commenter's suggestion to 
split subpart (f) into two subparts but modified the current subpart 
(f) to include comprehensive afterschool and summer learning and 
enrichment programs as examples of supplemental activities.
    Changes: We have added in subpart (f) of Priority 1 comprehensive 
afterschool and summer learning and enrichment programs as examples of 
supplemental activities that extend learning time and increase student 
and parent engagement.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department consider 
leveraging technology for strategies beyond traditional curriculum and 
instruction, to include work-based learning opportunities. The 
commenter noted that such strategies could expand opportunities for 
work-based learning and employer engagement, while ensuring equitable 
access to students of diverse backgrounds.
    Discussion: The requirement to use evidence-based supplemental 
activities do not preclude an applicant from proposing to use 
innovative strategies for work-based learning. Accordingly, we do not 
believe that changes are needed to subpart (f) to allow the activities 
proposed by the commenter. Other priorities reference career and 
technical education and work-based learning, and could be used in 
combination with this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested removing ``where possible'' from 
subpart (f) of Priority 1. The commenter advised that family engagement 
should be a top priority and made possible through all means. The 
commenter asked that we require that parents have access to devices, 
connectivity, and training in the use of the school's technology.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree that family 
engagement is a top priority. We included ``parent engagement'' in this 
priority to signal its importance, however, we realize that there may 
be limited instances where parental engagement may not be necessary and 
have included the ``where appropriate'' in recognition of those 
instances. Additionally, we will not include the requirement for access 
to devices as this may create additional burden for school systems who 
are at a minimum trying to ensure that their students all have access.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested that we use subpart (g) of 
Priority 1 to encourage States and districts to develop strategies 
related to accelerated learning, but another commenter expressed 
concerns about a lack of information on the effectiveness of certain 
accelerated learning approaches, especially for children or students 
with disabilities, and how retention and special education eligibility 
are being used in relation to lost instructional time. One commenter 
suggested that we add language related to professional development for 
educators to address lost instructional time. Another commenter 
recommended adding language related to career development and 
readiness.
    Discussion: We recognize that there are many different 
instructional approaches and supports to accelerate learning, and this 
priority is designed to support a variety of approaches to meet the 
needs of those most impacted by the pandemic, including children or 
students with disabilities. We carefully consider when and how to use 
any of the supplemental priorities, and in instances where we may use 
this priority and subpart (g), applicants will have the discretion to 
determine what approach or intervention will best address the priority 
and meet the needs of the targeted population. We agree that 
professional development is an important component in successful use of 
instructional approaches and supports to accelerate learning and think 
that support warrants adding language to the subpart. Lastly, given 
that this subpart is focused on accelerating learning, we do not think 
it necessary to add language related to career readiness.
    Changes: We have added professional development, coaching, and 
ongoing support for educators as examples of approaches and supports 
under subpart (g) of Priority 1.
    Comments: Multiple commenters proposed changes to subpart (h) of 
Priority 1 to expressly allow for a focus on children or students with 
disabilities, other credit-bearing courses not specifically addressed, 
and adult learners. A couple of commenters recommended including non-
credit-bearing coursework for comprehensive transition programs for 
children or students with disabilities. Another commenter recommended 
that dual enrollment and early college programs be referenced in the 
subpart. Regarding adult learning, one commenter recommended adding a 
reference to advancing the careers and skills for adults, and another 
suggested the addition of a reference to adult learning after 
postsecondary education.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments on subpart (h) of Priority 
1, as commenters seek to ensure all individuals are reflected in a 
discussion of postsecondary education or training programs. This 
priority is focused on supporting all students in earning a recognized 
postsecondary credential, prioritizing credit-bearing coursework, 
therefore we decline to include the addition of non-credit bearing 
coursework. We strongly support and encourage dual enrollment and early 
college programs and because such programs would be permitted under the 
subpart, we do not think it is necessary to add a specific reference to 
these programs. As to adult learners, we recognize the importance of 
lifelong learners and agree that proposed projects supporting these 
types of programs or approaches would be permitted under this subpart, 
and no further revisions are necessary. We are adding express reference 
to such programs in this subpart to underscore our interest in 
promoting their use.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 70619]]

Priority 2--Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational 
Resources, Opportunities, and Welcoming Environments

    Comments: Several commenters expressed their general support for 
Priority 2 and made additional comments. One commenter specifically 
noted the commitment to equity and strong education regardless of 
background expressed through the priority, as well as the importance of 
equitable access to meaningful summer learning opportunities. Some 
commenters, while expressing their support, also urged the Department 
to maintain its focus on student-centered and project-based learning 
and stated that deeply engaging families is essential to help ensure 
equitable access to resources. Another commenter appreciated the 
inclusion of out-of-school-time settings as one of the eight 
educational settings listed in the priority. Several commenters 
appreciated the focus on parent engagement. Another commenter supported 
continuing existing efforts to designate resources for evidence-based, 
school-wide policies and practices that reduce bullying and harassment 
of and, discrimination against, all students. Another commenter 
supported new measures of student discipline to ensure more equity and 
end the school-to-prison pipeline. An additional commenter noted the 
value of project-based learning for improving academic outcomes and the 
importance of teacher development that includes demonstration and 
rehearsal activities for ensuring equitable participation in 
classrooms. One commenter requested that the Department increase the 
frequency of the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) to ensure equity. 
A commenter agreed that equitable, systemic, and strategic early 
college credit is essential to driving student success in secondary and 
postsecondary education and beyond. Multiple commenters expressed 
support for all subparts of the priority. Several commenters expressed 
strong support for subpart (b) with specific support for the focus on 
identifying and remedying inequities in educational opportunities and 
toward making educational opportunities equal, equitable, and 
accessible. Another commenter stated that subpart (b) will help to 
increase equity by ensuring more students have access to well-prepared, 
effective, and diverse educators. Another commenter expressed support 
for equity in student access to educational resources. One commenter 
fully supported the Department's prioritization of community and family 
engagement while designing and administering discretionary grant 
programs. A final commenter expressed support for success in critical 
and high-need fields to address the systemic practices that have 
contributed to inequities.
    Discussion: We appreciate all the commenters' support for Priority 
2. We think that, overall, the priority allows flexibility for 
applicants to propose evidence-based, capacity-building, and systems-
level approaches designed to effect long-term change systemically and 
systematically for Department stakeholders. Although it is beyond the 
scope of this priority, we also appreciate the commenter's 
recommendation for enhancing the CRDC and agree that the CRDC is one 
resource available to identify inequity. Although it is beyond the 
scope of these priorities, we also recognize that the CRDC includes 
multiple data points that are currently collected that also capture 
gaps in educational equity.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters made recommendations related to the 
use of Priority 2, generally. Two commenters proposed that we use this 
priority as a competitive preference priority and recommended its use 
in specific grant programs such as Education Innovation and Research, 
Full-Service Community Schools, and CSP Developer. Another commenter 
stated that recipients of discretionary grants should be prioritized by 
demonstrated need, with another providing suggestions on how projects 
should be funded. One commenter suggested establishing structures to 
increase student engagement and voice, including student board members 
and youth-led town halls. The commenter also suggested partnerships 
with youth to deliver leadership training. The commenter suggested 
designing processes to ensure equity in access for marginalized 
students and lastly, the commenter also suggested individualized 
curriculum delivery and resources to support the self-actualization of 
students, as well as training educators to utilize restorative justice 
practices.
    Discussion: These priorities, as well as their subparts, are 
intended to be a menu of options for the Department to use in 
competitions for discretionary grant programs. The Department may 
choose which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are appropriate for 
a particular program competition, as well as the appropriate level of 
funding and selection criteria. If the Department chooses to use a 
supplemental priority, it also will decide whether the priority will be 
used as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority 
in the grant competition.
    We agree that the commenter's proposed tools, such as student-led 
engagement and partnerships and professional development, could help 
address inequities and establish, expand, and improve learning 
environments. The priority is designed to allow for a wide range of 
projects to advance educational equity and does not prohibit projects 
that incorporate these approaches. Therefore, we do not think it is 
necessary to include these specific examples.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Regarding Priority 2 generally, one commenter cited 
retention of principals in schools with high rates of poverty, as well 
as the lower income and less autonomy in decision-making principals may 
have, as an issue and proposed adding school leaders to some of the 
subparts to clarify who is included in the meaning of the term 
``educator.'' One commenter suggested that we clarify that the priority 
supports high-quality, non-traditional programs that include both 
accelerated pre-service training and classroom-based clinical training 
and support, particularly those programs with a track record of 
success. The commenter disagreed with using the word ``fully'' to 
modify ``certified educators''; the commenter argued that effective 
teachers are best identified by their performance in the classroom, not 
by their background or experience. Another commenter recommended 
acknowledging suspension and expulsion starting at the preschool years 
and the inequities in these practices in the background section of this 
priority and citing preschool school discipline data within the 
priority. The commenter noted the harmful implications such practices 
may have on students' well-being and longer-term school success. 
Another commenter asked that the priority require any State pre-
kindergarten enrollment portals to include Head Start and Early Head 
Start as options, as well as assist with transportation, mental health, 
and professional development programs. They also suggested that the 
priority require States to set and meet enrollment targets by income, 
family status, dual language status, and other criteria with a strong 
relationship to kindergarten readiness. One commenter suggested the 
Department consider the resources needed to enhance community capacity 
to analyze and use data, including funding professional development and 
intermediary organizations. Another commenter

[[Page 70620]]

suggested the Department facilitate and support peer-to-peer learning 
models that generate sustainable, integrated work-based learning models 
for employers and students.
    Discussion: We appreciate the information provided by the commenter 
about the challenges of retaining principals in schools with high rates 
of poverty. The definition of ``educator'' includes principals and 
other school leaders, so this priority also allows for projects that 
support principals.
    We recognize and appreciate the commenter's concern regarding the 
focus on fully certified educators in subpart (b). However, we think 
that all students, particularly underserved students, should have 
access to educators who are fully prepared on day one as is common 
practice in many high-performing nations, and who are not teaching, for 
example, on an emergency or substitute certification. Requiring 
teachers to meet State standards for full certification is one means of 
ensuring that all students have access to qualified educators. We agree 
that the focus on equity in the classroom should begin at the early 
learning stages. We specifically identify early learning programs as a 
setting that the Department may select under the priority. We have 
designed the priority to give applicants flexibility in promoting 
educational equity. We believe applicants could propose under the 
priority, without further revision, projects related to high-quality, 
non-traditional programs that include pre-service classroom-based 
clinical training and support; suspension and expulsion inequities in 
early learning settings; improvements to kindergarten readiness 
programs, including with respect to equitable access and accessibility 
generally; building capacity with respect to the analysis and use of 
data; and peer-to-peer work-based learning models. While we fully 
support Head Start and all avenues to kindergarten readiness, we are 
unable to make requirements that are not within the scope of the 
statutory authority for Department programs and therefore have not 
added the requested language to this priority. We appreciate the 
commenter's suggestion on how funds should be used. These priorities 
are intended as a menu of options for use in our discretionary grant 
programs. The Department may choose which, if any, of the priorities or 
subparts are appropriate for a particular program competition, as well 
as the appropriate level of funding and selection criteria. If the 
Department chooses to use one of these priorities, it will decide 
whether the priority will be used as an absolute, competitive 
preference, or invitational priority in the grant competition, as well 
as the appropriate level of funding and selection criteria.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters recommended adding additional 
educational settings to the list in subpart (a) of Priority 2 that 
would refer to schools that serve the highest-need students in an 
effort to support schools enrolling significant populations of students 
who have previously dropped out or who have a history of trauma, mental 
health challenges, and severe disengagement; and (2) provide for 
developing, implementing, and expanding access to programs that provide 
two-generational support for the whole family, a support that 
emphasizes education, economic supports, social capital, and health and 
well-being to create a legacy of economic security that passes from one 
generation to the next. Additionally, one commenter suggested that we 
include ``home and community'' in the list of educational settings in 
subpart (a). Regarding subpart (a)(6), one commenter recommended a 
definition for out-of-school-time settings that would explicitly 
include all kinds of programs that occur during the summer, before and 
after school, in the evenings, and on weekends; located in school 
buildings or community settings; managed or operated by schools, 
community organizations, parks, camps, faith-based organizations and 
other entities; and serving children and youth in grades K-12. A couple 
of commenters suggested adding alternative schools and programs and 
college and career education to the list of educational settings.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation to expand the list to 
include additional educational settings to ensure that more support is 
provided, and we agree that a focus on these settings is appropriate. 
Support for serving the highest-need students is captured through the 
priority's express focus on promoting educational equity and adequacy 
in resources and opportunity for ``underserved students,'' which is 
defined to include, as appropriate to the competition, several 
different subgroups of students who have high needs. We agree that home 
and community are important locations that encourage educational 
development. As we have included out-of-school-time settings in the 
list of educational settings under subp