Rule2021-14713
Final Priorities-Effective Educator Development Division
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 9, 2021
Effective
August 9, 2021
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities for the following programs of the Effective Educator Development Division (EED): Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (TSL), Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.374A; Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED), ALN 84.423A; and Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP), ALN 84.336S. We may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years. We propose these priorities to focus on educator development, leadership, and diversity in the various EED programs in order to improve the quality of teaching and school leadership.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 129 (Friday, July 9, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 129 (Friday, July 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36217-36220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14713]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0045]
Final Priorities--Effective Educator Development Division
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities
for the following programs of the Effective Educator Development
Division (EED): Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (TSL),
Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.374A; Supporting Effective Educator
Development (SEED), ALN 84.423A; and Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP),
ALN 84.336S. We may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal
year (FY) 2021 and later years. We propose these priorities to focus on
educator development, leadership, and diversity in the various EED
programs in order to improve the quality of teaching and school
leadership.
DATES: These priorities are effective August 9, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Orman Feres, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3C124, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-6921. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f100d121e1151191a0d1a0c3f1a1b51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1dec3dcd0df9fd7d4c3d4c2f1d4d59fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: This notice identifies final priorities for use
in three Department programs: TSL, SEED, and TQP. The purpose of TSL is
to assist States, local educational agencies, and nonprofit
organizations to develop, implement, improve, or expand comprehensive
performance-based compensation systems (PBCS) or human capital
management systems (HCMS) for teachers, principals, and other school
leaders (educators) (especially educators in high-need schools who
raise student academic achievement and close the achievement gap
between high- and low-performing students). In addition, a portion of
TSL funds may be used to study the effectiveness, fairness, quality,
consistency, and reliability of such systems. The SEED program provides
funding to increase the number of highly effective educators by
supporting the implementation of evidence-based practices that prepare,
develop, or enhance the skills of educators. SEED grants allow eligible
entities to develop, expand, and evaluate practices that can serve as
models to be sustained and disseminated. The purposes of the TQP
program are to improve student achievement; improve the quality of
prospective and new teachers by improving the preparation of
prospective teachers and enhancing professional development activities
for new teachers; hold teacher preparation programs at institutions of
higher education accountable for preparing teachers who meet applicable
State certification and licensure requirements; and recruit highly
qualified individuals, including minorities and individuals from other
occupations, into the teaching profession.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3. TSL: Sections 2211-2213 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA),
20 U.S.C. 6631-6633. SEED: Section 2242 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 6672.
TQP: Sections 200-204 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,
20 U.S.C. 1021-1022c.
We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for these
programs in the Federal Register on April 20, 2021 (86 FR 20471). The
NPP contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular priorities.
Except for minor editorial and technical revisions, there are no
differences between the proposed priorities and these final priorities.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, we
received 31 comments, 23 of which were relevant to the proposed
priorities and 8 of which were not relevant to the proposed priorities
and were not considered in the analysis. Of the 23 comments addressing
the proposed priorities, 7 expressed support for the proposed
priorities but either offered no specific recommendations to revise
them or offered broad recommendations for strengthening the educator
workforce that were outside the scope of these proposed priorities. The
remaining 16 comments either expressed disagreement or broadly agreed
while offering suggestions to strengthen the proposed priorities.
Responses to these comments are found in the Analysis of the Comments
and Changes below.
Analysis of the Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments
and of any changes to the proposed priorities follows. Generally, we do
not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the
law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory
authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raise
concerns not directly related to the NPP.
Comment: In response to Priority 1--Supporting Educators and Their
Professional Growth, one commenter suggested that encouraging educators
to pursue advanced credentials, such as Master's degrees, may not
necessarily lead to improvements in educator effectiveness and may
produce unintended incentives for educators to leave the profession.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment regarding the potential
limited impact on educator effectiveness and potential disincentives to
educator retention that could result from encouraging teachers to
pursue advanced credentials. Creating or enhancing professional growth
[[Page 36218]]
opportunities for educators is a chief component of the
Administration's approach to ensuring that students from low-income
backgrounds, students of color, students with disabilities, and other
historically underserved students have equal access to qualified,
experienced, and effective educators. The concerns outlined by the
commenter are precisely the reasons why this priority promotes a
holistic approach to supporting teachers and school leaders. The
priority not only targets increased numbers of teachers with advanced
credentials, which, in addition to a Master's Degree, may include
National Board Certification or an additional credential, such as to
teach English learners or students with special needs. It also promotes
establishment of career ladders, improved pay systems, targeted
professional development and a range of other strategies aimed at
improving the educator workforce. We think that advanced credential
attainment is an important part of this holistic strategy. Thus, we do
not think that it is necessary to revise the proposed priorities to
address this specific need.
Changes: None.
Comment: In response to Priority 1--Supporting Educators and Their
Professional Growth, one commenter recommended that we focus on raising
teacher salaries to be commensurate with that of other professionals
whose roles require specialized training.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment regarding economic concerns
facing educators and low teacher salaries may pose potential barriers
to diverse candidates entering the educator profession. While we agree
with the commenters on the need for educators' salaries to reflect the
significance of their roles, we note that these priorities focus on
preparing educators with the knowledge, skills, and supports needed to
support the personal and academic growth of all students. We note one
of the programs intended for potential use of these priorities, TSL,
provides applicants with flexibility to propose innovative
interventions aimed at enhancing educators' compensation based on their
performance. For this reason, we do not think that it is necessary to
revise the proposed priorities to address teachers' salaries.
Changes: None.
Comment: In response to Priority 2--Increasing Educator Diversity,
one commenter cautioned that factors such as the wealth gap and income
inequality along racial lines may lead to difficulty hiring diverse
educators.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment regarding economic concerns
facing educators and how they may pose potential barriers to diverse
candidates entering the educator profession. We note that this priority
has been established, due in part to the barriers to achieving a
diverse educator workforce the commenter identified. We also note that
this priority seeks to promote a holistic approach to attracting and
retaining teachers and school leaders and we encourage districts and
localities to leverage the opportunities afforded under this priority
to design evidence-based and promising approaches to attracting diverse
educator candidates. For this reason, we do not think that it is
necessary to revise the proposed priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for both priorities,
while suggesting a range of specific revisions. One commenter
recommended changes to emphasize the importance of antibias and
antiracist education to our existing workforce. On the topic of
cultural responsiveness, multiple commenters cited research emphasizing
the importance of culturally responsive school leadership and
recommended specific revisions to highlight the importance of
culturally responsive and culturally sustaining teaching practices.
Another commenter recommended changes to both priorities to promote
development and diversification of school leaders. With regard to
professional development and professional learning of educators, one
commenter recommended that the Department focus on learning
communities, leadership, resources, data, learning designs,
implementation, and outcomes. Another commenter noted the significant
role of traditional educator preparation programs in advancing the
goals of these priorities, while another commenter, focusing on the
SEED program, recommended that we revise the priorities to more clearly
highlight the role of high-quality, non-traditional educator
preparation programs. A separate commenter recommended that we revise
the priorities to emphasize the long-term sustainability of project
activities implemented under these priorities. Additionally, one
commenter stressed the importance of prioritizing grow-your-own
recruitment approaches.
Discussion: We appreciate each commenter's suggestions and
recognize the significance of the specific areas they recommend be
emphasized in the proposed priorities. We note that several of these
suggested items, such as ``grow your own'' programs, diversification of
school leaders, and placing an emphasis on data and outcomes, are
directly addressed in the priorities. We also acknowledge and
appreciate the other suggestions made by commenters that highlight
specific strategies or activities that could be specified in the
priority. We note that these priorities are intended for use in
discretionary grant programs and are designed to offer districts and
localities flexibility to shape their local instructional programming
around innovative initiatives that meet their distinct needs. We think
that the priorities, as written, provide an equal measure of
specificity and flexibility for prospective applicants to address the
goals of supporting educators and their professional growth, as well as
increasing educator diversity. Finally, we note that these suggested
activities are already allowable under these programs, in addition to
other programs funded by the Department, and are reflective of the
Department's overall vision for the improvement of the educator
workforce.
Upon further review, the Department believes that additional
clarity would be helpful for applicants with respect to their plans to
implement educator diversity practices. We are revising Priority 2 to
combine and clarify the activities in proposed paragraphs (a) and (h).
Changes: In Priority 2, we have removed proposed paragraphs (a) and
(h) and added a new paragraph (g) that encompasses activities related
to data systems, timelines, and action plans for promoting educator and
school leader diversity.
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for the proposed
priorities but recommended we add language that specifically references
sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to add
clarity around what is meant by the term ``diversity.''
Discussion: We appreciate the importance of being clear about the
meaning of ``diversity.'' The Department has chosen to use the term
``diversity'' to describe and embrace all students and educators
without exception. Thus, we do not think that it is necessary to revise
the priorities in response to these specific recommendations.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities:
Priority 1--Supporting Educators and Their Professional Growth.
Projects that are designed to increase the number and percentage of
well-prepared, experienced, effective, and diverse educators--which may
include one or more of the following: Teachers, principals,
paraprofessionals, or other school leaders as defined in section
8101(44) of the ESEA--through
[[Page 36219]]
evidence-based strategies (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA)
incorporating one or more of the following:
(a) Adopting, implementing, or expanding efforts to recruit,
select, prepare, support, and develop talented, diverse individuals to
serve as mentors, instructional coaches, principals, or school leaders
in high-need schools (as may be defined in the program's authorizing
statute or regulations) who have the knowledge and skills to
significantly improve instruction.
(b) Implementing practices or strategies that support high-need
schools (as may be defined in the program's authorizing statute or
regulations) in recruiting, preparing, hiring, supporting, developing,
and retaining qualified, experienced, effective, diverse educators.
(c) Increasing the number of teachers with State or national
advanced educator certification or certification in a teacher shortage
area, as determined by the Secretary, such as special education or
bilingual education.
(d) Providing high-quality professional development opportunities
to all educators in high-need schools (as may be defined in the
program's authorizing statute or regulations) on meeting the needs of
diverse learners, including students with disabilities and English
learners.
Proposed Priority 2--Increasing Educator Diversity.
Under this priority, applicants must develop projects that are
designed to improve the recruitment, outreach, preparation, support,
development, and retention of a diverse educator workforce through
adopting, implementing, or expanding one or more of the following:
(a) High-quality, comprehensive teacher preparation programs that
have a track record of attracting, supporting, graduating, and placing
underrepresented teacher candidates, and that include one year of high-
quality clinical experiences (prior to becoming the teacher of record)
in high-need schools (as may be defined in the program's authorizing
statute or regulations).
(b) High-quality, comprehensive teacher preparation programs in
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (eligible institutions
under part B of title III and subpart 4 of part A title VII of the
HEA), Hispanic Serving Institutions (eligible institutions under
section 502 of the HEA), Tribal Colleges and Universities (eligible
institutions under section 316 of the HEA), or other Minority Serving
Institutions (eligible institutions under title III and title V of the
HEA) that include one year of high-quality clinical experiences (prior
to becoming the teacher of record) in high-need schools (as may be
defined in the program's authorizing statute or regulations) and that
incorporate best practices for attracting, supporting, graduating, and
placing underrepresented teacher candidates.
(c) Reforms to teacher preparation programs to improve the
diversity of teacher candidates, including changes to ensure
underrepresented teacher candidates are fully represented in program
admission, completion, placement, and retention as educators.
(d) Educator candidate support and preparation strategies and
practices focused on underrepresented teacher candidates, and which may
include ``grow your own programs,'' which typically recruit middle or
high school students, paraprofessionals, or other school staff and
provide them with clear pathways and intensive support to enter into
the teaching profession.
(e) Professional growth and leadership opportunities for diverse
educators, including opportunities to influence school, district, or
State policies and practices in order to improve educator diversity.
(f) High-quality professional development on addressing bias in
instructional practice and fostering an inclusive, equitable, and
supportive workplace and school climate for educators.
(g) Data systems, timelines, and action plans for promoting
inclusive and bias-free human resources practices that promote and
support development of educator and school leader diversity.
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)).
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria subject to
meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year
in which we choose to use these priorities, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a
rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things
[[Page 36220]]
and to the extent practicable--the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priorities only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits will justify their costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches
that would maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated
costs and benefits, we believe that the final priorities are consistent
with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both 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.
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 Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small
businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not
dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue
below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities
if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their
field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small
organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a
population below 50,000.
The small entities that this regulatory action will affect are
school districts, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit
organizations. Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or
eligible entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase
in the number of applications prepared and submitted annually for
competitive grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the
priorities will significantly impact small entities beyond the
potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and
receiving, competitive grants from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The priorities contain information
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1894-0006 and 1810-0758; the priorities do not affect the
currently approved data collection.
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 program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible
format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at: <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. 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:
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Ian Rosenblum,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs Delegated the
Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant
Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-14713 Filed 7-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 9, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.