Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Perkins Innovation and Modernization Grant Program, 54882-54899 [2023-17227]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 155 (Monday, August 14, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54882-54899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17227]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2023-OCTAE-0048]


Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Perkins Innovation and Modernization Grant Program

AGENCY: Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the Perkins 
Innovation and Modernization (PIM) grant program, Assistance Listing 
Number 84.051F. The Department may use the priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year 
(FY) 2023 and later years. We take this action to support grant 
competitions that will identify strong and well-designed projects that 
incorporate evidence-based and innovative strategies and activities to 
improve student success in secondary education, postsecondary 
education, and careers.

DATES: The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are effective September 13, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles ``Bryan'' Jenkins, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A192, 
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-987-0815. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the PIM grant program is to 
identify, support, and independently evaluate evidence-based and 
innovative strategies and activities to improve and modernize career 
and technical education (CTE) and align workforce skills with labor 
market needs. The Department anticipates using the PIM authority 
beginning in FY 2023 to award competitive grants to support Career 
Connected High Schools (CCHS) that will transform public high schools 
by expanding existing and implementing new strategies and supports to 
help their students identify and navigate pathways to postsecondary 
education and career preparation, accrue college credit, pursue in-
demand and high-value industry-recognized credentials, and gain direct 
experience in the workplace through work-based learning.
    Program Authority: Section 114(e) of the Carl D. Perkins Career and 
Technical Education Act of 2006, as amended by the Strengthening Career 
and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V) (20 U.S.C. 
2324).
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register on May 16, 
2023 (88 FR 31196) (the NPP). The notice contained background 
information and our rationale for proposing the priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. As discussed in the 
Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document, we made 
substantive changes to Priorities 1, 2, 3 and 4, Application 
Requirement 3, Program Requirement 3, and the selection criteria. We 
also added a new application requirement.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 17 
parties submitted comments. Generally, we do not address technical and 
other minor changes or suggested changes that the law does not 
authorize us to make. In addition, we do not address comments that are 
outside the scope of the NPP.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows. We group 
major issues according to subject.
    Priority 1--Career-Connected High Schools.

[[Page 54883]]

    Comments: Sixteen commenters expressed general support for Priority 
1. One commenter felt that the activities contemplated under Priority 1 
are not innovative because they already are allowable uses of funds 
under the State formula grant program authorized by Perkins V. That 
commenter instead recommended giving applicants the discretion to 
determine their use of grant funds.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 1. 
With respect to the commenter who advocated for allowing grantees to 
determine how they use grant funds, the Department believes that 
funding projects that meet the requirements of Priority 1 will be more 
productive in building evidence and advancing equity than funding a set 
of projects that lack a clear and consistent focus. While the 
Department acknowledges that the activities described in Priority 1 are 
allowable uses of funds under the Perkins V State grant program, to the 
extent States and LEAs are using Federal funds for these activities, 
they can be expanded to ensure these activities reach all students.
    Priority 1 is innovative because it promotes the implementation of 
these activities all together, equitably, and at a scale that will 
benefit all students in a high school. For example, the opportunity to 
participate in dual or concurrent enrollment programs (as defined in 
section 3 of Perkins V) is now limited to a small group of students. 
Among the high school class of 2019, only about one-third of white 
students, about one-quarter of Asian, Native American, and Hispanic 
students, and less than a fifth of Black students took one or more dual 
enrollment courses during their time in high school.\1\ Other research 
has documented that students from low-income backgrounds are 
significantly underrepresented among dual enrollment course-takers.\2\ 
English learners (ELs) and students with disabilities are also often 
shut out of dual enrollment opportunities. For example, during the 
2017-18 school year, 50 percent of public schools that offered either 
11th or 12th grade attended by ELs offered dual enrollment but did not 
enroll any ELs in such courses, and 37 percent of such schools attended 
by students with disabilities offered dual enrollment but did not 
enroll any students with disabilities in such courses.\3\ Work-based 
learning opportunities also are uneven in their availability across the 
country.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 
Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National 
Assessment of Educational Progress (2022), 2019 NAEP High School 
Transcript Study (HSTS) Results: A Closer Look, Retrieved from: 
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/hstsreport/#closerlook_3_0_el. 
Dual credit course-taking by Native American students tabulated 
using the Data Explorer for the High School Transcript Study at: 
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/hsts.
    \2\ See, for example, Lochmiller, C.R., et al. (2016), Dual 
enrollment courses in Kentucky: High school students' participation 
and completion rates (REL 2016-137). Washington, DC: U.S. Department 
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/appalachia/pdf/REL_2016137.pdf. Also 
see Miller, Trey, et al. (2017), Dual Credit Education in Texas: 
Interim Report, RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2043.html.
    \3\ Fink, John, ``How Many Schools in Your State Shut Out 
Students from Dual Enrollment or AP?'' The Mixed Methods Blog 
(November 10, 2021), Community College Research Center. Retrieved 
from: https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/schools-dual-enrollment-ap.html.
    \4\ Ross, M., Kazis, R., Bateman, N., and Stateler, L. (2020), 
Work-Based Learning Can Advance Equity and Opportunity for America's 
Young People, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings 
Institution. Retrieved from: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20201120_BrookingsMetro_Work-based-learning_Final_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's hope is that projects that deliver all four 
Priority 1 components will be evidence-building pioneers whose results 
will inspire States and LEAs to implement these activities at scale 
using their own funds, as well as formula grants from the Department 
that allow these activities. The Department believes this focused 
effort will generate greater evidence and improve the outcomes of more 
students than allowing each applicant to decide how to use limited PIM 
grant funds.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters recommended that the Department revise 
Priority 1 to require applicants to address all four components of the 
priority, rather than only one or more of the components. One commenter 
urged the Department to amend the priority to require universal student 
participation in the development of personalized postsecondary and 
career plans (as defined in this notice), implementation of two of the 
remaining three components within the grant period, a plan for scaling 
up all four components during the grant period (or a rationale that 
describes why this could not be achieved and a timeline for when it 
would be achieved), and a commitment to develop a plan to sustain these 
activities after the grant period. Another commenter recommended that 
the Department revise the priority to require a plan and timeline for 
implementation of all four components and to amend and weigh the 
selection criteria so that applicants planning to implement all four 
components during the grant period are awarded more points by 
reviewers. Another commenter suggested revising the priority to require 
applicants to provide a plan for implementing all four components but 
permit them to focus on implementing only a subset during the grant 
period. One commenter recommended that the Department align the 
priority with the keys to college and career success outlined in the 
Department's Raise the Bar: Unlocking Career Success initiative \5\ and 
require projects to strive for universal student participation in the 
four components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ More information about Unlocking Career Success can be found 
at https://cte.ed.gov/unlocking-career-success/home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: By structuring Priority 1 to allow applicants to 
implement one or more of four components of career-connected learning, 
we preserve our flexibility to adjust the number of required components 
in future grant competitions. For example, in a year in which limited 
funds are available for a competition, we could use this flexibility to 
support grantees in pursuing targeted approaches. At the same time, 
using the ``one or more'' language allows us to include the priority in 
a competition as an absolute priority that requires applicants to 
include all four components. Program Requirement 5 requires grantees to 
have a project plan that includes benchmarks for implementing one or 
more of the four keys to career-connected learning by no later than the 
end of the fifth year of the project. As with Priority 1, Program 
Requirement 5 is constructed to give the Department flexibility to 
specify the number of keys to career-connected learning that must be 
implemented by the end of the project period. We also support the 
commenter's suggestion to further align Priority 1 and the Raise the 
Bar: Unlocking Career Success initiative where possible, and, based on 
our own review, changed the language in the priority from ``pillars'' 
to ``keys.''
    Changes: We have changed the reference to the four components in 
Priority 1 from ``pillars'' to ``keys.''
    Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that Priority 1 was 
not adequately focused on promoting equitable student participation in 
career-connected learning. One commenter recommended that Priority 1 be 
reoriented to emphasize improving the access and success of students 
who are members of ``special populations'' \6\

[[Page 54884]]

in Perkins V. Another commenter recommended that Priority 1 focus on 
promoting equity in student access and outcomes for students of color, 
students from low-income backgrounds, and females, including by 
expanding access to higher-wage CTE pathways, such as those that 
prepare students for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
(STEM) careers, for students from groups that have been historically 
underrepresented in such programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 3(48) of Perkins V defines ``special populations'' 
to mean individuals with disabilities; individuals from economically 
disadvantaged families, including low-income youth and adults; 
individuals preparing for nontraditional fields, which are 
occupations or fields of work for which individuals from one gender 
comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in each 
such occupation or field of work; single parents, including single 
pregnant women; out-of-workforce individuals; English learners; 
homeless individuals described in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a); youth who are in, or 
have aged out of, the foster care system; and youth with a parent 
who is a member of the armed forces (as such term is defined in 
section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code); and is on active 
duty (as such term is defined in section 101(d)(1) of such title).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Department appreciates the concerns of the 
commenters and agrees that inequities in student access and success 
should remain an important focus of this program. To that end, we note 
that Priority 4 requires projects to demonstrate that at least 51 
percent of the students they will serve will be from low-income 
families. Moreover, there are other tools available to the Department 
to make advancing equity a focus of future PIM grant competitions, such 
as, for example: (a) the equitable access priorities from the 
Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary 
Grants Programs published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 
(86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities); (b) selection criteria from 
the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) at 
34 CFR 75.210(a) that assess the need for a proposed project; and (c) 
the EDGAR selection criterion at 34 CFR 75.210(d)(2) that evaluates the 
quality and sufficiency of a proposed project's strategies for ensuring 
equal access and treatment for eligible participants who are members of 
groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, 
color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter urged the Department to revise Priority 1 to 
highlight and encourage applicants to develop and expand access to CTE 
programs in the construction, transportation, electrification, and 
manufacturing sectors, which the commenter describes as ``skilled 
trades.'' The commenter also recommended adding a definition of 
``skilled trades education'' to make clear that programs that prepare 
individuals for occupations in these sectors are CTE.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that addressing the 
workforce needs of the construction, transportation, electrification, 
and manufacturing sectors is critically important. Historic investments 
made through the American Rescue Plan, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act, as well as 
associated private sector investments, will create millions of good-
paying jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, supply chains, and 
manufacturing.\7\ We will encourage applicants to consider these new 
opportunities as they develop college and career pathways under this 
program. We decline, however, to create a special focus on these 
sectors (or any others) in Priority 1, in favor of giving applicants 
the flexibility to design projects that are responsive to the most 
compelling workforce needs in their communities. Section 114(e)(3)(E) 
of Perkins V requires each applicant to describe how the programs they 
will implement reflect the needs of regional, State, or local 
employers, as demonstrated by the biennial comprehensive needs 
assessment that Perkins V subrecipients must complete under section 
134(c) of that Act. In many communities, these will be jobs in the 
construction, transportation, electrification, and manufacturing 
sectors. We also decline to add a definition of ``skilled trades 
education'' because we do not consider it necessary to use rulemaking 
authority to clarify that the programs this term describes are 
allowable uses of funds under PIM. These programs have long been an 
important part of CTE, and we affirm that they are eligible uses of PIM 
funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The White House (2023), Biden-Harris Administration Roadmap 
to Support Good Jobs (Fact Sheet), May 16, 2023. Retrieved from: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/05/16/biden-harris-administration-roadmap-to-support-good-jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we require applicants to 
describe how they will use evidence-based practices, including 
universal design for learning,\8\ in carrying out the activities 
described in Priority 1 to ensure that teachers, school leaders, and 
industry partners are adequately trained to implement these activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Section 3(54) of Perkins V defines ``universal design for 
learning'' by cross-referencing the definition of this term in 
section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
as amended by Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA). Section 8101 of 
ESEA cross-references the definition in section 103 of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, which defines the term as ``a scientifically 
valid framework for guiding educational practice that--(A) provides 
flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways 
students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the 
ways students are engaged; and (B) reduces barriers in instruction, 
provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and 
maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including 
students with disabilities and students who are limited English 
proficient.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation, but we 
decline to modify Priority 1 to require the description sought by the 
commenter because we consider it unnecessary. Because several of the 
selection criteria assess the likely effectiveness of applicants' 
proposed strategies to increase student participation and success in 
career-connected learning, we anticipate that successful applicants 
will describe in their applications evidence-based practices, such as 
universal design for learning, and how they will prepare teachers, 
school leaders, and industry partners to implement them.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters suggested modifications to Priority 1's 
reference to postsecondary credits earned through dual or concurrent 
enrollment programs. One commenter recommended that the priority 
specify that earning 12 postsecondary credits is the goal because there 
is evidence that the benefits of dual enrollment increase with every 
postsecondary credit earned, at least up to 12 credits. A second 
commenter urged the Department to amend the priority to specify that 
dual or concurrent enrollment courses must be part of a guided pathway 
that begins in 11th grade, and is aligned with postsecondary pathways 
and postsecondary programs of study, so that students' participation in 
dual or concurrent enrollment courses helps them progress toward 
identified postsecondary degrees or credentials, saving students and 
their families time and money toward attaining a postsecondary 
credential.
    Discussion: We agree that promoting attainment of at least 12 
postsecondary credits through participation in dual or concurrent 
enrollment programs should be a goal of career-connected high schools 
because research suggests that the benefits of dual enrollment increase 
with every postsecondary credit earned, at least up to 12 credits.\9\ 
However, we

[[Page 54885]]

decline to modify Priority 1 to specify that projects must make this 
the goal for all students, to preserve flexibility for applicants to 
design projects that are responsive to the needs of their students and 
local circumstances and resources. Instead, we are establishing an 
application requirement that directs applicants to describe how they 
will seek to increase not only the number of students who earn any 
postsecondary credits through dual or concurrent enrollment programs 
but also how they will seek to increase the average number of 
postsecondary credits earned by students to 12 or more. To measure the 
progress of grantees in pursuing those goals, we also are establishing 
an additional reporting requirement that will collect data on the 
average number of postsecondary credits earned by students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Taylor, J.L., Allen, T.O., An, B.P., Denecker, C., Edmunds, 
J.A., Fink, J., Giani, M.S., Hodara, M., Hu, X., Tobolowsky, B.F., & 
Chen,W. (2022), Research priorities for advancing equitable dual 
enrollment policy and practice. Salt Lake City, UT: University of 
Utah. Retrieved from: https://cherp.utah.edu/_resources/documents/publications/research_priorities_for_advancing_equitable_dual_enrollment_policy_and_practice.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree that participation in dual or concurrent programs should 
be part of a defined program of study so that students may advance 
toward their college and career goals and accelerate their attainment 
of a postsecondary credential. As the commenter suggests, where 
institutions of higher education (IHEs) are restructuring their 
programs around broad career pathways, which are sometimes described as 
``guided pathways,'' \10\ dual or concurrent programs should be 
integrated into these efforts so that students and their families have 
clear program maps showing how each postsecondary course adds up to a 
postsecondary credential.\11\ We decline the commenter's recommendation 
to specify that these programs must commence in 11th grade, however, to 
give grantees flexibility in designing these programs of study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Jenkins, D., Lahr, H., Fink, J., and Ganga, E. (2018), What 
We Are Learning About Guided Pathways: Part 1: A Reform Moves from 
Theory to Practice, Community College Research Center, Teachers 
College, Columbia University. Retrieved from: https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/guided-pathways-part-1-theory-practice.pdf.
    \11\ Mehl, G., Wynder, J., Barnett, E., Fink, J., Jenkins, D. 
(2020), The Dual Enrollment Playbook: A Guide to Equitable 
Acceleration for Students, Community College Research Center and the 
Aspen Institute College Excellence Program. Retrieved from: https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/dual-enrollment-playbook-equitable-acceleration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: We added a fifth application requirement that applicants 
include in their applications a description of how they will seek to 
increase the proportion of students who earn any postsecondary credits 
from participation in dual or concurrent enrollment programs, and how, 
over the 60-month project period, they also will seek to increase the 
average number of postsecondary credits earned by students to 12 or 
more. We also revised the program evaluation requirements to require 
grantees to report annually on the average number of postsecondary 
credits earned by students through participation in dual or concurrent 
enrollment programs and the extent to which students attain any 
postsecondary credits and at least 12 postsecondary credits in a 
program of study that culminates with an associate, bachelor's, or 
advanced degree, or completion of a Registered Apprenticeship Program.
    We modified the dual or concurrent enrollment component of Priority 
1 to specify that these postsecondary credits must be part of a program 
of study that culminates with an associate, bachelor's, or advanced 
degree, or completion of a Registered Apprenticeship Program. In 
addition, we made several conforming changes to Priority 1 to reflect 
the new program of study requirement. Because programs of study will 
integrate both secondary and postsecondary content, we modified 
Priority 1 to indicate that the 5-year plan it requires must not only 
provide for the alignment of secondary and postsecondary education but 
also the integration of the two. We also modified Application 
Requirement 3, which relates to the 5-year plan, to conform with the 
change to the 5-year plan in Priority 1. Because programs of study may 
begin earlier than the last two years of high school, we also deleted 
the reference in Priority 1 to the last two years of high school and 
now specify that the plan address alignment and integration of high 
school generally with the first two years of postsecondary education.
    Comments: One commenter asked the Department to clarify whether 
Priority 1's goal of substantially increasing the proportion of 
students who graduate from high school with postsecondary credits 
earned from dual or concurrent enrollment programs could be satisfied 
through student participation in Advanced Placement (AP) courses, 
expressing the view that students who score highly on AP examinations 
also receive postsecondary credit. A second commenter supported 
excluding participation in AP courses from the priority because, the 
commenter maintained, students rarely receive postsecondary credit even 
if they receive a high score on the associated examinations.
    Discussion: AP courses can be a valuable part of a well-rounded 
education and may be included in programs of study developed and 
implemented with grant funds under this program. However, Priority 1 
specifically promotes participation in dual or concurrent programs as 
one of the four keys to college and career success, because such 
programs enable students to earn postsecondary credits immediately upon 
completion of each course, and these credits may usually be transferred 
to other colleges and universities after the student completes high 
school.\12\ Accumulating postsecondary credit through AP courses is 
less certain. Students must first achieve a designated score, typically 
3 or higher on a single examination; \13\ in 2022, the percentage of AP 
test-takers who failed to score 3 or higher ranged from 11.7 percent in 
Art and Design: Drawing to 56.7 percent in Physics 1.\14\ Students then 
must petition the IHE in which they enroll to seek the postsecondary 
credit. One study found that most colleges and universities imposed 
restrictions on the award of credit for AP test scores, such as 
requiring a score higher than 3, restricting the subject areas in which 
credit could be awarded, limiting the awarded credit to elective 
coursework, or limiting the total amount of credit a student could 
receive.\15\ In addition, dual or concurrent programs are typically 
available for a wider range of disciplines than the 38 subject areas in 
which there are AP examinations, such as health science, engineering 
technology, and other postsecondary CTE programs. Dual or concurrent 
programs also require LEAs and schools to establish close partnerships 
with the IHEs offering the postsecondary programming, which can benefit 
students in other ways, such as by improving the alignment of 
curriculum and the readiness of high school graduates to enter 
postsecondary education without need for remediation.

[[Page 54886]]

Further, there is compelling evidence that participation in dual or 
concurrent programs not only has positive effects on postsecondary 
outcomes like postsecondary enrollment and degree attainment, but also 
high school outcomes such as graduation and general academic 
achievement.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ College in High School Alliance (n.d.), The Benefits of 
College in High School Programs. Retrieved from: https://collegeinhighschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/TheBenefitsofCollegeinHighSchoolPrograms-1.pdf.
    \13\ College Board (2022), New to AP? Here's Where to Start. 
Retrieved from: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/about-ap/district-leaders.
    \14\ College Board (2022), Student Scores Distribution: AP Exams 
May 2022. Retrieved from: https://apstudents.collegeboard.org/about-ap-scores/score-distributions.
    \15\ Weinstein, P., Jr. (2016), Diminishing Credit: How Colleges 
and Universities Restrict the Use of Advanced Placement, Progressive 
Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/MEMO-Weinstein-AP.pdf.
    \16\ Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 
Education (2017), What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Dual 
Enrollment Programs. Retrieved from: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_dual_enrollment_022817.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comments: We received a number of comments on the work-based 
learning component of Priority 1. Several commenters supported the 
inclusion of the work-based learning opportunity component in Priority 
1. One commenter expressed concern that it would be difficult for 
grantees to increase participation in work-based learning opportunities 
for immigrant students who lack documentation that enables them to work 
in the United States. One commenter supported the requirement that 
wages or academic credit be provided to students for completing work-
based learning opportunities, and encouraged the Department to retain 
this requirement, because compensated work-based learning experiences 
result in higher levels of satisfaction for students than those that 
are uncompensated. Another commenter maintained that the definition of 
work-based learning opportunity used in the NPP, which is from section 
3 of Perkins V, did not include a wide range of relevant experiences 
and should be enhanced to include applied learning activities that are 
not implemented in the context of work because they also enable 
students to contextualize and apply the knowledge and skills taught in 
classrooms. Another commenter recommended that the work-based learning 
component of Priority 1 give students multiple means to demonstrate 
what they have learned through work-based learning and that teachers, 
work-based learning coordinators, and industry partners be trained to 
assess student performance through multiple means. One commenter 
highlighted a noteworthy innovation that offers postsecondary credit 
and work experience simultaneously through work-based dual credit 
courses that are co-taught by college faculty and employer supervisors, 
using the workplace as a learning lab, with at least 20 percent of the 
course taught at the workplace by an employer instructor. The commenter 
recommended that this innovation be considered a work-based learning 
opportunity under Perkins V.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the work-
based learning component of Priority 1. We understand the concerns of 
the commenter who described the challenges associated with identifying 
work-based learning opportunities for students who lack documentation 
that authorizes them to work in the United States. We note that the 
definition of work-based learning in Perkins V includes both actual 
work in authentic workplace settings and also simulated work in 
classroom environments. Simulated work in classroom environments may be 
useful in helping these students, as well as those in remote, rural 
communities develop professional skills. The State of West Virginia, 
for example, has received considerable attention for the innovative 
Simulated Workplace program that it has implemented statewide.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ D'Antoni, K. (2019), Simulated Workplaces in West Virginia, 
State Education Standard, volume 19 number 3 (September 2019), 
National Association of State Boards of Education. Retrieved from: 
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1229651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We appreciate the support of the commenter for the requirement in 
Priority 1 that students earn academic credit or wages for their 
participation in work-based learning opportunities.
    The Department agrees with the commenter who expressed the view 
that applied learning activities can be valuable even when they are not 
implemented in the context of work. While the definition of work-based 
learning opportunity in Perkins V does not include such applied 
learning opportunities, the statutory definition of CTE includes 
applied learning activities and does not require that they be 
implemented in the context of work. Consequently, projects may carry 
out the activities the commenter recommends notwithstanding the 
exclusion of applied learning from the definition of work-based 
learning in Perkins V.
    We agree with the commenter who stressed the importance of training 
teachers, work-based learning coordinators, and industry partners in 
assessing student participation in work-based learning opportunities, 
but we decline to impose this as a Priority 1 requirement to preserve 
applicants' flexibility to accommodate local circumstances and 
contexts. The Department may include assessing work-based learning in 
the technical assistance we intend to provide PIM grantees, however. 
Similarly, with respect to work-based dual credit courses, we affirm 
that such courses are consistent with the definition of work-based 
learning opportunity in Perkins V, but do not believe it is necessary 
to specify this in Priority 1.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A few commenters recommended revisions to Priority 1 
relating to the personalized postsecondary and career plans that are 
developed and updated annually through a system of career guidance and 
academic counseling and postsecondary education navigation supports. 
One commenter urged the Department to specify that the personalized 
postsecondary education and career plan must provide multiple entry 
points, be accessible to all students, including students with and 
without disabilities, be co-designed with students, and include ways 
for students to interact with role models or mentors from similar 
backgrounds and with similar life experiences. These amendments, the 
commenter contends, would strengthen this component of Priority 1 by 
grounding it in research and best practices. Another commenter urged 
the Department to expand this component of the priority to include 
comprehensive wraparound supports to promote the successful 
participation of all students, including tutoring, mentoring, 
foundational coursework, and payment of any required participation 
costs. Another commenter stated that Priority 1 would be more effective 
if it specified that a project must include professional development to 
train student advisers in delivering career coaching that is culturally 
competent and informed by accurate and current labor market 
information. Further, this commenter continued, Priority 1 should 
require that students participate in a carefully sequenced set of 
career development activities, such as completing career interest 
inventories and participating in mock interviews. Another commenter 
urged the Department to clarify that youth-serving organizations may be 
sources of career exploration and support for education and career 
planning assistance, noting an example of a youth-serving organization 
that provides counseling and career planning to students participating 
in internships in out-of-school time hours.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for personalized 
postsecondary and career plans. With respect to the recommendation that 
these plans provide multiple entry points and be co-designed with 
students, we note that Priority 1 already specifies that the plans must 
be updated annually, and the definition of personalized postsecondary 
and career

[[Page 54887]]

plans already requires that these plans be developed with students and, 
to the greatest extent practicable, the student's family or guardian. 
All of the activities funded by PIM must meet or be consistent with the 
requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and 
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. For this reason, while we 
appreciate the commenter's recommendation that we modify the priority 
to indicate that the plans be accessible to students with disabilities, 
we believe this is already required. We agree that providing students 
with mentors is a commendable practice, but we decline to require this 
in Priority 1 or the definition of personalized postsecondary and 
career plans, to give applicants flexibility to design a system of 
career guidance and academic counseling and postsecondary education 
navigation supports that reflects local needs, assets, and resource 
limitations. We agree with the commenter who emphasized the importance 
of providing students with comprehensive wraparound support services, 
and so we have modified the definition of personalized postsecondary 
and career plan to indicate that the plan must identify any wraparound 
supports a student will need to carry out the activities and pursue the 
goals described in the plan. We also agree with the commenter who 
recommended that we require students to receive culturally responsive 
career coaching and advising that is informed by the labor market and 
delivered by trained personnel, and we have modified Priority 1 
accordingly. We decline to amend the definition of personalized 
postsecondary and career plan to require a specific sequence of career 
development activities, to preserve applicant flexibility. We affirm 
that youth-serving organizations can be useful partners in supporting 
the career exploration and identification of postsecondary education 
and career goals. We plan to support this work in our technical 
assistance to applicants and grantees.
    Changes: We modified Priority 1 to indicate that the system of 
career guidance and academic counseling (as defined in section 3(7) of 
Perkins V) and postsecondary education navigation must include college 
and career coaching by trained advisors that is culturally responsive 
and informed by accurate and current labor market information. We 
modified the definition of personalized postsecondary and career plan 
to specify that it must identify any comprehensive wraparound support 
services that a student may need to carry out the activities and pursue 
the goals described in the plan.
    Priority 2--Partnership Applications.
    Comments: Several parties expressed support for the focus in 
Priority 2 on applications that include as partners at least one 
business or industry representative, a local educational agency (LEA) 
or other entity eligible to receive assistance under section 131 of 
Perkins V, and an IHE eligible to receive assistance under section 132 
of Perkins V. Three commenters recommended that the Department add 
other categories of required partners to the priority. One commenter 
urged the Department to require the inclusion of an entity that would 
coordinate work-based learning opportunities for the project, 
contending that such entities were necessary to ensure the work-based 
learning opportunities were high-quality and successful. Similarly, 
another commenter recommended including an intermediary organization to 
facilitate and maintain relationships among schools and LEAs, IHEs, and 
employers to ensure the quality, consistency, and scale of work-based 
learning opportunities, better leverage resources, improve data 
collection, and make the partnership sustainable in the long-term. The 
same commenter also urged the Department to require the inclusion of 
local workforce development boards as partners, to leverage resources 
available under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 
(WIOA) and help educators and students access and interpret labor 
market information. A third commenter recommended adding as a required 
partner a local teachers union, school staff union or organization, or 
a representative organization of teachers, so that teachers understand 
the work for which students are being prepared and the skills they will 
need to be successful. Another commenter recommended adding afterschool 
and summer learning programs to the list of optional partners.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' thoughtful support for 
the partnership priority. We agree that qualified intermediaries (as 
defined by section 3 of Perkins V) can be helpful partners in 
coordinating work-based learning opportunities and in facilitating 
relationships among the partners, and we strongly recommend that 
prospective applicants consider including a qualified intermediary in 
partnerships they develop to meet Priority 2 or 3. We decline to 
require the inclusion of a qualified intermediary in the partnership 
out of concern that appropriate intermediaries may not be available in 
every community, but we modified Priority 2 to indicate that qualified 
intermediaries may be optional partners. We decline to mandate the 
inclusion of workforce development boards, local unions, or other 
representatives of teachers and faculty in each partnership, to 
preserve applicant flexibility to accommodate local circumstances, but 
we agree that these entities can make useful contributions to a project 
and should be identified as optional partners. We also agree that 
afterschool and summer learning programs should be identified as 
optional partners, because they can make valuable contributions to 
expanding student access to the keys to career-connected learning.
    Changes: We modified Priority 2 to identify as optional partners 
qualified intermediaries, local teachers unions or school staff unions 
or other representatives of teachers and faculty, and afterschool and 
summer learning programs. For consistency, we also made these changes 
to Priority 3.
    Comments: Two commenters recommended that we modify the 
specifications for some required partner categories. One commenter 
urged the Department to require including at least two employers in 
sectors aligned with regional labor market needs, rather than a single 
business and industry representative, and to specify that these 
employers must make explicit commitments to participate actively in the 
project's leadership, assist the grantee in designing career pathways 
that will prepare students for in-demand skills and include 
certifications with labor market value, help develop a continuum of 
work-based learning opportunities, and offer students a wide range of 
such work-based learning opportunities. Another commenter recommended 
that the Department clarify that the role of the higher education 
partner must be carried out by a public or private nonprofit IHE, 
contending that students educated in CTE programs offered by for-profit 
institutions of higher education have lower earnings and employment 
rates and are more likely to default on student loans.
    Discussion: We agree that partnerships that include more than one 
employer likely will be more effective than partnerships with only one 
employer because, for example, they likely will be able to provide more 
work-based learning opportunities for students, and we have modified 
Priority 2 accordingly. While we agree that employers should have 
significant and meaningful roles in project leadership and 
implementation, we choose not to

[[Page 54888]]

elaborate on the nature and extent of the employer's role in Priority 
2. Instead, one of the selection criteria included in the NPP and 
retained in this notice assesses the extent to which employers in the 
labor market served by the proposed project will be involved in making 
decisions with respect to the project's implementation and in carrying 
out its activities. The Department also intends to provide technical 
assistance to grantees on expanding the number of employer partners and 
giving these employers meaningful decision-making roles.
    We agree with the commenter who recommended that the higher 
education partner be a public or private non-profit IHE, but decline to 
amend Priority 2 because it already contains this limitation. Priority 
2 requires the IHE partner to be a community or technical college or 
other IHE eligible to receive assistance under section 132 of Perkins 
V. Private for-profit institutions of higher education are ineligible 
for funding under section 132 of Perkins V.
    Changes: We have modified Priority 2 to require the partnership to 
include two or more employers. For consistency, we also made this 
change to Priority 3.
    Comments: One commenter urged the Department to limit the 
participation of non-profit organizations as optional partners to those 
with expertise in delivering CTE, contending that projects would have 
greater impact if non-profit organizations had specialized knowledge 
about CTE.
    Discussion: While we believe that nonprofit organizations, 
especially those that have experience in CTE delivery, can play a 
variety of valuable roles in a project's partnership we decline to 
require all non-profit partners to have this expertise because such 
expertise is not necessary for a non-profit partner to make meaningful 
contributions to a project. For example, a non-profit civic 
organization without expertise in CTE could provide mentors to help 
students with college and career planning and a non-profit business 
association without expertise in CTE could recruit local businesses to 
provide work-based learning opportunities for students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require 
applicants to provide training in the use of evidence-based practices, 
including universal design for learning, to CTE teachers, school 
leaders, and industry partners. The commenter believes that this 
training is necessary and appropriate because CTE teachers often enter 
the classroom from industry and do not receive the pedagogical training 
that other teachers receive. The same commenter also recommended that 
the Department amend the priority to indicate that partnerships may 
support the design or expansion of research-to-practice partnerships 
aimed at improving CTE instruction. It urged the Department to provide 
funding for a national resource center that would provide support to 
the partnerships, States, and LEAs to improve CTE instruction, address 
the need for more diversity among the CTE teacher workforce, especially 
in areas such as manufacturing and biotechnology where there is a 
shortage of CTE instructors, and promote the use of universal design 
for learning.
    Discussion: As with a similar recommendation made with respect to 
Priority 1, we decline to modify Priority 2 to require all partnerships 
to provide training on the use of evidence-based practices, including 
universal design for learning, to CTE teachers, school leaders, and 
industry partners. Because several of the selection criteria assess the 
likely effectiveness of the strategies that applicants propose to 
implement to increase student participation and success in career-
connected learning, we anticipate that successful applicants will 
describe in their applications evidence-based practices, such as 
universal design for learning, and how they will prepare teachers, 
school leaders, and industry partners to implement them.
    We agree with the commenter that it is worthwhile for projects to 
be designed in ways that support collaboration between practitioners 
and researchers in both conducting research and applying the results to 
improve practice and student outcomes. We do not believe modifying 
Priority 2 is necessary to authorize projects to support the kinds of 
research-to-practice partnerships described by the commenter. Section 
114(e)(8) of Perkins V requires each project to independently evaluate 
the activities carried out using grant funds and to produce an annual 
report to the Department. Applicants may choose to organize their 
relationships with the independent evaluators as research-to-practice 
partnerships.
    We appreciate the commenter's recommendation that the Department 
provide funding for a national resource center that would provide 
support to the partnerships, States, and LEAs to improve CTE 
instruction, but such a center is outside the scope of this NFP. We do 
expect to provide extensive technical assistance to the projects we 
fund.
    Changes: None.
    Priority 3--State and Regional Partnerships.
    Comments: As recommended for Priority 2, one commenter recommended 
amending Priority 3 to add as a required partner a local teachers 
union, school staff union or organization, or a representative 
organization of teachers, because the commenter believes that it is 
important for teachers to understand the work for which students are 
being prepared and the skills they will need to be successful. 
Similarly, a commenter who recommended making an intermediary 
organization a required partner under Priority 2 made this same 
recommendation with respect to Priority 3.
    Another commenter urged the Department to permit the State agency 
partner role in Priority 3 to be filled by agencies other than State 
educational agencies (SEAs) because some other agencies could make 
useful contributions to a project. The commenter notes, for example, 
that some State longitudinal data systems are housed by State agencies 
that are not SEAs. The commenter also noted that statewide college and 
career pathway exploration tools in some States are not managed by SEAs 
or State agencies; in one State, California, they are administered by 
an LEA and a non-profit organization. For these reasons, the commenter 
recommended that the Department permit the State agency role to be 
filled by any entity housing the State longitudinal data system or an 
entity that provides college and career planning tools to a State or 
region. Another commenter also highlighted the importance of partnering 
with the State agency responsible for the State longitudinal data 
system but recommended that this be the sole State agency eligible to 
participate in the partnership because, in the commenter's view, this 
would be the most meaningful way for a State agency to help implement 
career-connected learning at the regional level. Another party 
recommended adding as optional partners in Priority 3 statewide youth-
serving organizations, such as statewide afterschool networks, because 
these organizations represent entities that may provide work-based 
learning opportunities to young people or make other contributions to 
their career development.
    Discussion: We agree that qualified intermediaries and local 
teachers unions, school staff unions, or other representatives of 
teachers and faculty can be valuable partners, but we decline to make 
them required partners in Priority 3, to preserve flexibility for

[[Page 54889]]

applicants to assemble partnerships that accommodate local 
circumstances. We agree that State agencies other than the SEA can make 
important contributions to a partnership and, for that reason, the NPP 
permitted the State role to be performed by any State agency. We do not 
agree with the commenter who suggested that the State partner role be 
limited to the State agency responsible for the statewide longitudinal 
data system, because we think a variety of State agencies could be 
helpful to a project. While we understand that regional entities might 
also provide helpful support to partnerships, we believe Priority 3(a) 
should focus on State agencies because they have greater resources that 
can be leveraged by partnerships. However, regional entities like those 
described by the commenter may be included in the regional partnerships 
described in Priority 3(b). For the reasons suggested by the commenter, 
we agree that statewide youth-serving organizations, such as statewide 
afterschool networks, should be identified as optional partners in 
Priority 3.
    Changes: We modified Priority 3 to identify as optional partners 
qualified intermediaries, local teachers unions or school staff unions 
or other representatives of teachers and faculty, and statewide youth-
serving organizations, such as statewide afterschool networks.
    Priority 4--Serving Students from Families with Low Incomes.
    Comments: The Department received numerous comments that support 
Priority 4, which requires that projects submit a plan and evidence 
that at least 51 percent of the students to be served by the project 
will be from low-income families, consistent with the statutory mandate 
that the Department give priority to projects that will predominantly 
serve students from families with low incomes. One commenter 
recommended that applicants specifically address the targeted 
recruitment, retention, and completion supports they will undertake 
with respect to students from low-income families as part of the plan 
they must submit to meet the requirements of Priority 4. Another 
commenter expressed concern about using eligibility for Pell Grants as 
a means to establish that postsecondary students who would be served by 
the project are from low-income families, because many low-income 
students in States with need-based student financial aid programs are 
not eligible for Pell Grants where their needs are met by State 
financial aid.
    Discussion: We agree with the first commenter's suggestion 
concerning the importance of asking applicants to describe their 
strategies for recruiting and retaining students from low-income 
backgrounds because these strategies will be key to the applicant's 
success in meeting the 51 percent requirement. We have revised Priority 
4 accordingly. We thank the second commenter for the information about 
State student financial aid programs and agree that receipt of need-
based State financial aid should be a factor that applicants may use to 
establish that a postsecondary student is from a low-income family. We 
have modified Priority 4 accordingly.
    Changes: Priority 4 has been amended to require applicants to 
describe the recruitment and retention strategies they will employ to 
meet the goal that 51 percent or more of students be from low-income 
families. We also added receipt of need-based State student financial 
aid as a factor that applicants may use in identifying postsecondary 
students who are from low-income families.
    Priority 5--Rural Communities.
    Comments: Several commenters voiced support for Priority 5, which 
gives priority to an applicant that demonstrates its proposed project 
will serve students residing in identified rural communities. One party 
opposed the priority, contending that it was unfair to schools outside 
rural areas with large enrollments of students from low-income 
backgrounds and that the Department should not give preference to 
applicants in particular geographic areas. One commenter that supported 
the priority recommended that we require an applicant to demonstrate 
that the project will provide training to CTE teachers, school leaders, 
and industry leaders in the use of evidence-based practices, including 
universal design for learning.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the 
priority, which is intended to facilitate the Department's 
implementation of a statutory requirement. Section 114(e)(5) of Perkins 
V directs the Department to award no less than 25 percent of PIM grant 
funds to projects proposing to fund CTE activities that serve rural 
communities. Because the priority for projects in rural communities is 
statutory, the Department cannot omit Priority 5 from the NFP.
    We appreciate the recommendation to require applicants to 
demonstrate that the project will provide training in evidence-based 
practices, including universal design for learning, but we decline to 
modify Priority 5 to require this. As we note elsewhere in the NFP, we 
expect that successful applicants will describe how they will use 
evidence-based practices, because several of the selection criteria 
assess the likely effectiveness of their plans to expand student 
participation in the four keys to career-connected learning.
    Changes: None.
    Additional Priorities.
    Comments: Five commenters encouraged the Department to establish 
additional priorities. One commenter recommended priorities focused on 
English learners and individuals with disabilities that would be 
comparable to Priority 4, because these students, like students from 
low-income backgrounds, do not have equitable access to dual or 
concurrent enrollment programs and other components of Priority 1. As 
an alternative to Priority 1, one party expressed support for a 
priority for innovative solutions to challenges faced by rural and low-
income communities. One commenter recommended two additional 
priorities, one focused on building employability skills among students 
because, in the commenter's view, many jobseekers lack such skills, and 
a second centered on promoting creative literacy projects for middle 
school students because the commenter believes that cultivating 
creativity in earlier grades can provide a strong foundation for 
student success in high school and after graduation. Another commenter 
recommended that the Department establish an additional priority for 
projects that will employ innovative approaches to advancing 
personalized learning, such as changing school schedules or calendars 
to increase opportunities for career-connected learning and 
implementing a performance-based accountability system that uses 
portfolios and capstone projects to assess student mastery of core 
content. In the commenter's view, rethinking the structure of high 
school is necessary for college and career pathways to achieve their 
full potential to improve student academic and career outcomes. A fifth 
commenter urged the Department to create an additional priority that 
would give preference to applications from States that have taken or 
intend to take advantage of the opportunity WIOA offers to submit a 
Combined State Plan that includes the Perkins V State formula grant 
program, as well as the core education and workforce development 
programs authorized by WIOA.\18\ The commenter

[[Page 54890]]

views this opportunity as a means of creating a comprehensive and 
integrated approach to education and workforce development programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The six core WIOA programs are the Adult, Dislocated 
Worker, and Youth programs (Title I of WIOA), the Adult Education 
and Family Literacy Act (Title II of WIOA), the Employment Service 
program (amended by Title III of WIOA), and the Vocational 
Rehabilitation State Grant Program (amended by Title IV of WIOA). 29 
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: We choose not to use rulemaking to establish separate 
priorities focused on English learners and individuals with 
disabilities that would be comparable to Priority 4 because the 
Department has the discretion in the application process to focus 
applicants on improving access to the four keys by these two groups of 
students by using the equitable access priorities from the Supplemental 
Priorities. We agree with the commenter about the importance of 
strengthening the employability skills of young people, but we decline 
to establish a separate priority for projects with this focus because 
we consider it unnecessary. Priority 1 promotes the increased 
participation of students in work-based learning opportunities that 
will help students acquire the employability skills that the commenter 
stresses are critical to success in the labor market. We do not agree 
with the commenter who recommended establishing a priority for projects 
that provide instruction in creative literacy for middle school 
students because it would result in projects that would be narrowly 
focused on a single strategy. We believe that projects that incorporate 
multiple strategies, such as those that would meet Priority 1, are a 
more appropriate use of limited PIM funds. With respect to the 
commenter who suggested replacing Priority 1 with a priority for 
innovative solutions to challenges faced by rural and low-income 
communities, as noted elsewhere in the NFP, we believe that Priority 1 
is innovative and will result in a more productive use of limited PIM 
grant funds than giving applicants the discretion to decide how they 
wish to use these resources. We support the goals of the commenter who 
recommended that the Department establish an additional priority for 
projects that will employ innovative approaches to advancing 
personalized learning, such as changing school schedules or calendars, 
and agree that traditional high school structures may pose barriers to 
expanding career-connected learning. For that reason, we anticipate 
that successful applicants will employ innovative approaches to 
personalized learning in their projects, making the establishment of a 
separate priority unnecessary. We also decline to establish an 
additional priority for projects submitted by applicants in States that 
include the Perkins V State formula grant program in a Combined State 
Plan under WIOA because this decision is made by States and is outside 
the control of eligible applicants.
    Changes: None.
    Program Requirements.
    Program Requirement 1--Matching Contributions.
    Comment: One commenter recommended permitting applicants to meet 
the statutory matching requirement with Federal funds, noting that this 
is permissible in the Education Innovation and Research program, which 
is similar to PIM. The commenter stated that permitting the match to be 
provided from other Federal program funds could promote greater 
alignment of Federal investments in education.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation and 
understand how this could be a useful tool to strengthen the alignment 
of Federal education and workforce funding to support career-connected 
learning in communities. However, we are unable to make this change 
because section 114(e)(2)(A) of Perkins V specifies that the match must 
be provided from non-Federal sources.
    Changes: None.
    Program Requirement 2--Programs of Study.
    Comments: One commenter supported Program Requirement 2, which 
would require alignment of the secondary portion of programs of study 
offered by each project with the entrance requirements and college 
credit criteria for public IHEs in the State, and mandate that the 
postsecondary portion of these programs of study culminate in certain 
degrees or lead seamlessly to and through a Registered Apprenticeship 
program. The commenter supported alignment of the secondary portion of 
programs of study with standards and criteria for accessing college-
credit courses because student placement in developmental or remedial 
coursework is a barrier to timely completion of postsecondary 
credentials. The commenter also expressed the view that industry-
recognized credentials should not be the terminal credential in a 
program of study because the earnings associated with these credentials 
vary greatly.
    One party expressed opposition to Program Requirement 2, stating 
that the requirements for programs of study were not innovative because 
programs of study were included in Perkins V and the predecessor to 
Perkins V (the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 
2006) and were based on Tech Prep programs that had been authorized 
during the 1990s.
    Discussion: We appreciate the first commenter's support for Program 
Requirement 2. While the second commenter is correct that Perkins V and 
its predecessor statute required subrecipients to offer at least one 
program of study (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V), Program 
Requirement 2 is important because a 2016-2017 survey of LEAs by the 
National Center for Education Statistics found that only about a third 
of LEAs reported that all of their CTE programs were structured as 
pathways aligned with related postsecondary programs.\19\ In the Tech 
Prep program referenced by the commenter, only about 10 percent of 
consortia that received Tech Prep funds offered structured, 
comprehensive programs of study.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Gray, L., and Lewis, L. (2018), Career and Technical 
Education Programs in Public School Districts: 2016-17: First Look 
(NCES 2018-028), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 
Education Statistics. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018028.
    \20\ Hershey, A.M., Silverberg, M.K., et al. (1998), Focus for 
the Future: The Final Report of the National Tech-Prep Evaluation, 
Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED423395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: After further review, we made a clarifying edit to 
Program Requirement 2 to make it consistent with the statutory 
definition of dual or concurrent enrollment program in Perkins V, by 
indicating that dual or concurrent enrollment courses must confer 
postsecondary credit.
    Changes: We modified Program Requirement 2 to indicate that dual or 
concurrent enrollment courses must confer postsecondary credit, 
consistent with the statutory definition of dual or concurrent 
enrollment programs.
    Program Requirement 3--Independent Evaluation.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the common performance 
indicators described in Program Requirement 3 on the extent of student 
participation in career-connected learning did not require grantees to 
provide information on participation in and completion of career-
connected learning activities by students from low-income backgrounds, 
students of color, students with disabilities, English learners, and 
other underserved students. The commenter urged the Department to 
require grantees to provide these data. Additionally, the commenter 
recommended that the Department

[[Page 54891]]

collect data on the extent to which student participation in career-
connected learning activities and the college and career pathways 
supported by the project reflected the demographic characteristics of 
the overall student population, maintaining that this information is 
important to assessing the success of each project.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the importance of 
collecting and reporting data on student participation in the four keys 
to career-connected learning and on student outcomes, and we share the 
commenter's view that meaningful disaggregated data are critical to 
evaluating the success of each project. We note that Program 
Requirement 3 already requires the independent evaluation to report 
annually on common performance indicators, including student completion 
of career-connected learning activities, such as earning postsecondary 
credits through participation in dual or concurrent enrollment 
programs, and Program Requirement 3 requires disaggregation of those 
data for the subgroups of students described in section 1111I(2)(B) of 
the ESEA, namely students from major racial and ethnic groups, and 
students who are members of special populations (as defined by section 
3 of Perkins V), which include students with disabilities, students 
from low-income families, and English learners, among others.
    In addition, section 114(e)(8) of Perkins V requires PIM grantees 
to report annually on student outcomes using the performance indicators 
established by section 113 of Perkins V for the State formula grant 
program, disaggregated by the student subgroups described in section 
1111(c)(2)(B) of ESEA, special population status, and, as appropriate, 
each CTE program and program of study.
    The commenter's recommendation to collect data on the extent to 
which student participation in learning activities and career pathways 
supported by the project reflect the demographic characteristics of the 
overall student population raises important issues that we think merit 
revising Program Requirement 3, including by requiring the 
disaggregation of student participation and outcome data by sex and 
requiring that the evaluation report annually on the extent to which 
student participation in each CTE program or program of study reflects 
the demographics of the school (including major racial and ethnic 
groups, sex, and special population status). These additional data will 
give the Department a fuller picture of the performance of each 
project.
    Changes: We have modified Program Requirement 3 to require the 
independent evaluation to disaggregate by sex the data it will collect 
and report on student participation in and completion of career-
connected learning activities, as well as student outcomes measured by 
the performance indicators established by section 113 of Perkins V for 
the State formula grant program. We also have added a new paragraph 
that requires the independent evaluation to report annually on the 
extent to which CTE participants (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) 
and CTE concentrators (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) in each 
CTE program or program of study reflect the demographics of the school 
(including sex, major racial and ethnic groups, and special population 
status).
    Other Requirements.
    Comments: One commenter urged the Department to recommend or 
require grantees to report information on credentials earned by 
students using the Credential Transparency Description Language created 
by Credential Engine, an openly licensed schema devised to describe and 
provide information about credentials, because doing so would promote 
transparency and facilitate greater understanding of a credential, how 
it was earned, the entity that awarded it, and the skills for which it 
was awarded.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for the suggestion. In its 
instructions on performance reporting to grantees, the Department 
expects to recommend that grantees consider using the Credential 
Transparency Description Language when they report information on 
credentials, but we decline to establish this as a requirement in the 
NFP because we believe it is more appropriately addressed through sub-
regulatory guidance.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended requiring grantees to set aside 
10 percent of their grant funds for activities carried out in the 
middle grades (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) or to make such 
activities an allowable use of funds so that students are aware of and 
ready for college and career pathway opportunities when they enroll in 
high school.
    Discussion: While we agree with the commenter that career 
development and other activities in the middle grades can be helpful to 
students in clarifying their college and career goals and helping them 
to make well-informed choices in high school, we do not agree that 10 
percent of grant funds should be reserved for these purposes. The goals 
for career-connected high schools set out in Priority 1 are ambitious 
and will likely require grantees to use the preponderance of grant 
funds to achieve them. We affirm, however, that, consistent with 
section 215 of Perkins V, middle grade activities may be an allowable 
use of funds.
    Changes: None.
    Application Requirement-4--Articulation and Credit Transfer 
Agreements.
    Comments: One commenter expressed support for Application 
Requirement 4, which would require applicants to include in their 
applications an assurance that, by no later than the end of the first 
year of the project, LEAs and participating IHEs execute articulation 
or credit transfer agreements ensuring that postsecondary credits 
earned by students in dual or concurrent enrollment programs supported 
by the project will be accepted for transfer at each participating IHE 
and count toward the requirements for earning culminating postsecondary 
credentials for the programs of study offered to students through the 
project.
    One commenter opposed Application Requirement 4, asserting that it 
was not innovative because programs of study and articulation 
agreements were included in Perkins V, as well as the predecessor to 
Perkins V (the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 
2006), and were based on Tech Prep programs that had been authorized 
during the 1990s.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for Application Requirement 
4. With respect to the commenter concerned about the extent to which 
Application Requirement 4 is innovative, we note that, while 
articulation agreements have been addressed in Federal CTE legislation 
for many years, there remains considerable work to do to ensure that 
that dual and concurrent enrollment programs deliver on their promises 
and students are able to use the postsecondary credits they earn when 
they enroll in postsecondary education. A 2022 analysis of dual 
enrollment and other early postsecondary opportunities in CTE found 
that most States reported having statewide articulation agreements for 
some CTE courses but that these agreements were often not required or 
did not cover all CTE courses that were represented to students as 
offering postsecondary credits. As a result, postsecondary credits may 
or may not be available to all students when they enroll in higher

[[Page 54892]]

education.\21\ Application Requirement 4 is intended to ensure that 
postsecondary credits will be available to all students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Advance CTE and College in High School Alliance (2022), The 
State of Career Technical Education: Early Postsecondary 
Opportunities. Retrieved from: https://careertech.org/resource/state-of-cte-epso.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Definitions.
    Definition--Personalized postsecondary educational and career plan.
    Comment: One commenter recommended amending the definition of 
``personalized postsecondary educational and career plan'' to specify 
that its development must include completing informational interviews, 
job shadowing opportunities, and mock interviews because these 
activities would be helpful to students in identifying postsecondary 
educational and career goals.
    Discussion: We agree that informational interviews, job shadowing 
opportunities, and mock interviews can be helpful to students in 
identifying postsecondary educational and career goals, but we decline 
to modify the definition of ``personalized postsecondary educational 
and career plan'' to mandate their inclusion, to preserve flexibility 
for applicants to design career guidance and academic counseling 
programs and work-based learning opportunities that reflect local 
circumstances, assets, and resource limitations.
    Change: None.
    Definitions of Additional Terms.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department add a 
definition of ``career-connected high school'' that specifies that such 
a school provides all students with each of the four components 
described in Priority 1, including participation in a comprehensive 
postsecondary education and career navigation system, opportunities to 
acquire at least 12 postsecondary credits through dual or concurrent 
enrollment programs, participation in work-based learning, and 
attainment of an in-demand and high-value industry-recognized 
credential. The commenter contended that adding such a definition would 
underscore the Department's intention to support projects that provide 
all four components to students.
    Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in this notice, Priority 1 was 
constructed to require applicants to implement one or more of four 
components of career-connected learning, to give the Department 
flexibility to determine the number of components to include in each 
grant competition. We decline to add a definition of career-connected 
high school to preserve this flexibility.
    Change: None.
    Selection Criteria.
    Selection Criteria--(a) Significance.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that selection criterion (a)(2), 
which evaluates the extent to which a project will serve students who 
are predominantly from low-income families, be revised to incorporate 
provisions of Priority 4. Specifically, the commenter urged the 
Department to specify that, consistent with Priority 4, reviewers must 
evaluate the extent to which the applicant provides evidence that 51 
percent of the students who will be served will be from low-income 
families.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that this selection 
criterion should be fully aligned with Priority 4, as it is our intent 
to establish this selection criterion so that it would be available to 
assess the extent to which a project meets Priority 4.
    Change: We have modified selection criterion (a)(2) to specify 
that, consistent with Priority 4, reviewers must evaluate the extent to 
which the applicant provides evidence that at least 51 percent of the 
students who will be served will be from low-income families.
    Selection Criteria--(b) Quality of Project Design.
    Comment: One commenter recommended amending selection criterion 
(b)(1), which evaluates the extent to which the proposed project is 
likely to be effective in increasing successful participation in dual 
or concurrent enrollment programs, to specify that reviewers evaluate 
the extent to which the proposed project is likely to be effective in 
increasing the acquisition of at least 12 postsecondary credits. The 
commenter noted that the NPP stated that the benefits of dual 
enrollment can increase with every postsecondary credit earned, at 
least up to 10 to 12 credits.
    Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in this notice in our response 
to a similar comment about Priority 1, we agree that career-connected 
high schools should encourage the attainment of 12 postsecondary 
credits, but we decline to mandate this be the goal for all students to 
preserve the flexibility of applicants to design projects that are 
responsive to local needs, circumstances, and resources.
    Changes: None.
    Selection Criteria--Additional Recommendations.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add two 
selection criteria, one that would assess the extent to which the 
proposed project will integrate and provide students with each of the 
components of career-connected learning described in Priority 1, and a 
second that would assess the likelihood that the proposed project will 
ensure that postsecondary credits earned by students will be accepted 
for transfer and count toward the requirements for earning culminating 
postsecondary credentials for programs of study offered to students 
through the project at all public institutions of higher education in 
the state, as demonstrated through statewide articulation or credit 
transfer agreements. The commenter indicated that the former suggested 
criterion would incentivize grantees to develop projects that include 
all four keys to career-connected learning and assess the extent to 
which a project would provide students with a transformative experience 
that could only be accomplished by implementing the four keys all 
together. The commenter stated that the latter recommended criterion 
would be beneficial because it would maximize the utility and 
portability of the postsecondary credits earned by students through the 
project, enabling them to be used not only at a local IHE, but at any 
public IHE in the State.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the suggestions. We decline 
to add a selection criterion that assesses the extent to which an 
applicant will implement all four keys, because the Department does not 
anticipate giving applicants the discretion to choose the number of 
keys they will implement by the end of the fifth year of the project, 
and the Department also seeks to maintain its discretion to determine 
whether to make Priority 1 an absolute or competitive preference 
priority.
    We agree with the commenter that statewide articulation agreements 
or other means of assuring that postsecondary credits earned through 
dual or concurrent enrollment programs are portable and will be 
accepted by all public IHEs in a State are optimal and in the best 
interests of students. As a practical matter, however, we are concerned 
that it will be difficult for grantees to secure articulation or credit 
transfer agreements with every public IHE in the State during the first 
year of the project. This will not be an issue for applicants in those 
States that have established effective and comprehensive statewide 
articulation agreements, but we do not wish to put applicants in other 
States at a competitive disadvantage because State actions are outside 
their control. Consequently, we decline to add the second recommended 
selection criterion.

[[Page 54893]]

    We agree, however, that postsecondary credits that are accepted by 
multiple IHEs in a state are more valuable to students than credits 
accepted only by one institution. Consequently, we are revising 
Application Requirement 4 to make clear that the articulation or credit 
transfer agreements that LEAs and IHEs must execute may also include 
IHEs that are not participating in the project, if applicable. We make 
this change so that the requirement does not inadvertently discourage 
projects from entering into agreements with IHEs that are not 
participating in the project.
    Changes: We modified Application Requirement 4 to indicate that the 
articulation and credit transfer agreements may include IHEs that are 
not participating in the project, if applicable.

Final Priorities

    This notice contains five final priorities. We may apply one or 
more of these priorities for a PIM competition in FY 2023 or in 
subsequent years.
    Final Priorities:
    Final Priority 1--Career-Connected High Schools.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must submit a detailed 5-year 
planning and implementation plan to increase the alignment and 
integration of high school and the first 2 years of postsecondary 
education in one or more high schools that describes the extent to 
which the applicant is currently implementing career-connected 
learning, with supporting data if available; and describes how the 
applicant will substantially increase the proportion of students who 
graduate from high school with one or more of the following four keys 
of career connected learning:
    (a) Education and career goals documented in a personalized 
postsecondary education and career plan (as defined in this notice) 
that was updated in each year of high school through a system of career 
guidance and academic counseling (as defined in section 3(7) of Perkins 
V) and postsecondary education navigation supports that offers college 
and career coaching from trained advisors that is culturally responsive 
and informed by accurate and current labor market information;
    (b) Postsecondary credits earned from dual or concurrent enrollment 
programs (as defined in section 3 of Perkins V) that are part of a 
program of study (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) that culminates 
with an associate, bachelor's, or advanced degree, or completion of a 
Registered Apprenticeship Program;
    (c) Work experience gained through participation in one or more 
work-based learning opportunities (as defined in section 3 of Perkins 
V) for which they received wages, academic credit, or both; or
    (d) An in-demand and high-value industry-recognized credential (as 
defined in this notice).
    Final Priority 2--Partnership Applications.
    To meet this priority, an application--
    (1) Must be submitted by an applicant that includes one or more 
partners in each of the following categories except as otherwise 
indicated:
    (A) An LEA(including a public charter school LEA), an area career 
and technical education school, an educational service agency serving 
secondary school students, an Indian Tribe, Tribal organization, or 
Tribal educational agency, eligible to receive assistance under section 
131 of Perkins V;
    (B) A community or technical college or other IHE eligible to 
receive assistance under section 132 of Perkins V; and
    (C) Two or more business or industry representative partners, which 
may include representatives of local or regional businesses or 
industries;
    (2) May include any other relevant community stakeholders, such as 
local workforce development boards, labor-management partnerships, 
youth-serving organizations, nonprofit organizations, qualified 
intermediaries, local teachers unions or school staff unions or other 
representatives of teachers and faculty, and afterschool and summer 
learning programs; and
    (3) Must include a partnership agreement or proposed memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) among all members of the application, identified at 
the time of the application, that describes the role of each partner in 
carrying out the proposed project and the process for a formal MOU to 
be established.
    Final Priority 3--State and Regional Partnerships.
    To meet this priority--
    (a) State Partnership--A State partnership application--
    (1) must be submitted by an applicant that includes one or more 
partners in each of the following categories except as otherwise 
indicated:
    (A) A State agency, such as an SEA, State higher education agency 
or system, State workforce development agency, Governor's office, or a 
State economic development agency; and
    (B) An LEA (including a public charter school LEA), an area career 
and technical education school, an educational service agency, an 
Indian Tribe, Tribal organization, or Tribal educational agency 
eligible to receive assistance under section 131 of Perkins V;
    (C) A community or technical college or another IHE eligible to 
receive assistance under section 132 of Perkins V;
    (D) Two or more business or industry representative partners, which 
may include representatives of local or regional businesses or 
industries; and
    (2) May include any other relevant State or community stakeholders, 
such as local workforce development boards, labor-management 
partnerships, statewide youth-serving organizations, such as statewide 
afterschool networks, nonprofit organizations, intermediary 
organizations, local teachers unions or school staff unions or other 
representatives of teachers and faculty, and afterschool and summer 
learning programs; and
    (3) Must include a description of how the project will be 
coordinated among partners and will leverage State resources in the 
achievement of program outcomes and the partnership's scope of 
activities that will support development or implementation of one or 
more of the pillars of career-connected learning, which may include 
setting up a governance structure to support implementation, reviewing 
or changing State policies, setting goals, using data to inform 
decisions, and convening stakeholders; and
    (4) Must include a partnership agreement or proposed MOU among all 
partner entities, identified at the time of the application, that 
describes the role of each member of the partnership in carrying out 
the proposed project and the process for a formal MOU to be 
established.
    (b) Regional Partnership--A regional partnership application--
    (1) Must be submitted by a partnership that includes one or more 
members from each of the following categories except as otherwise 
indicated:
    (A) An LEA (including a public charter school that operates as an 
LEA), an area career and technical education school, an educational 
service agency, an Indian Tribe, Tribal organization, or Tribal 
educational agency, eligible to receive assistance under section 131 of 
Perkins V;
    (B) A community or technical college or another IHE eligible to 
receive assistance under section 132 of Perkins V;
    (C) Two or more business or industry representative partners, which 
may

[[Page 54894]]

include representatives of local or regional businesses or industries; 
and
    (2) Must propose to serve two or more LEAs in the same State or 
region;
    (3) May include any other relevant community stakeholders, such as 
local workforce development boards, labor-management partnerships, 
youth-serving organizations, nonprofit organizations, qualified 
intermediaries, local teachers unions or school staff unions or other 
representatives of teachers and faculty, and afterschool and summer 
learning programs; and
    (4) Must include a description of how the project will be 
coordinated among partners that share a common economic region or labor 
market area, utilize labor market information to support development or 
implementation of the four pillars of career-connected learning, and 
leverage regional, State, or other resources in the achievement of 
program outcomes; and
    (5) Must include a partnership agreement or proposed MOU among all 
partner entities, identified at the time of the application, that 
describes the role of each member of the partnership in carrying out 
the proposed project and the process for a formal MOU to be 
established.
    Final Priority 4--Serving Students from Families with Low Incomes.
    To meet this priority, applicants must submit a plan to 
predominantly serve students from families with low incomes.
    The plan must include--
    (a) The specific activities the applicant proposes to ensure that 
the project will predominantly serve students from low-income families, 
including how the project will recruit and retain students and the 
supports it will provide to students to promote retention and 
completion;
    (b) The timeline for implementing the activities;
    (c) The parties responsible for implementing the activities;
    (d) The key data sources and measures demonstrating that the 
project is designed to predominantly serve students from low-income 
families; and
    (e) Evidence that at least 51 percent of the students to be served 
by the project are from low-income families.
    (1) When demonstrating that the project is designed to 
predominantly serve secondary students from low-income families, the 
applicant must use one or more of the following data sources and 
measures:
    (A) Children aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most 
recent census data approved by the Secretary; \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The U.S. Census Bureau LEA poverty estimates are available 
at: www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/demo/saipe/2017-school-districts.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Students eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the 
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
    (C) Students whose families receive assistance under the State 
program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    (D) Students who are eligible to receive medical assistance under 
the Medicaid program;
    (E) Residence in a Census tract, a set of contiguous Census tracts, 
an American Indian Reservation, Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (as 
defined by the U.S. Census Bureau), Alaska Native Village Statistical 
Area or Alaska Native Regional Corporation Area, Native Hawaiian 
Homeland Area, or other Tribal land as defined by the Secretary of 
Labor in guidance, or a county that has a poverty rate of at least 25 
percent as set every 5 years using American Community Survey 5-year 
data; or
    (F) A composite of such indicators.
    (2) When demonstrating that the project is designed to 
predominantly serve secondary students from low-income families, 
applicants may use data from elementary or middle schools that feed 
into a secondary school to establish that 51 percent of the students to 
be served by the project are students from low-income families.
    (3) For projects that will serve postsecondary students, the 
applicant must use one or more of the following data sources to 
demonstrate that the project is designed to predominantly serve 
students from families with low-incomes:
    (A) Students who are recipients of Federal Pell Grants, tuition 
assistance from the Bureau of Indian Education, or need-based State 
student aid;
    (B) Students who receive, or whose families receive, assistance 
under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    (C) Students who are eligible to receive medical assistance under 
the Medicaid program; or
    (D) A composite of such indicators.
    Final Priority 5--Rural Communities.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the 
proposed project will serve students residing in rural communities (as 
defined in this notice) and identify, by name, the National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES) LEA identification number, and NCES locale 
code, the rural LEA(s) that it proposes to serve in its grant 
application. Applicants may retrieve locale codes from the NCES School 
District search tool (nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/).
    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 Requirements

    Final Program Requirements.
    This document contains five final program requirements. These final 
program requirements are related to the matching requirement in section 
114(e)(2) of Perkins V, the programs of study offered to students by 
each project, the independent evaluation (as defined in this notice) 
required by section 114(e)(8) of Perkins V, a final MOU, and a project 
implementation plan and timeline. We may apply these requirements in 
any year in which this program is in effect.
    1. Matching Contributions.
    (a) A grantee must provide from non-Federal sources (e.g., State, 
local, or private sources), an amount equal to not less than 50 percent 
of funds provided under the grant, which may be provided in cash or 
through in-kind contributions, to carry out activities supported by the 
grant, except that the Secretary may waive the matching funds 
requirement, on a case-by-case basis, upon a showing of exceptional 
circumstances, such as (but not limited to)--
    (1) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve 
a rural area.

[[Page 54895]]

    (2) The difficulty of raising matching funds on Tribal land.
    (3) The difficulty of raising matching funds in areas with a 
concentration of LEAs or schools with a high percentage of students 
aged 5 through 17--
    (A) who are living in poverty, as counted in the most recent census 
data approved by the Secretary;
    (B) who are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the 
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
    (C) whose families receive assistance under the State program 
funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.); or
    (D) who are eligible to receive medical assistance under the 
Medicaid program.
    (4) The difficulty of raising matching funds by an institution of 
higher education that, during the current or preceding year, has been 
granted a waiver by the Department of certain non-Federal cost-sharing 
requirements under the Federal Work Study program, the Federal 
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants program, or the TRIO 
Student Support Services program because it has low education and 
general expenditures and serves a large proportion of students 
receiving need-based assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education 
Act.
    (b) Non-Federal funds used by a grantee to support activities 
allowable under this program prior to its receipt of the grant may be 
used to meet the matching requirements of this program. The prohibition 
against supplanting non-Federal funds in section 211(a) of Perkins V 
applies to grant funds provided under this program but does not apply 
to the matching requirement.
    (c) Matching funds provided by a grantee may be met over the full 
duration of the grant award period, rather than per year, except that 
the grantee must make progress towards meeting the matching requirement 
in each year of the grant award period.
    2. Programs of Study.
    By no later than the end of the first year of the project, courses 
in programs of study offered by grantees to students for completion 
during high school must be designed to meet the entrance requirements 
and expectations for placement in credit-bearing coursework at public, 
in-state IHEs. Dual enrollment courses must confer postsecondary 
credit. The programs of study offered to students by grantees may 
include opportunities to attain an industry-recognized credential or a 
postsecondary certificate that participating students may earn during 
high school but must culminate with an associate, bachelor's, or 
advanced degree, or completion of a Registered Apprenticeship Program, 
upon completion of additional postsecondary education after high school 
graduation.
    3. Independent Evaluation.
    (a) The independent evaluation (as defined in this notice) 
supported by a grantee must, in accordance with instructions and 
definitions provided by the Secretary, report annually the number and 
percentage of students who graduated from high schools served by the 
proposed project who, prior to or upon graduation--
    (1) Earned, through their successful participation in dual or 
concurrent enrollment programs in academic or career and technical 
education subject areas--
    (i) any postsecondary credits; and, separately,
    (ii) 12 or more postsecondary credits that are part of a program of 
study (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) that culminates with an 
associate, bachelor's, or advanced degree, or completion of a 
Registered Apprenticeship Program.
    (2) Completed 40 or more hours of work-based learning for which 
they received wages or academic credit, or both.
    (3) Attained an industry-recognized credential that is in-demand in 
the local, regional, or State labor market and associated with one or 
more jobs with median earnings that exceed the median earnings of a 
high school graduate.
    (4) Met, in each year of high school, with a school counselor, 
college adviser, career coach, or other appropriately trained adult for 
education and career counseling during which they reviewed and updated 
a personalized postsecondary educational and career plan (as defined by 
this notice).
    (b) The outcomes described in paragraph (a) must be disaggregated 
by--
    (1) Subgroups of students, described in section 1111(c)(2)(B) of 
the ESEA; and
    (2) Special populations, as defined by section 3(48) of Perkins V;
    (3) Sex; and
    (4) Each CTE program and program of study (as defined by section 3 
of Perkins V).
    (c) The independent evaluation (as defined by this notice) 
supported by grantee must report annually on the extent to which CTE 
participants (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) and CTE 
concentrators (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) in each CTE 
program or program of study reflect the demographics of the school, 
including sex, major racial and ethnic groups, and special populations 
status.
    (d) The independent evaluation (as defined in this notice) 
supported by a grantee must also report annually on the average number 
of postsecondary credits earned by students through their successful 
participation in dual or concurrent enrollment programs in academic or 
career and technical education subject areas and any project-specific 
indicators identified by the grantee.
    4. Final MOU.
    Within 120 days of receipt of its grant award, each grantee that 
submitted a partnership application must submit a final MOU among all 
partner entities that describes the roles and responsibilities of the 
partners in carrying out the project and its activities.
    5. Project Implementation Plan and Timeline.
    Each grantee must have a project plan that includes an 
implementation timeline with benchmarks to implement one or more of the 
four keys to career-connected learning for students served by the 
project, as described in Priority 1, by no later than the end of the 
fifth year of the project. Each grantee must submit a report 
documenting progress on the implementation plan and the timeline on an 
annual basis.
    Final Application Requirements:
    This document contains four final application requirements, one 
relating to matching funds and three related to the course sequences of 
the programs of study that will be offered to students by the proposed 
project. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    1. Demonstration of Matching Funds.
    (a) Each applicant must provide from non-Federal sources (e.g., 
State, local, or private sources) an amount equal to not less than 50 
percent of funds provided under the grant, which may be provided in 
cash or through in-kind contributions, to carry out activities 
supported by the grant unless it receives a waiver due to exceptional 
circumstances. The applicant must include in its grant application a 
budget detailing the source of the matching funds or a request to waive 
the entirety or a portion of the matching requirement due to 
exceptional circumstances.
    (b) An applicant that is unable to meet the matching requirement 
must include in its application a request to the Secretary to reduce 
the matching requirement, including the amount of the requested 
reduction, the total remaining match contribution, an explanation and 
evidence of the exceptional circumstances that make it difficult for 
the applicant to provide

[[Page 54896]]

matching funds, and an indication as to whether it can carry out its 
proposed project if the matching requirement is not waived.
    2. Programs of Study.
    Each applicant must identify and describe in its application the 
course sequences in the programs of study that will be offered by high 
schools in the proposed project, including the associate, bachelor's, 
advanced degree, or certificate of completion of a Registered 
Apprenticeship that students may earn by completing each program of 
study, and how students served by the proposed project will have 
equitable access to such programs of study.
    3. Secondary and Postsecondary Alignment and Integration.
    Each applicant must describe how it has aligned and integrated or 
will align and integrate the secondary coursework offered to students 
in funded projects to meet the entrance requirements and expectations 
for placement in credit-bearing coursework at public, in-state IHEs. If 
the alignment and integration has not been achieved at the time of 
application, this description must include a timeline for completion of 
this work by the end of the first year of the project, as well as 
information on the persons who will be responsible for these activities 
and their roles and qualifications.
    4. Articulation and Credit Transfer Agreements.
    Each applicant must include in its application an assurance that by 
no later than the end of the first year of the project, LEAs, and IHEs 
participating in the project will execute articulation or credit 
transfer agreements that ensure that postsecondary credits earned by 
students in dual or concurrent enrollment programs supported by the 
project will be accepted for transfer at each participating IHE, and 
other IHEs, if applicable, and count toward the requirements for 
earning culminating postsecondary credentials for programs of study 
offered to students through the project.
    5. Dual or Concurrent Enrollment Goals.
    Each applicant must include in its application a description of how 
it will substantially increase the proportion of students who graduate 
from high school with postsecondary credits earned through 
participation in dual or concurrent enrollment programs and how, over 
the 60-month project period, it also will seek to increase the average 
number of postsecondary credits earned by students to 12 or more 
credits.

Final Definitions

    The following definitions apply to this program. We may apply these 
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
    Independent evaluation means an evaluation that is designed and 
carried out independent of and external to the grantee but in 
coordination with any employees of the grantee who developed a project 
component that is currently being implemented as part of the grant 
activities.
    Industry-recognized credential means a credential that is--
    (a) Developed and offered by, or endorsed by, a nationally 
recognized industry association or organization representing a sizable 
portion of the industry sector, or a product vendor;
    (b) Awarded in recognition of an individual's attainment of 
measurable technical or occupational skills; and
    (c) Sought or accepted by multiple employers within an industry or 
sector as a recognized, preferred, or required credential for 
recruitment, hiring, retention, or advancement.
    Personalized postsecondary educational and career plan means a 
plan, developed by the student and, to the greatest extent practicable, 
the student's family or guardian, in collaboration with a school 
counselor or other individual trained to provide career guidance and 
academic counseling (as defined in section 3(7) of Perkins V), that is 
used to help establish personalized academic and career goals, explore 
postsecondary and career opportunities, identify programs of study and 
work-based learning that advance the student's personalized 
postsecondary education and career goals, including any comprehensive 
wraparound support services the student may need to participate in 
programs of study and work-based learning, and establish appropriate 
milestones and timelines for tasks important to preparing for success 
after high school, including applying for postsecondary education and 
student financial aid, preparing a resume, and completing applications 
for employment.
    Rural community means an area served by an LEA with an urban-
centric district locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by 
the Secretary and defined by the National Center for Education 
Statistics (NCES) Locale framework.

Final Selection Criteria

    (a) Significance.
    In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Department considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses a regional 
or local labor market need identified through a comprehensive local 
needs assessment carried out under section 134(c) of Perkins V or labor 
market information produced by the State or other entity that 
demonstrates the proposed project will address State, regional, or 
local labor market needs.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it 
will serve students who are predominantly from low-income families, 
including evidence that at least 51 percent of the students served will 
be from low-income families.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed project addresses significant 
barriers to enrollment and completion in dual or concurrent enrollment 
programs and will expand access to these programs for students served 
by the project.
    (b) Quality of the project design.
    In determining the quality of the project design, the Department 
considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to be 
effective in increasing the attainment of postsecondary credits earned 
through participation in dual or concurrent enrollment programs (as 
defined by section 3 of Perkins V) by students who are not currently 
participating in such programs and the likely magnitude of the 
increase.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project will increase the 
successful participation in work-based learning opportunities (as 
defined by section 3 of Perkins V) for which they received wages or 
academic credit, or both, prior to graduation by students who are not 
currently participating in such opportunities, and the likely magnitude 
of the increase.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to be 
effective in increasing successful participation in opportunities to 
attain an in-demand and high-value industry-recognized credential (as 
defined in this notice) that is sought or accepted by multiple 
employers within an industry or sector as a recognized, preferred, or 
required credential for recruitment, hiring, retention, or advancement 
by students who are not currently participating in such opportunities, 
and the likely magnitude of the increase.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed project will implement 
strategies that are likely to be effective in eliminating or mitigating 
barriers to the successful participation by all students in dual or

[[Page 54897]]

concurrent programs (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V), work-based 
learning opportunities (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V), and 
opportunities to attain in-demand and high-value industry-recognized 
credentials (as defined in this notice), including such barriers as the 
out-of-pocket costs of tuition, books, and examination fees; 
transportation; and eligibility requirements that do not include 
multiple measures of assessing academic readiness.
    (5) The extent to which the proposed project will provide all 
students effective and ongoing career guidance and academic counseling 
(as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) in each year of high school 
that--
    (A) Will likely result, by no later than the end of the second year 
of the project, in a personalized postsecondary education and career 
plan (as defined in this notice) for each student that is updated at 
least once annually with the assistance of a school counselor, career 
coach, mentor, or other adult trained to provide career guidance and 
counseling to high school students; and
    (B) Includes the provision of current labor market information 
about careers in high-demand fields that pay living wages; advice and 
assistance in identifying, preparing for, and applying for 
postsecondary educational opportunities; information on Federal student 
financial aid programs; and assistance in applying for Federal student 
financial aid.
    (6) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to prepare 
all students served by the project to enroll in postsecondary education 
following high school without need for remediation.
    (c) Quality of the management plan.
    In determining the quality of the management plan, the Department 
considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the project goals are clear, complete, and 
coherent, and the extent to which the project activities constitute a 
complete plan aligned to those goals, including the identification of 
potential risks to project success and strategies to mitigate those 
risks;
    (2) The extent to which the management plan articulates key 
responsibilities for each party involved in the project and also 
articulates well-defined objectives, including the timelines and 
milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics that 
will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual 
performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the 
project is achieving its goals;
    (3) The adequacy of the project's staffing plan, particularly for 
the first year of the project, including:
    (A) The identification of the project director and, in the case of 
projects with unfilled key personnel positions at the beginning of the 
project, a description of how critical work will proceed; and
    (B) The extent to which the project director has experience 
managing projects similar in scope to that of the proposed project.
    (4) The extent of the demonstrated commitment of any partners whose 
participation is critical to the project's long-term success, including 
the extent of any evidence of support or specific resources from 
employers and other stakeholders.
    (5) The extent to which employers in the labor market served by the 
proposed project will be involved in making decisions with respect to 
the project's implementation and in carrying out its activities.
    (d) Support for rural communities.
    In determining the extent of the project's support for rural 
communities, the Department considers one or more of the following 
factors:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant presents a clear, well-
documented plan for primarily serving students from rural communities.
    (2) The extent to which the applicant proposes a project that will 
improve the education and employment outcomes of students in rural 
communities.
    This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, or selection criteria, we invite applications through a 
notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, as modified by Executive Order 14094, 
the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is 
``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the 
Executive Order and subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as modified, 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more 
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in 
gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or 
Tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues for which centralized review 
would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles 
stated in the Executive Order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866, as modified.
    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, as modified. To the extent 
permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of

[[Page 54898]]

Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria 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 the analysis that follows, the Department 
believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles 
in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments 
in the exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    Summary of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that these 
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
will not impose significant costs on applicants applying for assistance 
under section 114 of Perkins V. We also believe that the benefits of 
implementing the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria justify any associated costs.
    The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria will help to ensure that grants 
provided under section 114(e) of Perkins V are awarded only for 
allowable, reasonable, and necessary costs; and eligible applicants 
consider carefully in preparing their applications how the grants may 
be used to improve student success in secondary education, 
postsecondary education, and careers. The final priorities, program 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are necessary to 
ensure that taxpayer funds are expended appropriately.
    The Department further believes that the costs imposed on an 
applicant by the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria will be largely limited to the paperwork burden 
related to meeting the application requirements and that the benefits 
of preparing an application and receiving an award would justify any 
costs incurred by the applicant. The costs of these final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will not be a 
significant burden for any eligible applicant.
    Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information 
collection requirements.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria in this notice are needed to 
administer the PIM grant program effectively. The priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will enable the 
Department to administer a competitive grant program consistent with 
the intent of Congress as expressed in House Report 117-403 
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. (Pub. L. 117-
328), which provided funding for the program in fiscal year 2023.

Accounting Statement

    As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/), in the 
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the 
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of 
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the 
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory 
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal 
Government to LEAs and IHEs.

      Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
                              [In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                            Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers.........  $24.25.
From Whom To Whom?.....................  from the Federal Government to
                                          LEAs and IHEs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this regulatory action does not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) Size Standards define ``small entities'' as for-
profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below 
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small 
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts), 
with a population of less than 50,000. The small entities that this 
regulatory action affects are school districts and IHEs. We believe 
that the costs imposed on an applicant by the final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are limited to 
paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the 
benefits of the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the PIM grant program is voluntary. For this 
reason, the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria will not impose a burden on small entities unless they apply 
for funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to 
apply for program funds, an eligible entity will evaluate the 
requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and 
weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a 
program grant. An eligible entity will probably apply only if it 
determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 
application.
    We believe that the final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria will not impose any additional burden on a small 
entity applying for a grant than the entity would face in the absence 
of the action. That is, the length of the applications those entities 
would submit in the absence of the regulatory action and the time 
needed to prepare an application would likely be the same.
    This regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be able to 
meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this 
program.

[[Page 54899]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond 
to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control 
number. We display the valid OMB control number assigned to the 
collection of information in this notice of final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria at the end of the 
affected sections of the requirements.
    The final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved 
by OMB. The final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria do not affect the currently approved data collection. For the 
years that the Department holds a PIM grant competition, we estimate 
150 entities will submit an application for Federal assistance using 
the required Department standard application forms. We estimate that it 
will take each applicant 40 hours to complete and submit the 
application, including time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information. The total 
burden hour estimate for this collection is 6,000 hours.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: On request to the 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 this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Luke Rhine,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the Duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 2023-17227 Filed 8-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P