Rule2021-26615
Final Priorities and Definitions-Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs
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
December 10, 2021
Effective
January 10, 2022
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
In order to support a comprehensive and ambitious education agenda, the Secretary issues six priorities and related definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's subparts. These priorities and definitions replace the Supplemental Priorities published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018, the Opportunity Zones final priority published on November 27, 2019, and the Remote Learning priority published on December 30, 2020. However, if a notice inviting applications (NIA) published before the effective date of this notice of final priorities and definitions included one or more of those priorities, the included priorities apply to that competition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 235 (Friday, December 10, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 235 (Friday, December 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70612-70641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26615]
[[Page 70611]]
Vol. 86
Friday,
No. 235
December 10, 2021
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Part 75
Final Priorities and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental Priorities
and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 235 / Friday, December 10, 2021 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 70612]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 75
[Docket ID ED-2021-OPEPD-0054]
Final Priorities and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental
Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In order to support a comprehensive and ambitious education
agenda, the Secretary issues six priorities and related definitions for
use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs
that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use
an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or
use one or more of the priority's subparts. These priorities and
definitions replace the Supplemental Priorities published in the
Federal Register on March 2, 2018, the Opportunity Zones final priority
published on November 27, 2019, and the Remote Learning priority
published on December 30, 2020. However, if a notice inviting
applications (NIA) published before the effective date of this notice
of final priorities and definitions included one or more of those
priorities, the included priorities apply to that competition.
DATES: These priorities and definitions are effective January 10, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Nkemjika Ofodile-Carruthers, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W308,
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 401-4389. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6b89d939b9c9f9d97d8999099929f9a93db9597848483829e938485b69392d8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98d6f3fdf5f2f1f3f9b6f7fef7fcf1f4fdb5fbf9eaeaedecf0fdeaebd8fdfcb6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Secretary has outlined a
comprehensive and ambitious education agenda that reflects the
Secretary's vision for American education. This vision is based on a
fundamental respect for the dignity and potential of every student and
their access to educational opportunity. These final priorities are
aligned with evidence-based (as defined in this document) and capacity-
building approaches to addressing various interconnected policy issues
in the Nation's education system. These final priorities and
definitions may be used across the Department of Education's (the
Department) discretionary grant programs to further the Department's
mission, which is ``to promote student achievement and preparation for
global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring
equal access.''
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: Through
this regulatory action, we establish six supplemental priorities and
associated definitions. Each major provision is discussed in the Public
Comment section of this document.
Costs and Benefits: The final priorities and definitions will
impose minimal costs on entities that receive assistance through the
Department's discretionary grant programs. Application submission and
participation in a discretionary grant program are voluntary. The
Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the final
priorities are limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an
application for a discretionary grant program that is using one or more
of the final priorities in its competition. Because the costs of
carrying out activities will be paid for with program funds, the costs
of implementation will not be a burden for any eligible applicants,
including small entities.
We believe that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any
associated costs because it will result in the submission of a greater
number of high-quality discretionary grant applications and supporting
activities that reflect the Administration's educational priorities.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
We published a notice of proposed supplemental priorities and
definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register on June 30, 2021 (86 FR
34664). That document contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the priorities and definitions.
There are differences between the proposed priorities and
definitions and the final priorities and definitions established in
this notice of final priorities and definitions (NFP), as discussed in
the Analysis of Comments and Changes section in this document.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 100
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities and definitions.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general
comments regarding concerns not directly related to the proposed
priorities or definitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities and definitions since publication of
the NPP follows.
General Comments
Comments: Many commenters expressed general support for all the
proposed priorities, and one commenter also expressed support for the
definitions. We also recognize that it is important to engage broad
stakeholders and have incorporated many of the comments throughout the
priorities.
Some of these commenters also expressed support in specific areas.
For example, two commenters expressed appreciation for the emphasis on
the needs of students and educators. A third commenter expressed
similar support for the emphasis on the needs of students and added,
more broadly, support for the focus on schools and families. Two
commenters noted the importance of understanding the impact of the
novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with one adding that it is
critical to prioritize actions that will increase educational equity
and create a more diverse education workforce. Other commenters
supported the emphasis the priorities place on specific topic areas
relating to, or subgroups of, children. For example, two commenters
noted the emphasis these priorities have on students with disabilities.
Another commenter noted, along with their support, that they thought it
was important to focus Department grant programs on first-generation
students from low-income backgrounds. A separate commenter supported
the overall emphasis throughout the priorities on early learning, while
another commenter expressed overall support for the focus on mental
health. Another commenter expressed appreciation for the
acknowledgement of the need to address staffing shortages and the use
of universal design for learning. This same commenter specifically
noted that students with disabilities, particularly students with Down
syndrome, will only benefit from each of these priorities if grantees
include such students. The commenter further indicated that students
with significant cognitive disabilities have been frequently left out
of key grant programs.
Other commenters believed that the priorities could have a positive
impact on education more broadly. For example, one commenter stated
that these priorities are crucial to the immediate and ongoing work of
recovery and transformation in our education system to meet the needs
of all learners, while another commenter appreciated the thoughtful
systems-level approach to equitably distribute
[[Page 70613]]
resources. Finally, one commenter expressed hope that the priorities
bring noticeable change in education.
Discussion: We appreciate the overwhelming support for the
priorities and welcome the additional comments and suggestions. We
agree with the commenters on the importance of focusing on the critical
needs of educators, schools, families, and students, including students
with disabilities, including those with significant cognitive
disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested changes to the background section
of the NPP where the Department discussed its intent that, where
technology is referenced in the priorities and definition, the
technology be accessible to English learners, and to individuals with
disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as
applicable. The commenter asked that we also specify that limited
English proficient parents should have meaningful access to information
about technology, including technology support and information on data
collection, storage, and sharing. The commenter also requested that
instructional technology be developed with English learners in mind and
that teachers know how to select appropriate and high-quality digital
tools that can be adapted for English learner instructional strategies
in a virtual environment. For example, instructional technology could
include embedded language support features and allow for verbal peer-
to-peer interaction.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation for changes to the
background to include supports for limited English proficient parents
and to ensure that instructional technology is developed with English
learners in mind. We agree that Priority 1(e) should address this
concern as technology supported learning experienced must be inclusive
of English learners. We do not include a background section in the NFP,
nor is the background section considered part of the final priorities.
Changes: In priority 1(e), we have included language to specify
that access to high-quality, technology supported learning experiences
be accessible and usable by English learners.
Comments: One commenter recommended that we require grantees to
report on their progress in amplifying the voices and experiences of
families, providers, and community partners. In addition, the commenter
recommended requiring grantees to disaggregate data to the extent
possible by race/ethnicity, language, and disability status.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment. Reporting requirements for
grant programs are established separately for each grant program based
on program requirements. The Secretary's supplemental priorities are
not, by design, the place for establishing reporting requirements. For
this reason, we are not making any changes in response to this comment.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested using the term ``early learning
and education'' instead of ``education'' throughout the priorities to
emphasize the birth through college model. The commenter also suggested
using ``children and students'' instead of ``students,'' and ``Pre-K
starting at birth'' instead of ``K-12.''
Discussion: We agree with the commenter's interest in ensuring that
the priorities are inclusive of young learners. We interpret the terms
``education'' and ``students'' throughout the priorities to be, in
general, inclusive of early learning and children, respectively. Where
appropriate, we have specified specific groups of students. Further,
``early learning'' is defined to include programs that provide early
care and education for children from birth to kindergarten entry.
Therefore, we decline to make any changes in response to this comment.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that prioritizing vulnerable
students in underserved school districts should be a top priority for
the Department.
Discussion: We agree that prioritizing vulnerable students in
underserved school districts is important. The establishment of these
priorities is one of many actions the Department is taking to focus on
vulnerable students in underserved school districts. The priorities
repeatedly reference ``underserved students,'' and the definition of
``underserved students'' includes students who may be vulnerable for a
variety of reasons.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding career and technical
education centers to the listings of educational settings as these
centers are often not included in funding conversations.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion and agree
that a focus on career and technical education centers should be added
to specific priorities to ensure that they are intentionally included
in the discussion.
Changes: We have added ``career and technical education programs''
to subpart (a) of Priority 2, subpart (h)(1)(ii) of Priority 3, and
subpart (f) of Priority 4.
Comments: Several commenters suggested adding additional
priorities. One commenter suggested a priority focused on improving the
effectiveness of principals. Another commenter suggested a science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) priority. A third commenter
proposed a priority to address other factors that impact educational
attainment and outcomes, through a whole-child approach to young
children's success. A fourth commenter recommended making school
diversity its own priority. That commenter also suggested using more
explicit language on ``school integration'' and ``desegregation''
throughout the priorities, in addition to the U.S. Supreme Court's
terminology--``school diversity'' and ``reduction of racial
isolation.''
Discussion: We appreciate these thoughtful recommendations for
additional priorities. The priorities, as proposed, address each of
these topics. Priority 2 focuses on STEM by including a subpart that
calls attention to the inequities related to access to and success in
rigorous and engaging approaches to STEM coursework. In addition, the
Department has funded and continues to fund many projects with a STEM
focus.
Regarding a new priority to address other factors that impact
educational attainment and outcomes, projects that focus on whole-child
strategies would be included under both Priority 1 and Priority 4.
Priority 1 supports projects that address the impacts of COVID-19 by
providing resources and supports to meet the basic health and safety
needs of students and educators. Priority 4 is for projects designed
specifically to improve students' social, emotional, academic, and
career development.
Finally, school diversity is addressed specifically in Priority 2.
Overall, the Department is committed to equity and adequacy of
resources for underserved students. One way we think this can be
accomplished is by examining the sources of inequities. For this
reason, proposed subpart (b)(13) of Priority 2 supports developing or
implementing specific policies or practices to address racial and
socioeconomic diversity by improving data collection methods to
identify trends in and contributors to stratification and barriers to
diversity.
Given that each of the additional proposed topics are addressed in
the existing priorities, including improving the effectiveness of
principals and the use of school integration and
[[Page 70614]]
desegregation, we are not making any changes in response to these
comments.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters made suggestions regarding the use of
the term ``educator.'' These commenters highlighted the lack of clarity
on who the term includes, with many concerned it might be construed to
mean only teachers, pointing out inconsistencies in how the term was
used in the proposed priorities. For example, if ``educators'' is meant
to include persons who are not teachers, then the commenters argued
that subpart (f)(3) of Priority 3, which uses the phrase ``educator and
school leader,'' is confusing. As such, many commenters recommended
including principals and other school leaders in addition to educators
to highlight the important role school leaders play and noted that this
would be consistent with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA). Additionally, other commenters recommended including early
learning educators among the educators addressed in Priority 3, also
citing consistency with the ESEA. One commenter requested that
specialized instructional support personnel be included, and another
commenter noted the importance of school psychologists. Lastly, a
couple of commenters requested that when discussing diverse educators,
Priority 3 specifically mention educators with disabilities,
emphasizing the importance of students with disabilities seeing
successful educators with disabilities and the abilities of those
diverse educators.
Discussion: We appreciate that the use of ``educator'' could cause
confusion regarding who is included under this term. Our use of
``educator'' is meant to include all professionals working to educate
students and impact student learning, recognizing that all these
professionals play important roles. Additionally, the term ``diverse
educators'' is intended to include educators from all backgrounds that
are underrepresented in the workforce, including educators with
disabilities. As such, we are adding a definition of ``educator'' to
explain more clearly what is meant by the term and to be inclusive of
the groups that commenters noted, and we are clarifying usage of
``educator'' throughout the priorities where it is unclear.
Changes: We have added a definition of ``educator,'' which includes
early childhood educators, teachers, principals and other school
leaders, specialized instructional support personnel (e.g., school
psychologists, counselors, school social workers), paraprofessionals,
and faculty. Additionally, in Priority 2, subpart (a)(2),(b)(2)-(4),
and throughout Priority 3, subpart (b), we have replaced the references
to ``teachers'' with references to ``educators'' for consistency. In
proposed subpart (f)(3) of Priority 3, we have removed ``and school
leaders.''
Although the Department did not propose definitions of ``teacher''
and ``principal'' in the NPP, we have revised the final definitions,
based on this and other comments, to include a definition of
``educator.'' While it was always our intent to include early learning
professionals within the broader group of educators, we have added a
definition of ``educator'' to the final definitions that includes
``early learning educator.''
Changes: We have added ``early learning educator'' to the new
definition of ``educator.''
Comments: One commenter suggested the Department define Pre-K
students as a separate subgroup with specific needs outside of K-12
education. More specifically, the commenter suggested that we clarify
that each of the final priorities would support projects in the early
learning context, to the extent applicable.
Discussion: We appreciate this comment and agree with it, in part,
as we agree with supporting projects that address early learning but do
not think we need a separate subgroup definition. Priorities 2, 3, 4,
and 6 share a focus on underserved students and the definition of
``underserved student'' includes children in early learning
environments as one of the groups of learners upon which a project may
focus.
Changes: We are revising the introductory paragraph within
priorities 2, 3, 4, and 6 to include that the focus of the projects
should include underserved students.
Comments: One commenter asked that, through the priorities, we
specifically promote certificate programs, such as programs that award
licensed practical nursing or cybersecurity certificates, which could
benefit students with disabilities who have individualized educational
programs.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for the comment. We agree that
certificate programs can provide important career pathways to students,
including students with disabilities. Priority 5 addresses the types of
programs described by the commenter and encourages projects designed to
increase postsecondary access, affordability, success, and completion
for underserved students, which may include under subpart (j) projects
that connect children or students with disabilities, adults with
disabilities, and disconnected youth to resources designed to improve
independent living and the achievement of employment outcomes.
Accordingly, no change is needed, as Priority 5 would allow the
projects proposed by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to include student and
educator voices in each of the topic areas to engage students in the
overall education process.
Discussion: We agree that students and educators, as applicable,
should be included in the design, development, and implementation of
projects proposed under these priorities. However, where appropriate to
the program and the competition, the Department may include in the NIA
the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, through which a proposed
project will be evaluated on the extent to which the proposed project
encourages participant or beneficiary involvement and to which the
services to be provided by the proposed project involve the
collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness
of project services. We think this approach is a more tailored way to
promote involvement by the relevant affected stakeholders, which may
include students and educators, on a program-by-program basis.
Therefore, we have not made any changes in response to this comment.
Changes: None.
Comments: Five commenters suggested revising the introductory note
about accessibility of technology to ensure it references all
applicable Federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and the ESEA. The commenters also suggested adding
language to reinforce the need for technology to be universally
designed and fully accessible, as well as to be interoperable with
assistive technology. A sixth commenter stated that the technology
should be usable by English learners and individuals with disabilities.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation for changes to the
background to ensure it is consistent with all Federal requirements and
for the suggested improvements. We do not include a background section
in the NFP, nor is the background section considered part of the final
priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes in response to
these comments.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters suggested addressing rural education in
the priorities. One urged caution in adding supplemental priorities to
rural-serving programs without funding
[[Page 70615]]
increases; the other recommended maintaining the priority related to
rural applicants in the Administrative Priorities for Discretionary
Grant Programs published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85
FR 13640) and requested that additional attention be given to rural
education under each supplemental priority. These commenters also
provided suggestions related to funding for rural education. One
recommended providing additional funding to address the needs of rural
education, particularly educator compensation and training; the other
commenter requested the Department work to ensure that all districts
have equal opportunities to apply for and receive funding and noted
concerns that some school districts do not apply for discretionary
grants because they believe the Department favors the largest school
districts.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their suggestions. In
preparing for each program's grant competition, the Department takes
care in deciding which priorities to apply and when, considering, in
part, eligible entities' capacity for addressing the priorities.
Nevertheless, we appreciate the commenter's caution about the use of
supplemental priorities for rural-serving programs. Regarding the
administrative priority for rural applicants (85 FR 13640), this
priority remains in effect and will be available for use by the
Department, as appropriate.
Regarding the comment about additional funding for rural education,
we consider these priorities to be one mechanism for generating
additional funds for rural-serving programs. Rural-serving programs may
apply for the Department's discretionary grants to which these
priorities will apply. Finally, while the comment about ensuring that
all districts have equal opportunities to apply for and receive funding
is beyond the scope of the supplemental priorities, the Department's
procedures for awarding discretionary grants include a variety of
safeguards and technical assistance to ensure fair grant competitions.
For example, for almost all the Department's grant competitions,
program staff recruit application reviewers from outside the Federal
Government. And, while Department staff screen applications to ensure
that they meet all program requirements, the non-Federal reviewers read
and independently score the applications assigned to them.
Changes: None.
Priority 1--Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Students, Educators,
and Faculty
Comments: Several commenters expressed their support for Priority
1, its focus on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and recognition
of the challenges underserved students experienced before the pandemic.
Commenters especially appreciated the focus on students' social,
emotional, mental health, and academic needs; technology access for
students and educators and how to best address the ``digital divide'';
using an evidence base; and the background discussion of the priority
that emphasized afterschool and summer programs, focus on the whole
child, and community and family engagement. One commenter appreciated
the alignment of this priority with the needs of community colleges. In
its support for the priority, one commenter recommended prioritizing
underserved students, while another commenter expressed that they would
like to see a focus on all age groups from infants to young adults, as
well as educators and families. Another commenter recommended
prioritizing Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to
provide resources for HBCUs to address the needs of their students.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the priority and that
commenters found strong connections between the priority and the needs
they are seeing in the field. Regarding prioritizing underserved
students, Priority 1 focused on ``the students most impacted by the
pandemic,'' but we believe that, as we did in the other priorities, we
should include a focus on underserved students. We also define
``underserved students'' to include age groups from infants to young
adults, and the educators and families that support those students. We
also agree that it is important that all institutions, especially
institutions that work directly with underserved students, have the
resources needed to address Priority 1 to address the needs of and
fully support their students who are largely underserved populations
impacted by the pandemic.
Changes: We have added ``with a focus on underserved students'' to
the lead-in paragraph of Priority 1. Additionally, to address this
comment, in Priority 2, we have added new subpart (b) that allows the
Department to prioritize community colleges, HBCUs, Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs), or Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs).
Accordingly, proposed subpart (b) of Priority 2 has been redesignated
as final subpart (a)(2).
Comments: A couple of commenters proposed that Priority 1 be used
as a competitive preference priority, with one commenter recommending
that this priority be used as a competitive preference priority in the
FY 2022 Charter School Programs (CSP) competitions.
Discussion: These priorities are intended to be a menu of options
for use in our discretionary grant programs. The Department may choose
which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are appropriate for a
particular program competition, as well as the appropriate level of
funding and selection criteria. If the Department chooses to use a
supplemental priority, it also will designate in the notice inviting
applications whether the priority will be used as an absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational priority in the grant
competition.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended the addition of a new subpart
to Priority 1 focused on comprehensive plans to address literacy gaps
from the pandemic and remote learning.
Discussion: We agree that the pandemic has had significant impacts
on learning, including on literacy development. Although we appreciate
the commenter's recommendations for how this priority could be expanded
to include a focus on literacy, we want to clarify that the priority
does not prohibit the projects described by the commenter, and that
there are already elements that support such models, for example
subpart 1(g). Applicants have the discretion to determine what approach
or intervention will best address the priority and meet the needs of
the targeted population.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters encouraged applicants to consider the
views of students in addressing the issues under the priority,
especially focusing on student engagement in decision-making and
community asset-mapping. Another commenter suggested strengthening the
priority by including family impacts from the pandemic, not just
student- and educator-specific impacts, including opportunities to
address the needs of families in addition to needs of students' and
educators.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to be able to reengage
and support student learning to address COVID-19 impacts, and that
students and educators, as applicable should be included in the design,
development and implementation of projects
[[Page 70616]]
proposed under these priorities. Student engagement and voice can be a
part of projects addressing this priority as proposed, and we believe
that applicants are best suited to determine how to engage students to
address the priority. Likewise, we recognize that the pandemic has had
an impact on everyone, not only students and educators, but their
families as well. We believe that addressing students' needs can
include addressing the needs of the families that support those
students but agree with the commenter's recommendation that the
priority should explicitly refer to reengaging families.
Changes: We have added ``and their families'' at the end of subpart
(a) of Priority 1.
Comments: Though Priority 1 is focused on addressing the impacts of
COVID-19, one commenter encouraged the Department not to use this
priority to support ``vouchers,'' citing the Education Stabilization
Fund-Rethink K12 Education Models, which established microgrants for
parents. The commenter noted the importance of this priority focusing
on public school students.
Discussion: We recognize that across the various COVID-19 relief
programs established by Congress, there have been different
requirements, priorities, and eligible applicants. This priority is
designed to address the students most impacted by the pandemic, with a
focus on underserved students. The priority does not include any
reference to ``vouchers''; eligibility for a program, including whom a
program may serve, is determined by a program's statutory authority.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters recommended that Priority 1
specifically address the needs of early learning programs, and
recommended changes to the background section to reference these needs
and the mental health needs of children in early learning programs
related to the pandemic.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation for additions to the
background for the priority to discuss early learning. We do not
include background sections for priorities in the NFP, nor are the
background sections considered part of the final priorities. Therefore,
we are not making any changes in response to this comment. Regarding
focusing on the mental health needs for children in early learning,
since the proposed priority refers to ``underserved students,'' and the
definition of ``underserved students'' includes ``children in early
learning environments,'' the proposed priority's focus on students'
mental health needs includes students in early learning programs.
Accordingly, changes to the priority are not necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters supported subpart (a) of Priority 1,
especially the emphasis on community asset-mapping, with one commenter
recommending using U.S. Census data to look more specifically at
household disparities from the pandemic. Additionally, commenters noted
that this priority will help supplement the other funding States are
receiving and will help minimize burden on educators, students, and
families. While supportive of the priority, a few commenters
recommended additions to this subpart. One commenter noted the
significant impacts of the pandemic on English learners and requested
that this subpart address learning and language needs of these
students. This commenter also recommended a focus on reengaging
``virtual drop-out'' students who disengaged because of remote
learning. Other commenters recommended that we add language to the
priority to ensure that State and district needs are assessed and
measured, looking not only at academic indicators but also at student
well-being, school culture, and broader indicators of reengagement,
with one commenter suggesting a focus on reengagement at the early
learning level. Given the varying impacts of the pandemic on students,
one commenter proposed additional language focused on assessing the
needs of specific subgroups of students, including children or students
with disabilities, and the potential extension of eligibility for
services for students with disabilities based on this assessment of
needs. Finally, one commenter recommended that while full community
engagement in community asset-mapping and the data generated are
important, the asset-mapping does not need to be perfect and that
funding under the priority be used to serve as many students as
possible.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments supporting this subpart and
the importance of community asset-mapping. We agree that there are a
range of data points that can be used to assess needs, including U.S.
Census data, State and local data, and data from community partners. We
also agree that reengagement of all groups of students is important,
including students attending school in-person and those participating
in remote learning. The priority is focused on the students most
impacted by the pandemic, and we agree that these include English
learners and children or students with disabilities as discussed by
commenters. Given the focus on students most affected by the pandemic,
we do not think additional language identifying specific groups of
students is necessary, but we agree that ensuring that the assessment
considers subgroups of students is valuable. As a result, we have added
language to clarify that the assessment may include an assessment of
subgroups of students. We agree that States and districts need to work
with students with disabilities and their families but do not think
additional language in the priority is necessary for this work to be
carried out. Lastly, the intent of the subpart is to reengage students
and address the impacts of COVID-19, and applicants have the discretion
to determine what approach or intervention will best address the
priority and meet the needs of the targeted population.
Changes: We have clarified in subpart (a) of Priority 1 that any
assessment of student disengagement may include a focus on subgroups of
students.
Comments: Multiple commenters supported subpart (b) of Priority 1
and appreciated the focus on health and safety needs, especially the
inclusion of educators along with students. One commenter recommended a
focus on underserved communities, given the impact of the pandemic on
those communities. Another commenter encouraged inter-agency
collaboration to address health and safety needs, including
collaboration with State departments of education, food and nutrition
agencies, public health departments, and other providers.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments in support of subpart (b)
and agree that health and safety needs of both students and educators
need to continually be assessed and addressed. We also agree that
collaboration with relevant agencies and providers can help to
successfully provide for the health and safety needs of students and
educators, and such collaboration would be permitted under this
subpart.
This priority is focused on those most impacted by the pandemic,
and as noted above, we have added ``underserved students'' to the lead-
in paragraph of Priority 1 to focus on those groups. In addition,
Priority 6 addresses inter-agency collaboration and could be used in
conjunction with this priority, so we do not think any changes to the
subpart are necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters expressed support for subpart (c) of
Priority 1 and suggested that mental health be maintained in this
subpart.
[[Page 70617]]
One commenter recommended that funding be used to address shortages in
mental health professionals and that the subpart include language
allowing the use of multi-tiered systems of supports to address the
social and emotional needs of students. One commenter requested that
the approaches to addressing these needs be culturally and
linguistically responsive. Another commenter recommended a new subpart
focused on community engagement and the importance of partnerships to
support emotional, physical and mental health, and academic needs.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for this subpart
of the priority and agree that addressing students' mental health needs
is especially important given the impacts on mental health caused by
the pandemic. Addressing mental health needs includes ensuring the
appropriate mental health professionals are involved. We also recognize
the potentially positive impacts of well-designed, well-executed multi-
tiered systems of supports, which we include in Priority 4. Such an
approach to addressing mental health needs would be permitted under
this subpart, so we do not think additional language is necessary in
this subpart of Priority 1. We recognize the importance of addressing
students' needs in culturally and linguistically inclusive ways,
recognizing and valuing all students' identities, cultures, and
potential, and are adding language to address this issue similar to
that used in other priorities. Lastly, we agree that community
engagement and partnerships can be beneficial to addressing students'
social, emotional, mental health, and academic needs. Applicants have
the discretion to determine what approach or intervention, including
necessary partnerships, will best address the priority and meet the
needs of the targeted population. In addition, Priority 6 addresses
inter-agency collaboration and could be used in conjunction with this
priority.
Changes: We have specified in subpart (c) of Priority 1 that
project approaches must be inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity,
culture, language, and disability status.
Comments: Multiple commenters supported subpart (d) of Priority 1.
One commenter recommended that this subpart emphasize the recruitment
and retention of educators and educator preparation programs. Another
commenter recommended that the subpart reference a specific report on
teachers of color and include a focus on educators and staff of color.
Discussion: We appreciate support for this subpart. We do not think
the suggested additions to subpart (d) are necessary because Priority
3--Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional Growth to
Strengthen Student Learning--focuses on educator preparation,
recruitment, and retention, as well as educator diversity and the needs
of diverse educators. Applicants have the discretion to determine what
approach or intervention will best address the priority and meet the
needs of the targeted population, which may include specific groups of
educators most impacted by COVID-19. Lastly, we do not cite specific
reports in the text of the priorities and therefore decline to include
the suggested references.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters noted their appreciation for subpart
(e) of Priority 1 and the Department's recognition that those most
impacted by the pandemic often have significant technology needs.
Several commenters made recommendations for additional language related
to technology for children or students with disabilities to ensure the
technology complies with laws, such as the Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act (COPPA), and is ``accessible,'' ``useable,'' and
``interoperable.'' One commenter requested that district and school
administrators ensure that any future technology schools and districts
obtain is accessible for children or students with disabilities.
Commenters recommended that English learners also be addressed in this
subpart, noting that English learners similarly have unique needs. One
commenter recommended that this subpart also ensure that families
understand the technology being used. A couple of commenters suggested
that the subpart require that the professional development educators
receive is ``collaborative'' and ``sustained,'' and another commenter
recommended that coaching be included along with professional
development. Another commenter requested changes to the background
section of the NPP where the Department discussed its intent that,
where technology is referenced in the priorities and definition, the
technology be accessible to English learners and to individuals with
disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as
applicable. Lastly, one commenter suggested that the subpart include
language regarding the continued use of remote learning and service
delivery, especially in the case of school psychologists.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that technology access
continues to be a barrier for many students, and we share commenters'
concern about accessibility for all students, including children or
students with disabilities and English learners. To address this issue,
we have added language to this subpart to ensure that technology meets
the accessibility needs of children or students with disabilities, and
to also clarify that technology must support English learners. We do
not think it is necessary to add language regarding future technology
purchases by districts and schools because the subpart already requires
that technology be accessible. Regarding professional development, we
agree that professional development may benefit from being
collaborative and sustained; however, the degree to which it need to be
collaborative and sustained may depend on the type of technology and
the educator's level of comfort and experience. As to maintaining
remote learning and service delivery, applicants have the discretion to
determine what approach or intervention will best address the priority
and meet the needs of the targeted population.
Changes: We have revised subpart (e) of Priority 1 to provide that
technology-supported learning experiences must be useable and
interoperable after in addition to accessible by children or students
with disabilities, as well as English learners. We have also provided
that related professional development should be sustained and
collaborative, as appropriate.
Comments: One commenter suggested including universal design for
learning in subpart (f) of Priority 1 as an example of an evidence-
based intervention.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for the suggestion and agree
that universal design for learning is an example of an evidence-based
intervention. We do not believe that it needs to be specifically
mentioned in this subpart for a prospective applicant to propose to use
it and note that it is already included in the definitions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested decoupling personalized learning
from extended learning time and technology as both can enhance
learning, however, personalized learning is not dependent on extended
learning time or technology. The commenter stated that applicants
should enable evidence-based interventions, by leveraging technology
where appropriate, to support personalized in-person student
[[Page 70618]]
learning as well as evidence-based supplemental activities and, where
possible, to increase parent and community engagement.
Discussion: We want the current language of the subpart to allow
for personalized learning and extended learning time and technology,
however, would agree that there are also other evidence-based
interventions that could be used by potential grantees. We decline to
make further changes to the language.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that Priority 1 does not clearly
include afterschool and summer learning options, and suggested
splitting subpart (f) of Priority 1 into two subparts to highlight the
importance of afterschool and summer learning programs. Specifically,
the commenter proposed that subpart (f) refer to the use of technology
to enable evidence-based interventions to support personalized in-
person student learning; and that we create a new subpart (g) focused
on evidence-based supplemental activities that extend learning time and
increase student engagement and, where possible, parent engagement. The
commenter also recommended that the proposed subpart (g) contain
examples of activities that extend learning time, such as comprehensive
afterschool and summer programs and work with community partners.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and agree that
afterschool and summer learning programs are important and should be
explicitly mentioned. We have not adopted the commenter's suggestion to
split subpart (f) into two subparts but modified the current subpart
(f) to include comprehensive afterschool and summer learning and
enrichment programs as examples of supplemental activities.
Changes: We have added in subpart (f) of Priority 1 comprehensive
afterschool and summer learning and enrichment programs as examples of
supplemental activities that extend learning time and increase student
and parent engagement.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department consider
leveraging technology for strategies beyond traditional curriculum and
instruction, to include work-based learning opportunities. The
commenter noted that such strategies could expand opportunities for
work-based learning and employer engagement, while ensuring equitable
access to students of diverse backgrounds.
Discussion: The requirement to use evidence-based supplemental
activities do not preclude an applicant from proposing to use
innovative strategies for work-based learning. Accordingly, we do not
believe that changes are needed to subpart (f) to allow the activities
proposed by the commenter. Other priorities reference career and
technical education and work-based learning, and could be used in
combination with this priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested removing ``where possible'' from
subpart (f) of Priority 1. The commenter advised that family engagement
should be a top priority and made possible through all means. The
commenter asked that we require that parents have access to devices,
connectivity, and training in the use of the school's technology.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree that family
engagement is a top priority. We included ``parent engagement'' in this
priority to signal its importance, however, we realize that there may
be limited instances where parental engagement may not be necessary and
have included the ``where appropriate'' in recognition of those
instances. Additionally, we will not include the requirement for access
to devices as this may create additional burden for school systems who
are at a minimum trying to ensure that their students all have access.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested that we use subpart (g) of
Priority 1 to encourage States and districts to develop strategies
related to accelerated learning, but another commenter expressed
concerns about a lack of information on the effectiveness of certain
accelerated learning approaches, especially for children or students
with disabilities, and how retention and special education eligibility
are being used in relation to lost instructional time. One commenter
suggested that we add language related to professional development for
educators to address lost instructional time. Another commenter
recommended adding language related to career development and
readiness.
Discussion: We recognize that there are many different
instructional approaches and supports to accelerate learning, and this
priority is designed to support a variety of approaches to meet the
needs of those most impacted by the pandemic, including children or
students with disabilities. We carefully consider when and how to use
any of the supplemental priorities, and in instances where we may use
this priority and subpart (g), applicants will have the discretion to
determine what approach or intervention will best address the priority
and meet the needs of the targeted population. We agree that
professional development is an important component in successful use of
instructional approaches and supports to accelerate learning and think
that support warrants adding language to the subpart. Lastly, given
that this subpart is focused on accelerating learning, we do not think
it necessary to add language related to career readiness.
Changes: We have added professional development, coaching, and
ongoing support for educators as examples of approaches and supports
under subpart (g) of Priority 1.
Comments: Multiple commenters proposed changes to subpart (h) of
Priority 1 to expressly allow for a focus on children or students with
disabilities, other credit-bearing courses not specifically addressed,
and adult learners. A couple of commenters recommended including non-
credit-bearing coursework for comprehensive transition programs for
children or students with disabilities. Another commenter recommended
that dual enrollment and early college programs be referenced in the
subpart. Regarding adult learning, one commenter recommended adding a
reference to advancing the careers and skills for adults, and another
suggested the addition of a reference to adult learning after
postsecondary education.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments on subpart (h) of Priority
1, as commenters seek to ensure all individuals are reflected in a
discussion of postsecondary education or training programs. This
priority is focused on supporting all students in earning a recognized
postsecondary credential, prioritizing credit-bearing coursework,
therefore we decline to include the addition of non-credit bearing
coursework. We strongly support and encourage dual enrollment and early
college programs and because such programs would be permitted under the
subpart, we do not think it is necessary to add a specific reference to
these programs. As to adult learners, we recognize the importance of
lifelong learners and agree that proposed projects supporting these
types of programs or approaches would be permitted under this subpart,
and no further revisions are necessary. We are adding express reference
to such programs in this subpart to underscore our interest in
promoting their use.
Changes: None.
[[Page 70619]]
Priority 2--Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational
Resources, Opportunities, and Welcoming Environments
Comments: Several commenters expressed their general support for
Priority 2 and made additional comments. One commenter specifically
noted the commitment to equity and strong education regardless of
background expressed through the priority, as well as the importance of
equitable access to meaningful summer learning opportunities. Some
commenters, while expressing their support, also urged the Department
to maintain its focus on student-centered and project-based learning
and stated that deeply engaging families is essential to help ensure
equitable access to resources. Another commenter appreciated the
inclusion of out-of-school-time settings as one of the eight
educational settings listed in the priority. Several commenters
appreciated the focus on parent engagement. Another commenter supported
continuing existing efforts to designate resources for evidence-based,
school-wide policies and practices that reduce bullying and harassment
of and, discrimination against, all students. Another commenter
supported new measures of student discipline to ensure more equity and
end the school-to-prison pipeline. An additional commenter noted the
value of project-based learning for improving academic outcomes and the
importance of teacher development that includes demonstration and
rehearsal activities for ensuring equitable participation in
classrooms. One commenter requested that the Department increase the
frequency of the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) to ensure equity.
A commenter agreed that equitable, systemic, and strategic early
college credit is essential to driving student success in secondary and
postsecondary education and beyond. Multiple commenters expressed
support for all subparts of the priority. Several commenters expressed
strong support for subpart (b) with specific support for the focus on
identifying and remedying inequities in educational opportunities and
toward making educational opportunities equal, equitable, and
accessible. Another commenter stated that subpart (b) will help to
increase equity by ensuring more students have access to well-prepared,
effective, and diverse educators. Another commenter expressed support
for equity in student access to educational resources. One commenter
fully supported the Department's prioritization of community and family
engagement while designing and administering discretionary grant
programs. A final commenter expressed support for success in critical
and high-need fields to address the systemic practices that have
contributed to inequities.
Discussion: We appreciate all the commenters' support for Priority
2. We think that, overall, the priority allows flexibility for
applicants to propose evidence-based, capacity-building, and systems-
level approaches designed to effect long-term change systemically and
systematically for Department stakeholders. Although it is beyond the
scope of this priority, we also appreciate the commenter's
recommendation for enhancing the CRDC and agree that the CRDC is one
resource available to identify inequity. Although it is beyond the
scope of these priorities, we also recognize that the CRDC includes
multiple data points that are currently collected that also capture
gaps in educational equity.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters made recommendations related to the
use of Priority 2, generally. Two commenters proposed that we use this
priority as a competitive preference priority and recommended its use
in specific grant programs such as Education Innovation and Research,
Full-Service Community Schools, and CSP Developer. Another commenter
stated that recipients of discretionary grants should be prioritized by
demonstrated need, with another providing suggestions on how projects
should be funded. One commenter suggested establishing structures to
increase student engagement and voice, including student board members
and youth-led town halls. The commenter also suggested partnerships
with youth to deliver leadership training. The commenter suggested
designing processes to ensure equity in access for marginalized
students and lastly, the commenter also suggested individualized
curriculum delivery and resources to support the self-actualization of
students, as well as training educators to utilize restorative justice
practices.
Discussion: These priorities, as well as their subparts, are
intended to be a menu of options for the Department to use in
competitions for discretionary grant programs. The Department may
choose which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are appropriate for
a particular program competition, as well as the appropriate level of
funding and selection criteria. If the Department chooses to use a
supplemental priority, it also will decide whether the priority will be
used as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority
in the grant competition.
We agree that the commenter's proposed tools, such as student-led
engagement and partnerships and professional development, could help
address inequities and establish, expand, and improve learning
environments. The priority is designed to allow for a wide range of
projects to advance educational equity and does not prohibit projects
that incorporate these approaches. Therefore, we do not think it is
necessary to include these specific examples.
Changes: None.
Comments: Regarding Priority 2 generally, one commenter cited
retention of principals in schools with high rates of poverty, as well
as the lower income and less autonomy in decision-making principals may
have, as an issue and proposed adding school leaders to some of the
subparts to clarify who is included in the meaning of the term
``educator.'' One commenter suggested that we clarify that the priority
supports high-quality, non-traditional programs that include both
accelerated pre-service training and classroom-based clinical training
and support, particularly those programs with a track record of
success. The commenter disagreed with using the word ``fully'' to
modify ``certified educators''; the commenter argued that effective
teachers are best identified by their performance in the classroom, not
by their background or experience. Another commenter recommended
acknowledging suspension and expulsion starting at the preschool years
and the inequities in these practices in the background section of this
priority and citing preschool school discipline data within the
priority. The commenter noted the harmful implications such practices
may have on students' well-being and longer-term school success.
Another commenter asked that the priority require any State pre-
kindergarten enrollment portals to include Head Start and Early Head
Start as options, as well as assist with transportation, mental health,
and professional development programs. They also suggested that the
priority require States to set and meet enrollment targets by income,
family status, dual language status, and other criteria with a strong
relationship to kindergarten readiness. One commenter suggested the
Department consider the resources needed to enhance community capacity
to analyze and use data, including funding professional development and
intermediary organizations. Another commenter
[[Page 70620]]
suggested the Department facilitate and support peer-to-peer learning
models that generate sustainable, integrated work-based learning models
for employers and students.
Discussion: We appreciate the information provided by the commenter
about the challenges of retaining principals in schools with high rates
of poverty. The definition of ``educator'' includes principals and
other school leaders, so this priority also allows for projects that
support principals.
We recognize and appreciate the commenter's concern regarding the
focus on fully certified educators in subpart (b). However, we think
that all students, particularly underserved students, should have
access to educators who are fully prepared on day one as is common
practice in many high-performing nations, and who are not teaching, for
example, on an emergency or substitute certification. Requiring
teachers to meet State standards for full certification is one means of
ensuring that all students have access to qualified educators. We agree
that the focus on equity in the classroom should begin at the early
learning stages. We specifically identify early learning programs as a
setting that the Department may select under the priority. We have
designed the priority to give applicants flexibility in promoting
educational equity. We believe applicants could propose under the
priority, without further revision, projects related to high-quality,
non-traditional programs that include pre-service classroom-based
clinical training and support; suspension and expulsion inequities in
early learning settings; improvements to kindergarten readiness
programs, including with respect to equitable access and accessibility
generally; building capacity with respect to the analysis and use of
data; and peer-to-peer work-based learning models. While we fully
support Head Start and all avenues to kindergarten readiness, we are
unable to make requirements that are not within the scope of the
statutory authority for Department programs and therefore have not
added the requested language to this priority. We appreciate the
commenter's suggestion on how funds should be used. These priorities
are intended as a menu of options for use in our discretionary grant
programs. The Department may choose which, if any, of the priorities or
subparts are appropriate for a particular program competition, as well
as the appropriate level of funding and selection criteria. If the
Department chooses to use one of these priorities, it will decide
whether the priority will be used as an absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational priority in the grant competition, as well
as the appropriate level of funding and selection criteria.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters recommended adding additional
educational settings to the list in subpart (a) of Priority 2 that
would refer to schools that serve the highest-need students in an
effort to support schools enrolling significant populations of students
who have previously dropped out or who have a history of trauma, mental
health challenges, and severe disengagement; and (2) provide for
developing, implementing, and expanding access to programs that provide
two-generational support for the whole family, a support that
emphasizes education, economic supports, social capital, and health and
well-being to create a legacy of economic security that passes from one
generation to the next. Additionally, one commenter suggested that we
include ``home and community'' in the list of educational settings in
subpart (a). Regarding subpart (a)(6), one commenter recommended a
definition for out-of-school-time settings that would explicitly
include all kinds of programs that occur during the summer, before and
after school, in the evenings, and on weekends; located in school
buildings or community settings; managed or operated by schools,
community organizations, parks, camps, faith-based organizations and
other entities; and serving children and youth in grades K-12. A couple
of commenters suggested adding alternative schools and programs and
college and career education to the list of educational settings.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation to expand the list to
include additional educational settings to ensure that more support is
provided, and we agree that a focus on these settings is appropriate.
Support for serving the highest-need students is captured through the
priority's express focus on promoting educational equity and adequacy
in resources and opportunity for ``underserved students,'' which is
defined to include, as appropriate to the competition, several
different subgroups of students who have high needs. We agree that home
and community are important locations that encourage educational
development. As we have included out-of-school-time settings in the
list of educational settings under subpart (a)(6), which could include
both the locations identified, we do not think it necessary to add
additional language. We also do not think a definition for this term is
needed, as we do not want to limit the context in which out-of-school
time settings, such as before- and afterschool programs on a school
campus or specialty programs that include enrichment activities, may
occur. Applicants have discretion to determine out-of-school locations
to meet the needs of their intended beneficiaries. We agree that
alternative schools and career and technical education centers may be
beneficial to add to the identified list of education settings because
of the emphasis these settings put on technical skills and
employability as well as academic skills that benefit students by
ensuring real world applicability. For this reason, we are expanding
the list in subpart (a).
Changes: We have added alternative schools and programs and career
and technical education programs to the list of educational settings in
subpart (a).
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to add to subpart
(b)(1) of Priority 2 an explicit focus on identification of children
who are dual language learners. One commenter suggested that we include
in subpart (b)(1)(i) a reference to engaging students in human-centered
learning experiences. One commenter recommended that we include
experiential civics learning so that students can receive exposure to
civic engagement outside of the classroom. One commenter agreed with
the importance of early college programs in subpart (b)(1)(iii) in
preparing students for success and promoting equity. This commenter
suggested the use of Federal matching grants to incentivize States to
implement early college programs that target first-generation students
of color. This commenter also suggested including civics courses that
reflect content from social civic engagement.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments on this subpart, as the
commenters seek to ensure all individuals are reflected in a discussion
of equity. Subpart (b)(9), which specifically mentions improving
learning environments for multilanguage learners, addresses dual
language learners, and we believe that adding additional language to
the priority would be redundant. We agree that it is important to
engage students thoroughly as well as utilize multiple tools to do so.
Human-centered learning is one method that can be used, but it is not
applicable in every learning environment or curriculum, nor is it an
exhaustive approach to engagement. We believe that while it is not
listed specifically within the subpart, an applicant would not be
precluded from proposing a project that includes it. We also agree that
real-world application in
[[Page 70621]]
all content areas is critical, and especially agree that there are
benefits to an education that includes civic engagement. However, we do
not believe a specific focus on such content is necessary, as
applicants could address the preparation for a civic life, and thereby
promote the quality of life in their community, in any number of ways;
including such language may create an incorrect perception that the
priority provides an exhaustive list of approaches.
We appreciate the commenter's acknowledgement of the importance of
early college programs and the importance of ensuring that
traditionally underserved students have access to higher education.
Priority 2 supports projects designed to promote educational equity and
adequacy in resources and opportunity for underserved students.
``Underserved students'' is defined to include, as appropriate,
students of color and first-generation postsecondary education
students. These priorities, and their subparts, are intended to be a
menu of options for our discretionary grant programs. Accordingly,
Priority 2 already allows the Department to include, as appropriate to
a competition, a focus on improving access to early college programs
for students of color and students who are the first in their families
to attend a postsecondary institution.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended including vocational
rehabilitation in final subpart (a)(2)(xii) of Priority 2, along with
education and workforce training programs. The commenter asked that we
acknowledge in the priorities that a disproportionate percentage of
youth in juvenile justice systems have disabilities and that they
should receive access to all services to which they are entitled.
Another commenter recommended that the Department require schools to
consider what policies are needed or what policies should be removed to
make it easier for students involved with the criminal justice system
to access and succeed in these education or workforce programs. The
commenter noted that, in higher education especially, there are still
many policies that inhibit students with criminal records from being
admitted into postsecondary education and accessing financial aid and
housing and that greater educational equity means removing these
barriers.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation to include vocational
rehabilitation and agree that there are equity issues for children or
students with disabilities in juvenile justice facilities. We agree
with the importance of removing barriers to support equity for students
involved with the criminal justice system; however, this priority
broadly addresses the educational settings for inclusion of these
students as opposed to the specific methods which may vary by program.
Changes: Vocational rehabilitation has been added within final
subpart (a)(2)(xii).
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department consider
how college and career pathways and work-based learning can be included
in subpart (b)(1)(i) of Priority 2 as one of several student-centered
approaches that develops skills and knowledge students need to succeed
and encouraged the Department to support communities of practice, at
the State and national levels, focused on innovative models for
addressing systemic inequities.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation and note
that there are several references within this priority and subpart to
college and career pathways and work-based learning. For example,
proposed subpart (b)(1)(v) (now final subpart (a)(2)(i)(E)) focuses on
high-quality career and technical education courses, pathways, and
industry-recognized credentials. We also appreciate supporting
communities of practice and continually engage with internal and
external entities to ensure that inequities are consistently addressed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended the Department consider how
subpart (b) of Priority 2 can promote a broader focus on college and
career pathways for all students and better align secondary-to-
postsecondary pathways strategies. Another commenter expressed the
urgent need for STEM curriculum in underserved communities. One
commenter suggested that the Department include strategies such as
transitional instruction in subpart (b)(1)(iii) to help reduce the need
for developmental education at the postsecondary level. The commenter
also suggested promoting the senior year of high school as an
opportunity to accelerate student progress toward early college credit
or college readiness through transitional instruction by, in part,
incentivizing automatic acceleration and placement policies. One
commenter suggested we include a focus on educator training in subpart
(b)(1)(v) to ensure educators possess the pedagogical skills to serve
the needs of all students. The commenter stressed the need for a more
diverse educator workforce, especially more diverse emergency-licensed
teachers who possess bilingual skills, and the commenter believed they
should be compensated like educators who receive stipends for special
skills outside their regular duties.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations on
subpart (b); subpart (b)(1)(v) was included for the purpose of ensuring
a broader focus on college and career pathways. We agree that there is
an identified need for STEM instruction in underserved communities;
accordingly, in proposed subpart (b)(1)(vi) (now final (a)(2)(i)(F)) we
provide for a focus on projects addressing the inequities in access to
and success in rigorous and engaging approaches to STEM coursework. In
addition, the Department previously funded and continues to fund many
projects with a STEM focus. We agree that transitional instruction may
help reduce the need for developmental education at the postsecondary
level and note that proposed subpart (b)(1)(iii) (now final
(a)(2)(i)(C)) has a focus on advanced courses and programs, including
dual enrollment and early college programs; as a result, we believe
that including additional language is unnecessary. We also agree that
there should be a more diverse educator workforce and include that
focus in proposed subpart (b)(2), which addresses educators from
traditionally underrepresented backgrounds.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that in proposed subpart (b)(2)
of Priority 2, the Department focus on non-novice educators, which are
educators not in their first or second year of teaching, rather than
inexperienced educators more broadly, and proposed additional language
to ensure that schools serving underserved students do not have
disproportionately high numbers of uncertified, out-of-field, and
novice teachers. One commenter proposed clarifying that teachers must
be fully certified, consistent with State law, in proposed subparts
(b)(2) and (b)(4) to highlight that alternate pathways to certification
may be offered under State law and often allow educators from
underrepresented demographics to gain certification. The commenter
articulated that this change would support fair and equitable treatment
under Department competitions for schools subject to different
requirements.
Discussion: We agree that there is a need to ensure that there is
an equitable distribution of experienced educators and are adding the
language suggested by the commenter to clarify the focus of
[[Page 70622]]
this subpart. We recognize that there are different State requirements
for certification and different pathways into the profession. The
requirements for certification are determined by the State, and,
therefore, in each place where we refer to certification, we are
referring to certification under State law regardless of pathway into
the profession.
Changes: We have added language to proposed subpart (b)(2) to
clarify that a project's objective under this subpart should be to
ensure that underserved students are not taught at disproportionately
higher rates by uncertified, out-of-field, and new teachers compared to
their peers.
Comments: One commenter recommended revising proposed subpart
(b)(4) of Priority 2 to emphasize the need to support and retain
teachers in the field of special education given the recent declines in
teachers entering and staying within this field.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to promote educational
equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity in special education.
Children or students with disabilities are an identified subgroup under
the definition of ``underserved student.'' Furthermore, subparts (b)(3)
and (b)(4) reference high-need fields, which may include special
education educators. Accordingly, projects to promote equity in special
education would be permitted under these subparts.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding the following specific
programs to subpart (b)(5): Gender Spectrum's Gender-Inclusive
Environment Training and Programming; National Association of School
Psychologists' School Building Transgender and Gender Diverse Readiness
Assessment; and the Family Acceptance Project's Training, Consultation
and Program Development. Another commenter recommended that we include
three specific programs in subpart (b)(5): Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs
and Gender and Sexuality Alliances, LGBTQ-Specific Anti-Bullying
Campaigns and Policies, and LGBTQ-Inclusive Sexual Education, citing
the equity issues for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer
(LGBTQ) students. Multiple commenters suggested adding ``ability'' as a
category for pedagogical practices in subpart (b)(5) to ensure
inclusion from the ability perspective. One commenter suggested
modifying subpart (b)(5) to include projects that promote effective
behavioral strategies and policies that create supportive school
climates in the early learning years; partnering with parents; and
providing supports for educators such as mental health consultants and
training and technical assistance that help in addressing implicit
bias.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' identification of
specific programs and agree that the work of each could be relevant to
Priority 2; however, we do not endorse specific programs within our
priorities and do not believe they need to be added because applicants
have the discretion to determine what approach or intervention will
best address the priority and meet the needs of the targeted
population. More generally, we also agree that there are equity issues
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+)
students and note that this priority subpart supports projects designed
to promote educational equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity
for underserved students. In the definition of ``underserved
students,'' LGBTQI+ students are already an identified subgroup.
We agree that inclusive pedagogy should also include children or
students with disabilities and are adding ``disability status'' to the
list of included pedagogy. We also appreciate the commenter's
suggestion for modification of this subpart to include projects that
promote effective behavioral strategies and parent engagement and
providing supports for educators such as mental health consultants and
training and technical assistance, and believe that these projects, are
covered elsewhere in the priorities, such as in Priority 1.
Changes: We are including ``disability status,'' in subpart (b)(5).
Comments: Two commenters suggested adding language to proposed
subpart (b)(6) to specifically increase ``independence'' and ``promote
self-determination'' in the use of technology to increase student
engagement. Another commenter suggested separating proposed subpart
(b)(6) into two subparts to emphasize the role out-of-school-time
programs can play in supporting student engagement and equity. One
commenter recommended adding parent advocacy and parent navigator roles
in proposed subpart (b)(6). Another commenter recommended adding work-
based learning to proposed subpart (b)(6) so that virtual work-based
learning is an option, thereby helping States address the
transportation barrier that impacts work-based learning. One commenter
expressed support for the inclusion of proposed subpart (b)(6) and
encouraged the Department to promote strategic partnerships that foster
innovation and allow schools to experiment with different learning
models that leverage technology.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments. We believe that a focus on
student independence and self-determination in the use of technology is
permitted under the priority as written. Because the priority itself
includes a focus on out-of-school time as an educational setting, and
technology is highlighted in the priority as well, we believe there is
already sufficient emphasis in proposed subpart (b)(6) (now final
subpart (a)(2)(vi)) on the use of technology in out-of-school time
activities. Further, we recognize the importance of parental
involvement and believe that parent engagement under final subpart
(a)(2)(vi) could include parent advocacy and navigation with the
existing language.
We also agree that virtual work-based learning could help address
barriers to work-based learning. We believe that projects that promote
such learning could already be included within the existing language of
student learning or supplemental activities, and thus it is not
necessary to include as a standalone focus. Finally, we agree that
partnerships provide opportunities to leverage resources to increase a
project's effectiveness or its ability to reach more students and that
such partnerships would be permitted without changes to the subpart.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested we revise proposed subpart (b)(7)
to focus on how funds are targeted and specifically to require funding
levels to align with students' diverse needs and account for districts'
differential access to local revenue given differences in local wealth
and income levels.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment. We are clarifying in the
subpart (now final subpart (a)(2)(vii)) that approaches to equitable
school funding should focus on equitably meeting student needs and the
district's capacity to fund K-12 schools.
Changes: We have added language to now final subpart (a)(2)(vii)
indicating that approaches to equitable school funding should align
funding levels to students' needs and account for districts'
differential access to local revenue.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to clarify in proposed
subpart (b)(8) that access to high-quality early learning should be
expanded for underserved populations through programs that are
racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically responsive
programs.
[[Page 70623]]
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that projects to expand
early learning programs should be racially, ethnically, culturally, and
linguistically responsive.
Changes: We have clarified in now final subpart (a)(2)(viii) that
programs should be inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture,
language, and disability status.
Comments: One commenter recommended that in proposed subpart (b)(9)
of Priority 2, instead of ``multilanguage,'' we use the term
``multilingual,'' which is used in the field.
Discussion: We share the commenters' interest in using language
consistent with that used by the field.
Changes: We have replaced ``multilanguage'' with ``multilingual.''
Comments: One commenter suggested we also promote engagement of
families under proposed subpart (b)(10) of Priority 2, noting that
family engagement opportunities may not be accessible or relevant to
those families facing the greatest barriers because they are developed
without input from them. Additionally, this commenter suggested adding
language specific to ``parent leadership initiatives'' to provide
parents with the opportunities and tools they need to be advocates and
impact change on education issues. Another commenter suggested
modifying this subpart to include staff and families.
Discussion: We appreciate that there is a need for parents and
families to be engaged in decision making and leadership and while we
believe that they may be included among ``underserved community
members,'' we agree that specifically including them would provide
clarity. We have not added staff, as the appropriate staff are
referenced in the prior subparts that refer to educators, which is a
defined term that includes a range of school staff.
Changes: We have added a reference to ``parents and families'' in
now final subpart (a)(2)(x).
Comments: One commenter recommended adding a reference to special
education to proposed subpart (b)(11) of Priority 2, in recognition
that a disproportionate percentage of youth in juvenile justice systems
have disabilities and that they should receive access to all services
to which they are entitled. Also, regarding subpart (b)(11), one
commenter recommended the Department consider that non-credit programs
can serve as a segue to college and career pathways for individuals
exiting the justice system.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation to specifically focus
on students with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. We do not
think this revision is needed due to the inclusion of juvenile justice
settings as a targeted educational setting in proposed subpart (a) and
the inclusion of students impacted by the justice system and students
with disabilities in the definition of underserved students, from which
the Department can select one or more of the student subgroups
identified. Additionally, regarding non-credit programs, we considered
this approach but have instead focused on supporting all students in
earning a recognized postsecondary credential, and therefore prioritize
credit-bearing coursework. As a result, we decline to include this
language.
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter requested that, in proposed subpart
(b)(13)(ii) of Priority 2, we address within-school diversity and
inclusion, such as efforts to end racialized tracking. Another
commenter suggested that proposed subpart (b)(13)(ii)(A) require that
the ongoing, robust family and community involvement include a diverse
group of stakeholders. Another commenter wanted to create a separate
priority with a focus of engaging family and community members in their
child's education. One commenter urged the Department to add ``ethnic''
diversity along with ``racial'' and ``socioeconomic'' to subpart
(b)(13)(iv)) and another commenter recommended adding ``ability'' to
the same subpart. One commenter suggested putting special emphasis on
the cross-agency collaboration listed in proposed subpart
(b)(13)(ii)(C), specifically with the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). One commenter recommended in proposed subpart
(b)(13)(ii)(E) adding ``or referring to charter schools in addition to
magnet schools, citing research on the level of diversity in charter
schools and the opportunity for charter schools to enroll students
across geographic boundaries.''
Discussion: With respect to the request that we expressly promote
within-school diversity and inclusion, we think that now final subpart
(a)(2)(xiii)(B)(4) of Priority 2 addresses this through language
related to an existing public diversity plan or diversity needs
assessment. We agree that ethnic diversity and diversity of disability
status are important and should be included in proposed subpart
(b)(13)(iv), along with racial and socioeconomic diversity. We are
modifying proposed subpart (b)(13)(iv) to include approaches that are
inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and
disability status. Regarding partnering specifically with HUD, we
broadly address cross-agency partnerships in Priority 6 and therefore
do not need to include that within this priority. With respect to
charter schools, magnets were used as an exemplar and would not
preclude an applicant being able to propose a project that addresses
the same goals using charter schools.
Changes: We have added language that is inclusive with regard to
race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status in now final
subpart (a)(2)(xiii)(D).
Comments: A few commenters requested that the Department add a
subpart (b)(14) to proposed Priority 2, to specifically improve the
quality of education programs in Puerto Rico, to further the goal of
promoting equity in access to educational resources and opportunities.
One commenter recommended the addition of a subpart to prioritize the
involvement of proximate voices in all levels of decision making to
identify community needs.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' desire to include
language specific to Puerto Rico, and we agree that furthering the
promotion of equity is important. We do not believe it is appropriate
to target any particular State or territory as funding from the
Department's discretionary grant programs may generally be used within
any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Outlying Areas, and the Tribal nations, and eligible
applicants under our discretionary grant programs are generally
established under a program's statutory authority and, if applicable,
regulations. Regarding the request to add a subpart prioritizing
proximate involvement to help identify community needs, in proposed
subpart (a)(2), we specifically ask for projects designed to examine
inequities and increase the number and proportion of educators from
traditionally underrepresented backgrounds or the communities they
serve with the intention of including more of those voices.
Changes: None.
Priority 3--Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional
Growth To Strengthen Student Learning
Comments: Several commenters expressed their support for Priority 3
and stated that the priority focused on the full pipeline of educator
preparation and growth, as well as promoting a diverse educator
workforce. Regarding educator preparation, they supported the
preparation of certified teachers.
[[Page 70624]]
Multiple commenters supported the focus on a diverse educator
workforce, especially programs that include comprehensive supports,
build an educator workforce from the community, include pipelines for
developing educators, align with existing efforts to recruit and
support educators, and support student learning. Multiple commenters
reiterated the importance of professional development for both new and
experienced educators that is job-embedded; culturally responsive;
focused on student social, emotional, and academic needs; integrates
technology; and includes a focus on students' families and the needs of
the community. One commenter favorably noted that some of the areas of
professional development outlined in the priority overlap with the work
after-school educators do. Lastly, commenters supported the inclusion
of universal design for learning. One commenter, though, suggested that
we revise subpart (c) to include ``accessibility'' and
``accommodations'' in addition to universal design for learning, citing
research related to working with children or students with disabilities
during educator preparation.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the priority
and agree on the importance of evidence-based educator preparation
programs; credentials, especially in shortage areas; a diverse educator
workforce; and professional growth. We do not think it is necessary to
add ``accessibility'' and ``accommodations'' to subpart (c), as
educators can be prepared in these areas in the educator preparation
programs, and we think universal design for learning also can
incorporate accessibility and accommodations without specifically
adding language to the priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter proposed splitting the priority into two
priorities, with the first priority focused on educator preparation and
the second priority focused on professional growth and student
learning.
Discussion: We recognize that in previous iterations of the
Secretary's Supplemental Priorities, the various pieces of the educator
pipeline have been addressed in separate priorities. However, as we
stated in the background to the NPP, ``rather than a priority that is
focused solely on educator professional development, the proposed
priority addresses the needs of all educators, all aspects of the
educator pipeline, and the diversity of and equitable access to those
educators. This approach to the priorities provides a vision for
systems-level approaches that build capacity for long-term change.'' As
such, we are retaining Priority 3 as one comprehensive priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters expressed the importance of prioritizing
HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs in preparing educators and recommended the
Department prioritize these institutions so that they have the
necessary resources for their educator preparation programs.
Discussion: We agree that it is important that institutions,
especially institutions that prepare a diverse set of educators, have
the resources needed for those programs. We think that a focus on these
institutions and their resources can be done through Priority 2 in
combination with Priority 3.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters proposed that Priority 3 include a
recognition of the economic challenges early learning educators face,
from loan forgiveness to compensation and benefits. One commenter also
noted the inconsistent State requirements for early learning educators,
the lack of professional development, and their mental health needs.
Another commenter highlighted the shortages of early learning
educators.
Discussion: We agree that there are economic challenges faced by
early learning educators and recognize the important role early
learning educators play in supporting the development of children.
While early learning preparation standards are established at the State
and local levels, we agree that early learning educators are an
integral part of a diverse educator workforce and recognize the value
of professional growth to strengthen student learning; however, we do
not think any changes to the priority are necessary as we believe the
priority is already inclusive of early learning educators.
Changes: None.
Comments: A couple of commenters recommended adding a new subpart
to the priority specifically for school leaders to address school
climate.
Discussion: We recognize the importance school leaders play in
helping to establish school climate. Proposed subpart (b)(1)(vii)(5) of
Priority 2 (now final Priority 2 subpart [(a)(2)(v)]) specifically
addresses school climate and supportive, positive, and identity-safe
education or work-based settings. Therefore, given there is a priority
and subpart that specifically address school climate, and the fact that
school leaders are included in the definition of ``educator'' and
therefore all references to educators in Priority 3, we do not think a
new subpart is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested that we ensure that diverse
educators prepared under Priority 3 are not segregated, stating that
all students benefit from diverse educators. Further, the commenter
recommended that in discussing diverse educators, we include language
diversity. Another commenter recommended that diversity also include
LGBTQI+ educators and alternative credentialing programs to prepare
more LGBTQI+ educators.
Discussion: We agree that all students, not just students of color,
benefit from having access to diverse educators. We do not think that
the priority would result in isolating particular groups of educators;
rather, it is intended to diversify the educator workforce more
broadly. Additionally, we agree that a diverse educator workforce
includes educators with diverse language backgrounds and LGBTQI+
educators, but we do not believe that any additional language in the
priority is necessary, nor that including language for alternative
credentialing programs for specific groups of educators is needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter proposed that we add a new subpart in
Priority 3 under which grantees would collect, track, and report data
on educator diversity and, after examining the data, address
disparities in graduation rates, passage rates for certification and
licensure exams, successful employment, retention, and more.
Discussion: We agree that an important aspect of the effort to
promote diverse educators is understanding and addressing the issues
that limit diverse educators from succeeding. As such, we propose
adding a new subpart to the priority.
Changes: We added a new final subpart (c) focused on examining and
addressing issues related to the success of diverse educators and
reordered the remaining subparts of the priority.
Comments: Multiple commenters had recommendations related to the
professional development pieces of the priority, specifically proposed
subpart (g)(1). The commenter requested adding ``evidence-based'' in
addition to ``high-quality'' and ``job embedded'' to describe
professional development. Another commenter suggested that the priority
emphasize professional development for educators to support children
with disabilities and mental health needs. A third commenter suggested
that the Department add subparts focused on professional
[[Page 70625]]
development for ``students' breadth of skills'' and ``whole learner
approaches.''
Discussion: We appreciate commenters' recommendations to focus the
professional development pieces of this priority and recognize the
importance of utilizing the existing evidence base to support the
professional development. We can apply an appropriate evidence level
established in 34 CFR 75.226, and we think that approach is preferable
to adding ``evidence-based'' as suggested by the commenter in the
specified subparts because it will allow the Department to tailor the
evidence required to individual programs, as appropriate. We also
support professional development designed to address the needs of
children with disabilities and students' mental health needs in final
subpart (h)(1)(iv) and in Priority 1 (c), and the necessary skills all
students need to engage in learning. We think all these aspects of
professional development can be covered under the priority as written.
Changes: None.
Comments: A couple of commenters proposed changes to Priority 3
related to educator working conditions, suggesting that it include
teacher leadership and a more active role for teachers in decision
making in schools and strong inclusion of teacher voice in policies
such as student discipline procedures and demands on teachers' time. In
addition, one commenter recommended that the priority support projects
designed to assess the reasons for teacher turnover so that those
issues can be addressed. Another commenter suggested that the priority
focus on teacher salaries and alignment of those salaries with the cost
of living.
Discussion: We agree that working conditions have a significant
impact on the educator workforce. This priority focuses on educators,
which includes teachers, and this may include teachers' involvement in
school decision making. The priority is also aimed at retaining a
diverse educator workforce and addressing turnover will be central to
retention. Lastly, proposed subpart (f) (now final subpart (g)) of the
priority is specifically about hiring, supporting, and retaining
educators, including developing compensation systems. As a result, we
believe the priority as written already addresses the suggestions from
commenters.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested an additional subpart to the
priority to incorporate more student engagement in providing feedback
on educators and their involvement in assessments, utilizing incentives
for performance pay, and mandating specific trainings, such as conflict
resolution.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter raising the importance of
student engagement and agree on ensuring student voices are heard.
Although we appreciate the commenter's recommendations for how this
priority could be expanded, we want to clarify that the priority could
allow for projects like those described by the commenter so long as the
projects are designed to diversify the educator workforce and support
professional growth for educators. Applicants have the discretion to
determine what approach or intervention will best address the priority
and meet the needs of the targeted population.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters provided recommendations related to
educator preparation programs and credentialing. Specifically, they
recommended we consider highlighting ``grow your own'' programs that
develop educators from the community, dual enrollment programs, and how
college and career pathway programs think through supports for
students. One commenter suggested adding the subparts under proposed
(g)(1) of Priority 3 to subpart (a), arguing that it is important for
newly prepared educators to be prepared in these same areas previously
listed. Regarding credentialing, a few commenters suggested the
Department include ``dual certification,'' and another commenter
requested that the Department include a focus on two specific shortage
areas: Dual credit educators and career and technical education
educators. Another commenter recommended that subpart (b) include
additional language to incentivize the recruitment and retention of
certified educators in high-need schools.
Discussion: We agree with the importance of recruiting from the
community for future educators as well as other programs that allow
educators to balance college and career as they proceed through the
preparation program. The priority as written supports these efforts.
Applicants have the discretion to determine what approach or
intervention will best address the priority and meet the needs of the
targeted population. Likewise, there is nothing that precludes educator
preparation programs from incorporating the areas discussed in the
professional development section of the priority in these educator
preparation programs. Regarding the request to identify specific
credentialing programs in the priority, we do not think it is necessary
to list specific credentials beyond the shortage area language of the
priority, as States and districts make determinations, based on local
needs, of their shortage areas; however, we do agree that it is
important to draw attention to dual certification as it may be used to
help address shortage areas. In reviewing the priorities and the usage
of ``shortage areas'' in relation to credentials, we noticed a
discrepancy in usage; instead of ``shortage areas,'' Priority 2 refers
to ``high-need fields.'' To be consistent, we will use ``shortage
areas'' in both priorities. Regarding the comment on high-need schools,
we do not think it is necessary to add language regarding educator
placement in high-need schools, as proposed subpart (f) (now final
subpart (g)) of Priority 3 focuses on building and expanding the
educator workforce in districts with high rates of poverty.
Changes: In Priority 3 we are adding ``or dual certification''
after ``certification'' to subpart (b) of the priority. In Priority 2,
subparts (b)(3) and (b)(4), we are changing ``high-need fields'' to
``shortage areas.''
Comments: Multiple commenters offered recommendations related to
financial incentives, supports, and compensation for educators. One
commenter requested that we add a focus on expanding, in addition to
implementing, loan-forgiveness programs under subpart (f). Another
commenter recommended supports for educators related to licensure fees.
A third commenter suggested that the priority address the cost of
assessment fees for educators who commit to teach in a school district
as well as licensure endorsements in leadership, coaching, and
mentoring. Another commenter recommended that the term ``compensation''
include comprehensive benefits packages. Finally, one commenter, while
recognizing that the priority focuses on underserved students,
recommended we add in proposed subpart (e) (now final subpart (f)) a
focus on financial incentives in high-need schools.
Discussion: We appreciate commenters' recognition of the importance
that financial incentives and compensation play in attracting and
retaining educators. We agree that, along with implementing loan-
forgiveness programs, Priority 3 should promote expanding loan-
forgiveness programs. We do not agree, though, that subpart (e) should
be limited to high-need schools, as diverse educators in all schools
could benefit from loan-forgiveness and other programs based on their
meeting service obligation requirements. We are aware of the costs
associated with licensure and assessment fees and believe
[[Page 70626]]
comprehensive compensation can include coverage of these fees. In
addition, proposed subpart (f)(2) (now final subpart (g)(2)), related
to compensation systems, allows for inclusion of licensure endorsements
and benefits packages and those applicants have the discretion to
determine what compensation approach will best address the priority and
meet the needs of the targeted population.
Changes: We have added a reference to expanding loan forgiveness
programs to final subpart (f) of the priority.
Comments: Multiple commenters had recommendations for proposed
subpart (f) (now final subpart (g)) of Priority 3. Commenters
recommended adding charter schools in addition to high-poverty
districts in proposed subpart (f), stating that with the hiring
autonomy charter schools often have, charter schools that are a part of
a local educational agency could be disadvantaged by not specifically
being identified in the priority. One commenter also requested that we
address, in proposed subpart (f), educator wellness and social and
emotional health. Another commenter suggested a new subpart on educator
involvement in change initiatives, to help support educator retention
through educator engagement.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recognition that the
autonomies granted to charter schools include hiring processes and
decisions; however, we do not agree that not specifically identifying
charter schools would favor any other applicant over charter school
within this subpart. As to adding an additional subpart on educator
wellness and their social and emotional health, these issues are
covered under Priority 1 and do not require a new subpart under
Priority 3. We agree that focusing on educator retention through their
involvement in change initiatives is important and aligns with the
intent of the priority as it is a way to help support and ensure
educator engagement and, in turn, improve retention.
Change: We have added a new final subpart (g)(4) on educator
involvement in change initiatives which states increasing educator
retention by providing opportunities for educators to be involved in
the design and implementation of local and district wide initiatives
that advance systemic changes.
Comments: A few commenters made recommendations about proposed
subpart (f)(3) of Priority 3 related to data systems, with one
commenter supporting the subpart and encouraging an emphasis on how
well-designed data systems inform student learning and working
conditions. Another commenter requested the addition of a subpart
focused on data sharing to inform curriculum for early learning
education.
Discussion: We agree that using data to inform teaching, learning,
and working conditions is important for schools and districts; however,
we do not think it is necessary to add a subpart that is focused on
data systems for human capital management. Applicants can consider how
best to use data to inform applications in response to all the
priorities, including priorities focused on COVID-19 and equity, as
well as how best to share the data. This would not need to be
explicitly included within the priority to allow for multiple methods
to be used.
Change: None.
Comments: A few commenters supported proposed subpart (g)(1)(i) of
Priority 3 and recommended that the subpart emphasize digital
citizenship skills and competencies as well as student mastery of
knowledge.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for this subpart and agree
that an emphasis on instruction that is engaging, utilizes technology,
and develops critical thinking skills is important. While digital
citizenship skills and mastery of knowledge are important, this subpart
is focused on the instructional component of learning, and we do not
think it is necessary to add anything additional to the priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters supported the list of key
transitional stages in proposed subpart (g)(1)(ii) (now final subpart
(h)(1)(ii)), with one commenter emphasizing the importance of the
transition to work and ensuring that those transitioning to work have
the necessary understanding of performance expectations in the
workplace. Another commenter recommended adding early learning to the
list, noting the importance of the transition from early learning to
elementary schools, especially for English learners and children with
disabilities.
Discussion: We agree that the successful transition to work
requires that students and their families are equipped with the
knowledge necessary for this transition, including an understanding of
accountability systems. We think this knowledge of how we focus on
accountability is embedded in this transition period and does not need
to be specifically addressed. We also recognize that the transition
from early learning to elementary school is critical, especially for
some populations of students, but since the priority is written to
support transitioning into the setting included in the list, the
transition from early learning to elementary school is covered under
elementary school in what is now subpart (h)(1)(ii)(A).
Changes: Added ``early learning'' to what is now subpart
(h)(1)(ii)(A).
Comments: One commenter suggested that proposed subpart (g)(1)(iii)
of Priority 3 be expanded to include professional development for
English learner specialists and general education educators with the
intent of ensuring all educators are prepared to meet the needs of
English learners.
Discussion: We agree that all educators should be prepared to meet
the needs of English learners; however, given that subpart (h)(1) is
focused on professional development, we do not think additional
language is needed under (h)(1)(iii)]. The language of what is now
(h)(1)(iii), which is unchanged from the proposed language in
(g)(1)(iii), addresses professional development to meet the needs of
English Learners; because it is worded broadly enough to encompass both
specialists and general education teachers, additional language is not
needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters supported proposed subpart (g)(1)(iv)
(now final subpart (h)(1)(iv)) of Priority 3 that specifically
addresses meeting the needs of children or students with disabilities.
In their support of the priority, one commenter recommended ensuring
that new educators are made aware of the specific supports and
processes in a district so that the educator is better prepared to
serve children or students with disabilities. The commenter also
recommended that, in meeting the needs of children or students with
disabilities, educators should understand disabilities so that issues
related to them are not misunderstood and treated as disciplinary
issues. One commenter recommended adding language to include universal
design for learning and evidence-based practices to the subpart.
Another commenter recommended using the term ``most significant
cognitive disabilities'' to align with the ESEA.
Discussion: We agree on the importance of meeting the needs of
children or students with disabilities and agree on the importance of
utilizing universal design for learning and evidence-based practices.
Priority 3 includes universal design for learning in subparts (d) and
(e), and Priority 2(a)(2)(i)(A) also incorporates it. We can apply an
appropriate evidence level established in 34 CFR 75.226, and we
[[Page 70627]]
think that approach is preferable to adding ``evidence-based'' as
suggested by the commenter in the specified subparts because it will
allow the Department to tailor the evidence required to individual
programs, as appropriate. We support the commenter's recommendations
that educators be made aware of district supports and processes and
that educator preparation include better understanding of disabilities
to prevent unnecessary discipline. The proposed priority supports these
efforts. Applicants have the discretion to determine what approach or
intervention will best address the priority and meet the needs of the
targeted population. Lastly, we agree that there should be alignment,
where possible, with appropriate statutes and therefore agree that the
priority should refer to ``students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities.''
Changes: We have added ``cognitive'' after ``most significant'' in
final subpart (h)(1)(iv) of Priority 3.
Comments: Under proposed subpart (g)(1)(v) (now final subpart
(h)(1)(v)) of Priority 3, one commenter requested adding ``ability'' to
the list of inclusive pedagogy to ensure that pedagogy also focuses on
the needs of children or students with disabilities.
Discussion: We agree that inclusive pedagogy should include
children or students with disabilities. To be consistent with other
Department regulations with similar language, we are adding
``disability status'' to the list of inclusive pedagogy.
Changes: We have added ``disability status,'' to subpart (h)(1)(v).
Comments: One commenter recommended adding ``underserved students''
to the end of proposed subpart (g)(1)(viii) (now final subpart
(h)(1)(viii)) of Priority 3 to focus the work in these classroom
environments on this specific population.
Discussion: We agree that an emphasis on underserved students is
important. Given the priority itself has a focus on underserved
students, we do not think it is necessary to add underserved students
to this subpart, as well.
Changes: None.
Comments: A couple of commenters had recommendations specific to
assessments under proposed subpart (g)(2) (now final subpart (h)(2)) of
Priority 3, including ensuring that assessments are not just one
``high-stakes'' assessment and that assessments used to gauge work
readiness have a broader focus than just career and technical
education, including being performance-based, and align with State and
industry standards.
Discussion: We appreciate commenters' recognition that assessments
should not just focus on end-of-year or other high-stakes assessments
and that assessments should also more broadly look at the needs of all
students. The proposed priority is not focused on high-stakes
assessments alone. As to work readiness, while the subpart refers to
career and technical education, these assessments, which are designed
to measure student learning, can include other standards, such as State
or industry standards. Applicants have the discretion to determine what
assessments will best address the priority and meet the needs of the
targeted population.
Changes: None.
Priority 4--Meeting Student Social, Emotional, and Academic Needs
Comments: Many commenters expressed support for Priority 4, stating
that social and emotional learning is important to overall well-being.
Several commenters strongly supported the priority and expressed
agreement with the focus on trauma-informed pedagogy.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for this priority and agree
with the commenters that meeting social and emotional needs is central
to supporting students' overall well-being.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters commended the inclusion of experts and
the systemic implementation of evidence-based practices in social and
emotional learning. One commenter recommended the addition of the term
``evidence-based'' to subparts (b)(2), (b)(5), and (h). Another
commenter urged the Department to review proposals that include a
social and emotional learning component to build on the robust evidence
base in the field of social and emotional learning and ensure that the
evidence base is high quality. One commenter recommended that the
Department focus on implementation of evidence-based practices in
addition to the evidence supporting why a practice is effective and
noted the need for access to technical assistance around
implementation.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters on the importance of
building and using evidence in this area. In addition to the use of
these priorities, we can apply an appropriate evidence level
established in 34 CFR 75.226, and we think that approach is preferable
to adding ``evidence-based'' as suggested by the commenter in the
specified subparts because it will allow the Department to tailor the
evidence required to individual programs, as appropriate. We agree that
the efforts to support implementation of evidence-based practices are
critical.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters made suggestions for use of Priority 4
in the Department's competitive grant programs. One commenter expressed
support for this priority and encouraged the Department to maintain the
focus on improving students' social, emotional, academic, and career
development, including through nutritional, mental health, school
climate, and other supports. One commenter expressed support for the
inclusion of this priority and encouraged the Department to work with
the education community to include this priority into Federal programs.
Another commenter supported the priority and argued that including this
as a competitive preference priority in future grant competitions could
help colleges expand these types of programs. Another commenter
expressed support for the priority and urged flexibility within ESEA
Title II and Title IV formula grant programs to support professional
development to address social and emotional learning and evidence-based
trauma informed practices. In addition, the commenter urged the
Department to provide programmatic and financial resources to help
States and districts implement and educate families and communities on
trauma-informed and culturally relevant practices.
Discussion: We appreciate the input of these commenters. These
priorities are intended to be a menu of options for the Department to
use in our discretionary grant programs. As noted earlier, the
Department may choose which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are
appropriate for a particular program competition, as well as the
selection criteria. If the Department chooses to use a supplemental
priority, it will decide whether the priority will be used as an
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority in the grant
competitions. As these priorities capture policy areas of general
importance for the Department, there are also related efforts to
provide technical assistance and guidance related to formula grant
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter supported the emphasis on social and
emotional needs and engagement recommended in Priority 4 and
recommended incorporating these aspects of education into K-12 school
[[Page 70628]]
accountability frameworks. Another commenter recommended revising
subpart (a) to include parents.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' points on aligning with
school accountability frameworks and involving parents. Adding
references to school accountability could focus the priority on K-12
education as school accountability is part of ESEA Title I, and these
priorities are for all discretionary grants including those focused on
postsecondary education. Family involvement is included in several
subparts throughout the priority where we think their involvement is
most applicable. As such, we decline to make these changes to keep the
priority flexible.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters articulated the connection between
social and emotional well-being and academics, with some commenters
stating that these skills are too often taught separately. One
commenter highlighted that evidence supports that more explicitly pair
social and emotional learning efforts with academic support can
contribute to academic growth. Another commenter suggested specific
additions to tie the connection between academics and social and
emotional learning into a larger asset-based approach.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' arguments in favor of
making the connection between social and emotional learning and
academic support clear. We think that is best accomplished through the
priority as written to enable the priority to be considered in a wider
breadth of programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters expressed support for the inclusion of
partnerships in the priority. One commenter encouraged the Department
to foster partnerships between educational institutions and mental
health professionals, and another commenter noted the strong focus on
community partners and trusting relationships. Another commenter noted
that, in immigrant communities, there can be a level of fear and
distrust of government agencies. Another commenter recommended that
school-community partnerships supplement existing services and involve
collaboration between community providers and existing school personnel
(e.g., school psychologists, counselors, social workers).
Discussion: We appreciate the support from these commenters and
agree that partnerships are important to include in this priority.
Building trust with communities is essential to having the partnerships
achieve their intended outcomes. We agree that collaboration with
existing school personnel is important and, to address each of the
potential collaborators identified, are adding a definition for
``educator'' that includes the personnel identified by the commenter.
Changes: We are adding a definition of ``educator'' that includes
the personnel identified by the commenter.
Comments: A commenter proposed adding language to subpart (b)(3) of
Priority 4 that would include the diversity of stakeholders in
engagement efforts to allow for meaningful representation in decision-
making.
Discussion: We appreciate and agree with the commenter's point that
engagement efforts should include individuals from diverse backgrounds
who are representative of the community.
Changes: We are rephrasing subpart (b)(3) so that it reads,
``Engaging students (including underserved students), educators,
families, and community partners from diverse backgrounds and
representative of the community as partners in school climate review
and improvement efforts.''
Comments: Some commenters recommended revising subpart (b)(4) of
Priority 4 to refer to applicants involving educators in decision-
making, including in such areas as establishing school discipline
procedures. One commenter recommended incentivizing the elimination of
zero tolerance and exclusionary disciplinary practices while also
prioritizing the development and implementation of culturally informed
discipline policies. One commenter asked to add to Priority 4 a
reference to specialized training for educators and administrators on
school discipline, restorative practice, trauma-informed environments,
and implicit bias. Another commenter recommended addressing in subpart
(b)(4) how positive parent and family interaction with the schools can
be helpful in addressing negative discipline styles. One commenter
recommended applying this priority to the competitions within the CSP.
Discussion: We agree that educators should be involved in
establishing disciplinary practices and that related training is
important. We believe that it is important to advance culturally
informed discipline practices as noted in the priority, which we expect
would incentivize the reduction or elimination of zero tolerance
policies and exclusionary practices. In response to the comment related
to using this priority in the CSP program, if the Department chooses to
use a supplemental priority, it also will decide whether the priority
will be used as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational
priority in a grant competition. We also agree that positive parent and
family interaction is valuable and believe that this is also addressed
within Priority 1 and Priority 2.
Changes: We are revising subpart (b)(4) of Priority 4, by involving
educators, students, and families, in decision-making about discipline
procedures and providing training and resources to support educators.
Comments: Several supported the focus of subpart (b)(4) of Priority
4 on the disproportionate use of discipline towards students with
disabilities, especially students of color with disabilities, and
concerns that such students should not lose instructional time. One
commenter emphasized the need to move away from discriminatory
discipline policies toward evidence-based policies that create safe and
inclusive environments.
Discussion: We appreciate the support of these commenters and agree
with the importance of examining discipline policies.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter supported the Department's focus in subpart
(b)(5) of Priority 4 on real-world, hands-on learning to address
student needs, noting this approach will help students build technical
and essential employability skills and social capital. Two other
commenters proposed modifications to subpart (b)(5). One commenter
suggested including family service learning in this subpart, noting the
value of a multi-generational approach to addressing the needs of a
community. Another commenter suggested that the Department provide
incentives to connect work-based learning to career-focused
instruction, along with other strategies, to increase college and
career readiness.
Discussion: We agree that real-world, hands-on learning
opportunities should be connected to instruction to bolster college and
career readiness. While family service learning would be an appropriate
strategy in some programs and communities, there may be situations
where it is not practicable or aligned with program goals. Thus, we
decline to make that change.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b)(5) of Priority 4 to clarify
that real-world, hands-on learning opportunities should also be aligned
with instruction.
Comments: One commenter expressed general support for subpart (d).
Another
[[Page 70629]]
commenter suggested adding ``linguistically inclusive practices'' in
addition to trauma-informed practices within the subpart.
Discussion: In designing a grant competition, the Department may
choose to use one or more subparts in a particular grant competition.
Subpart (c)(3) refers to the diversity of evidence-based professional
development and as linguistically inclusive practices were identified
as an element of the diverse practices; we believe that it could be
coupled with this subpart to have an effect similar to the commenter's
suggestion.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed support for subpart (f). Another
commenter recommended adding ``and accessible'' after ``physically
healthy,'' citing a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study
related to school buildings and physical barriers to people with
disabilities. The commenter urged the Department to include physical
accessibility in improvements to school infrastructure. Another
commenter suggested strengthening the various sections of this priority
by recognizing the physical and mental health needs of young children.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the need to ensure that
school buildings are accessible to persons with disabilities. The
Department's regulations implementing, in compliance with the
requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which
prohibits disability discrimination in federally assisted programs and
activities, contain requirements applicable to the physical
accessibility of facilities and the accessibility of recipients'
programs or activities. Recipients of Federal funds from the Department
are required to comply with these regulations, which ensure that
persons with disabilities are not discriminated against because a
recipient's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by persons with
disabilities. In addition to Section 504's requirements, the Department
of Justice regulations implementing Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act prohibit disability discrimination by State and local
governmental entities (Title II) regardless of their receipt of Federal
funds. The Title II ADA regulations also contain accessibility
requirements to ensure nondiscrimination. The Department's Office for
Civil Rights enforces Section 504 and, in the education context, shares
in the enforcement of Title II with the Department of Justice to ensure
accessibility and equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities.
We believe that the needs of young children are addressed through the
inclusion of early learning settings in this priority, so a change is
not needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters expressed general support for subpart (g)
with one noting that, as schools reopen, the capacity to address
students' mental and emotional well-being is imperative. Another
commenter urged the Department to indicate that the services provided
must be linguistically and culturally responsive. Another commenter
suggested explicitly using the terms ``school social worker,'' ``school
psychologist,'' and ``school counselors'' and ``other school-based
mental health service professionals'' as defined in ESEA. Another
commenter expressed appreciation for the inclusion of the language
``social workers, psychologists, counselors, nurses, or mental health
professionals and other integrated services and supports, which may
include in early learning environments,'' and requested the inclusion
of the full range of specialized instructional support personnel in
supporting students' social and emotional learning.
Discussion: We agree with adding that services provided should be
inclusive, including but not limited to linguistic and cultural
inclusivity. We also agree that school-based mental health service
professionals and specialized instructional support personnel are
important partners in providing these services and believe that the
language of the priority is flexible enough to incorporate their work
in settings where they are working with students. We decline to be more
specific in this subpart so as not to unintentionally exclude services
from the priority settings that are not based in an elementary or
secondary school.
Changes: We have revised subpart (g) of Priority 4 to state that
services provided should be inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity,
culture, language, and disability status.
Comments: One commenter suggested that work-based learning be
included in subpart (h) of Priority 4, as it is an impactful form of
experiential learning that allows learners to acquire hands-on skills
and view firsthand what occurs in the professional setting of their
interest.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter regarding the value of
work-based learning and think that experiential learning includes work-
based learning. Therefore, we decline to specifically add work-based
learning to the subpart.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding adult learning to
subpart (j) of Priority 4 and another commenter urged the Department to
include language to explain that services provided should be
comprehensive, and linguistically and culturally responsive.
Discussion: We agree with the recommended additions of adult
education and inclusivity to fostering partnerships with multiple
entities.
Changes: We have added ``adult learning providers'' to the list of
types of organizations that provide services under subpart (j). In
addition, we have revised this subpart to include approaches that are
inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and
disability status.
Priority 5--Increasing Postsecondary Education Access, Affordability,
Completion, and Post-Enrollment Success
Comments: Several commenters expressed their support for Priority
5. Two commenters expressed appreciation for the focus on transfer
pathways while another commenter appreciated the focus on creating
student-centered flexible systems of support. Another commenter
supported the priority and noted that it could be used in competitions
to help students access comprehensive educator preparation programs,
and another commenter who supported this priority noted that it could
be relevant to programs that support the early childhood workforce. One
commenter expressed support for the Department's inclusion of adult
learners in Priority 5. Two commenters applauded the priority's focus
on establishing partnerships with HBCUs, TCUs, MSIs and community
colleges. Three commenters expressed support for the priority and
recommended that the Department consider using this priority in
specific competitions, including the Education Innovation and Research
program as well as in programs administered by the Office of Career,
Technical, and Adult Education. Two commenters strongly supported
subparts (i) and (j) of the priority, with one commenter expressing
support for subpart (j) for its focus on evidence-based strategies and
further suggested that the Department define ``evidence-based
strategies'' to include strategies that meet the promising evidence
definition from the ESEA as well as strategies based on research that
use random assignment or quasi-experimental research methods.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for this priority and agree
with the
[[Page 70630]]
commenters about the importance of including each of these topic areas
within Priority 5. Although we do not set priorities for specific
competitions in this notice, we appreciate hearing feedback from
commenters regarding alignment between these priorities and particular
programs. We also agree that it is important to emphasize the use of
evidence-based practices throughout Department grant programs. The term
``evidence-based'' is defined consistent with the definitions of the
term in 34 CFR 77.1 and section 8101(21) of the ESEA (depending on the
authorization of the program that uses the term) and includes
strategies based on promising evidence as well as research that meets
higher evidence standards such as moderate evidence and strong
evidence. Strategies that align with the demonstrates a rationale
definition also align with the evidence-based definition, so we decline
to specify a particular level of evidence in the priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter made several suggestions that they think
would improve Priority 5, including partnering with students, providing
guidance on creating student-centered, individualized plans for college
readiness, ensuring best practices and resources are allocated towards
marginalized students, and establishing partnerships with the private
sector to promote career and mentorship opportunities. Another
commenter noted the priority's alignment to the purpose of the Federal
TRIO programs. The commenter also expressed support for the goal of a
diverse educator workforce and suggested the TRIO-Student Support
Services program, with its focus area on teacher preparation, could
serve as a helpful lever for achieving this goal.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for their suggestions and agree
that these are helpful points of emphasis. However, we believe that
they are already broadly addressed within the priority through the
descriptions in each subpart of Priority 5 of project design for
traditionally underserved students. As stated previously, the
Department does not set priorities for any particular grant program
through this notice, but appreciates the commenter's perspective on
opportunities for applying them.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested adding a new subpart to the
priority that would support the development and implementation of
comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs for students with
intellectual disabilities to promote these programs that were
authorized in the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended (HEA).
Discussion: We thank the commenter for highlighting the needs of
this important population of students and agree with the concern that
Priority 5 could be more inclusive of postsecondary students with
intellectual disabilities which, in turn, could assist these students
in accessing services provided through a wider range of Department
grant programs.
Changes: We have added subpart (l) to Priority 5 to support the
development and implementation of comprehensive transition and
postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities
under the HEA.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding language to Priority 5
to note that the project's goal should be to help increase
employability and access to quality jobs that provide a living wage,
strong workplace standards, and work-family supports.
Discussion: We share the commenter's perspective on the importance
of these goals. We agree that increasing employability and access to
quality jobs are priorities that we consider within a broader category
of post-graduate outcomes.
Changes: We have added ``and post-college outcomes'' to subpart (d)
after ``completion''.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department add an
additional priority area to encourage applicants to conduct equity
audits, which are internal reviews of policies and practices to
identify those that fail to effectively serve underrepresented
students. The commenter expressed that these audits can address a range
of issues such as admissions and financial aid, counseling services on
campus, instructor diversity, and accessibility for students with
disabilities to inform reforms.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions. We recognize
that equity audits are one important strategy to promote equity and do
not want to limit the field's approaches. However, we do not think it
is appropriate to add an additional priority as the Department has
monitoring protocols to ensure that applicants that receive awards
comply with the requirements of the competition. Those requirements
vary across program offices, but grant recipients must comply with
them. We believe these requirements would address many of the concerns
raised by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested adding the term ``evidence-
based'' to subparts (b), (c), and (h) of Priority 5 to encourage
applicants to propose to implement evidence-based strategies in these
areas.
Discussion: We agree with this commenter on the importance of
promoting the use of evidence-based practices to promote postsecondary
student outcomes. We also note that in any competition, the Department
already has the authority to combine any of these priority subparts
with a particular evidence standard established in 34 CFR 75.226. This
flexibility allows the Department to tailor the evidence required to
individual programs, as appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed particular concern that Priority
5 does not mention the word ``parent'' or ``family,'' noting that many
youth and young adults in post-secondary programs are still supported
by their parents and families. The commenter suggested revising the
priority to include a focus on helping parents to support their youth/
young adults in accessing and completing higher education.
Discussion: We agree with the notion that many students rely on the
support of their families as they progress into and through their
postsecondary programs. We note that none of the language in this
priority would preclude applicants from proposing projects that support
parents of postsecondary students if providing such support is
allowable in a specific Department grant program.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed the desire to add a new subpart
to Priority 5 related to providing secondary students access to career
exploration and/or career advisement so that they are aware of
postsecondary opportunities aligned with their academic and career
goals, and the steps and supports necessary for that college and career
path.
Discussion: We thank the commenter and agree that using evidence-
based approaches to assist students with career exploration prior to
college matriculation can be essential to putting students on a career
pathway. Although we note that final subpart (f) includes a focus on
career services, we agree with the commenter that a targeted subpart
focusing on providing secondary students with career exploration and
advisement opportunities is a valuable addition to these priorities.
Change: We have revised Priority 5 by adding a new subpart (m) that
to
[[Page 70631]]
prioritize projects that provide secondary school students with access
to career exploration and advising opportunities to help them make
informed decisions about their postsecondary enrollment and place them
on a career path.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to include language
within this priority that acknowledges the large share of adult
learners who face challenges such as low and very low levels of formal
education, limited English proficiency, high rates of poverty, and
employment in low-skilled jobs. The commenter recommended that they
receive equitable access to adult education services that are
responsive to their needs.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation by the commenter and
agree that many adult learners face challenges. We have addressed those
challenges by focusing on adult learners in final subpart (f).
Therefore, we think that the inclusion of additional language would be
redundant.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter supported the Department's commitment to
accessible and affordable higher education but recommended that the
Department modify Priority 5 to include support for efforts to lower
barriers to obtaining graduate education, particularly for fields
experiencing critical shortages, such as school psychology.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment, but we do not think a
separate focus on assisting students in attaining graduate degrees is
necessary. The Department's Office of Postsecondary Education
administers a number of programs that are specifically designed to
support students in pursuing graduate education, such as: The TRIO-
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Program, which is designed to
provide assistance to help low-income and first generation college
students pursue doctoral degrees; the Graduate Assistance in Areas of
National Need program, which provides grants to assist students in
pursuing graduate degrees in specific areas of national need; the
Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad program, which provides funding
to support individual doctoral students to conduct research abroad in
modern foreign languages and area studies; as well as various programs
authorized by titles III and V of the HEA that are designed to expand
the capacity of HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs to offer graduate education
opportunities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested the Department put a greater
emphasis on establishing partnerships through Priority 5 to effectively
smooth transitions for students and reduce barriers. The commenter
highlighted issues around delivery of early college credit and reducing
the need for developmental education as examples. Another commenter
suggested that the Department include specific references to early
college credit and recommended that we emphasize the importance of
developing college and career pathways systems.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for highlighting the importance
of, and role of Department grant programs in, establishing partnerships
to bridge divides in the educational landscape, including partnerships
between secondary and postsecondary schools, as well as partnerships
across postsecondary institutions. We believe final subpart (a) of
Priority 5 creates clearer pathways for students between institutions
by making transfer of course credits more seamless and transparent. We
also think proposed subpart (a) of Priority 5 (which became final
subpart (b) of Priority 2), which encourage partnerships involving
HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, as well as Priority 6, which provides the
Department with the ability to require or encourage partnerships across
Department competitions, address this concern. Regarding the comment
about early college credit, we believe that final subpart (h) would
allow for the inclusion of such a program.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding adult education programs
as a fifth category of prioritized institutions in proposed subpart (a)
of Priority 5; another commenter suggested adding career and technical
education schools as an additional category of prioritized
institutions.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations and have
included both categories in what was subpart(a) of Priority 5 in the
NPP. To ensure better application of this subpart, we have moved it to
subpart (b) in Priority 2 in this NFP.
Changes: We have included adult education and career and technical
education in Priority 5 subpart (b).
Comments: One commenter suggested that instead of focusing on
underserved students at community colleges, HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, the
Department should instead focus on addressing inequities at well-
resourced and highly selective colleges and universities. The commenter
further suggested that this priority would further encourage well-
resourced institutions to continue recruiting wealthier, high-achieving
white students and noted concern regarding low enrollment rates of
underserved students at well-resourced institutions.
Discussion: We think that enrollment rates of students from low-
income backgrounds are too low across the board, and we agree that
there is much work to be done to increase racial and economic diversity
in postsecondary education, including at well-resourced and highly
selective institutions. We note that multiple subparts within this
priority are focused on increasing the number of underserved students
who succeed in postsecondary education, regardless of the type of
institution. For example, final subpart (b) would give priority to
applicants that propose to increase the number and proportion of
underserved students who enroll in and complete postsecondary education
programs, regardless of whether the institution is well-resourced or
under-resourced. The Department also recognizes, however, that HBCUs,
TCUs, MSIs and community colleges educate a disproportionate number of
underserved students, and as a result, any effort to improve
postsecondary outcomes for underserved students must include targeted
support to these institutions. We have moved references to targeting
support to these institutions, including through establishing
partnerships with well-resourced institutions and other organizations,
to subpart (b) in Priority 2.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed general support for subpart (c)
of Priority 5.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the subpart.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed support for the inclusion of
``Post-enrollment Success'' in the title of Priority 5, but this
commenter suggested modifications to highlight career readiness
throughout the priority. Specifically, regarding subpart (e), this
commenter suggested adding post-graduate outcomes to the list of
student outcomes. The commenter suggested several ways the Department
could define post-graduate outcomes, such as graduate school
matriculation, as well as several metrics that could be used to
characterize a strong first job.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations and think that post-
enrollment broadly includes any point on a student's trajectory. We
agree that there are many ways to define post-graduate outcomes and
that adding post-graduate outcomes would be beneficial to add to the
range of data identified as
[[Page 70632]]
post-enrollment outcomes. Including these data would allow a more
coherent sense of what is meant by success than simply ending with
graduation.
Changes: We have added post-college outcomes to the subpart, which
is now designated as subpart (d).
Comments: One commenter strongly supported proposed subpart (e).
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the proposed subpart,
which is now final subpart (d). We agree that a system of high-quality
data will benefit students.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested requiring alignment of data-
related efforts to statewide goals (e.g., for postsecondary attainment)
with a focus on measuring equity gaps and identifying strategies for
ongoing monitoring and accountability.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and note that
there are current data collections from other areas within the
Department that focus on equity gaps. Additionally, the Department is
required to monitor grantees and do so in a myriad of ways; therefore,
we will not be adding this language to the priorities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter emphasized the importance of ensuring that
undergraduate students have access to coursework and activities that
prepare them for the workforce. This commenter further noted the
importance of providing high-quality career preparation to
undergraduate students across all majors and programs of study. This
commenter suggested that the Department add ``Credit-bearing academic
undergraduate courses focused on career,'' after ``career services'' in
proposed subpart (f) of Priority 5.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation of the commenter and
agree that there is a need for undergraduate students to have access to
coursework and activities that prepare them for the workforce. We
included structured/guided pathways within the priority to ensure that
guardrails are provided for students and agree that the inclusion of
the recommended language would be helpful to ensure that students were
not just given guardrails, but also taking necessary classes within
their major to avoid spending unnecessary time and money.
Changes: We have revised proposed subpart (f) to include ``credit-
bearing academic undergraduate courses focused on career'' after
``career services'' in what is now final subpart (e).
Comments: One commenter suggested connecting efforts around
integrated approaches with college and career pathway system
development, including guided pathways and career and technical
education and bridge programming that can accelerate students in
subpart (f) of Priority 5.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions and agree
that creating clear connections is beneficial to students. We believe
that these connections are already included in the priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department revise
proposed subpart (g) (now final subpart (f)), which focuses on
increasing the number of individuals who return to the educational
system, to specifically recognize those individuals who return to the
educational system to gain English language skills and/or to integrate
into society.
Discussion: We appreciate and agree with this comment and recognize
the unique challenges for English learners who return to the
educational system.
Changes: In an effort to increase the number of English learners
who return to the educational system to gain English language skills,
we have added English language learning in subpart (f) of Priority 5.
Comments: One commenter expressed support for proposed subpart (h).
This commenter appreciated that the language provides applicants
flexibility to integrate multiple approaches to supporting learners.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the proposed subpart,
which is now subpart (g) in this NFP, and agree that multiple
approaches to delivering instruction to students are necessary,
depending on the context. We also agree that Priority 5 affords
applicants the flexibility to combine multiple approaches to best
support students.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed support for the inclusion of
work-based learning in proposed subpart (h) (now final subpart (g)) of
Priority 5, stating that work-based learning is essential to creating
an equitable and racially just economic recovery. The commenter also
suggested that work-based learning must be year-round and layered into
all levels of education. This commenter suggested adding a new subpart
focused on building community capacity to develop or strengthen
effective career readiness programs by supporting cross-system
collaborative partnerships composed of leaders from education,
workforce, government, social services, philanthropy, and the private
sector to provide work-based learning opportunities and high-quality
college and career pathways.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for the inclusion
of work-based learning and agree that partnerships are important
components of this work; however, we address cross-agency and entity
partnerships in Priority 6 and work-based learning in Priority 2, which
may be used in combination with this priority, so no changes are
needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended the Department implement career
and technical education models that are grounded in labor market
information and aligned from secondary through postsecondary education.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation and believe that
proposed subparts (i) and (j) (now final subparts (h) and (i)), which
focus on the use of evidence-based strategies, would ensure that
current and proven models would be used that could include labor market
information but is not restricted to that data source. Therefore, we
have not included this additional language.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter supports the focus in proposed subpart (k)
(now final subpart (j)) of Priority 5 on the transitional phase from
high school to adulthood, especially the subpart that would prioritize
applications that connect students and adults with disabilities with
transition services under the Vocational Rehabilitation program or the
IDEA.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for subpart (j) and agree
with the importance of the inclusion of transition services under the
Vocational Rehabilitation program and the IDEA.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding language to subpart (j)
of Priority 5 that expressly supports full participation and inclusion
in postsecondary institutions, pre-apprenticeship programs,
apprenticeships, and other workforce training. The commenter cited the
need for additional attention for such programs to become consistent
pathways to employment for individuals with disabilities. Another
commenter suggested modifying subpart (j) to include language that
extends eligibility for services for students with disabilities nearing
age 22. The commenter noted the need to extend eligibility of
individuals for these services given the learning loss due to COVID-19.
Multiple commenters also referred the Department to comments
[[Page 70633]]
made by another commenter to broaden this priority to ensure it is
inclusive of all students with disabilities.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendations and agree
that it is important to ensure that the transition of services fully
encompasses the intended outcomes and recipients. We agree that
education outcomes are relevant, and that inclusion of that edit
strengthens the subpart. Under Part B of the IDEA, a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) must be made available to all children with
disabilities residing in the State within the State's mandated age
range for the provision of FAPE. Entitlement to FAPE begins at a
child's third birthday and could last until the child's 22nd birthday,
depending on State law or practice, which would render the second
requested edit redundant.
Changes: We are adding ``or education'' after ``employment
outcomes'' in final subpart (j).
Priority 6--Strengthening Cross-Agency Coordination and Community
Engagement To Advance Systemic Change
Comments: Many commenters expressed general support for Priority 6
and its emphasis on interagency collaboration. Commenters noted this
priority acknowledges that schools are frequently the center of the
community for students and families, and that strong family and
community engagement is associated with improved student outcomes.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the priority and agree
with these comments on the central role school's play.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters expressed support for using this
priority in different ways. One commenter advocated for making this a
foundational priority across all grants. Another commenter recommended
the Department prioritize partnerships that align with guidance
developed by the Institute for Educational Leadership, the Coalition
for Community Schools, and the National Association of School
Psychologists.
Discussion: We appreciate these comments and note that several
components of this priority are aligned with the community school's
model. If the Department chooses to use the supplemental priorities, it
also has discretion to decide how the priorities should be used in the
grant competitions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested facilitating cross-agency
budgeting and resourcing to ensure basic educational needs are being
met.
Discussion: We appreciate this comment and recognize the importance
of examining budgeting. We think the priority as written allows for
this inter-agency budgeting and resourcing.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed support for Priority 6 and
suggested modifying the language to explicitly include philanthropy and
the private sector more generally.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's focus on philanthropy and
the private sector. We believe that community engagement can include
philanthropy and the private sector, and subpart (c) focuses on
partnerships that include an array of partners, including local
nonprofit organizations, businesses, and philanthropic organizations.
As such, we do not think any changes to the priority are necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested adding afterschool and summer
programs to the list of needs to address included in subpart (a) of
Priority 6.
Discussion: We believe that some specific services provided through
afterschool and summer programs could be addressed through the
activities already included on this list, including key field-initiated
focus areas. In addition, afterschool and summer programs are included
in other priorities, which could be used in combination with this one
in a particular grant competition.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested adding legal services to the list
of issues to address through the coordinated efforts among Federal,
State, or local agencies, or community-based organizations that support
students under subpart (a), as these are often a key area of need for
diverse groups of underserved students.
Discussion: We appreciate this comment. However, we think these
services may already be within the scope of this priority as well as
grant programs administered by other Federal agencies.
Change: None.
Comments: Several commenters recommended adding mental health or
clarifying that health includes mental health.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the point made by these
commenters and agrees with the important addition of mental health.
Changes: We are revising subpart (a)(7) to read: ``Health,
including physical health, mental health, and behavioral health and
trauma.''
Comments: A commenter suggested specifying that school diversity
includes student and educator diversity.
Discussion: We agree that this specificity around diversity is
helpful.
Changes: We are adding ``including student and educator diversity''
to subpart (a)(9).
Comments: One commenter expressed support for the inclusion of
workforce development in subpart (a)(11). This commenter further
indicated that workforce development should be interpreted to include
career preparation for undergraduate students at four-year
institutions. Another commenter suggested revising this subpart to
refer to college readiness, workforce development and civic life.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations as we agree that each
of these areas of college and career readiness is critical, and
especially agree that referring to college readiness and civic
engagement would be beneficial towards the goal of advancing systemic
change. Workforce development is already included in this subpart.
Changes: We have revised subpart (a)(11) through (13) to also
include college readiness and civic engagement.
Comments: Two commenters recommended that the Department add a new
subpart allowing use of funds for infrastructure, citing a June 2020
report from the Government Accountability Office \1\ saying that 54% of
schools have major systems that need replacing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-494">https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-494</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: We agree with the importance of investing in school
infrastructure. Issues related to healthy learning environments are
emphasized in subpart (f) of Priority 4.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended changing subpart (a)(16) to
Adult Education and Literacy and moving content in subpart (a)(16) to
(a)(17).
Discussion: We will renumber to ensure alignment.
Changes: We have adjusted the numbering of the subpart to include
adult education and literacy in (a)(19).
Comments: One commenter expressed support for the inclusion of
nonprofit organizations in subpart (c). This commenter noted that
because nonprofits are nimble, they can be invaluable partners in
Department of Education grants.
Discussion: We agree that nonprofit organizations can be very
valuable partners and note that they may be
[[Page 70634]]
included within the subpart as currently written.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter who expressed support for this priority
overall, articulated particular support for subpart (d). The commenter
urged the Department to use this priority in future competitions of the
CSP National Dissemination grant. The commenter went on to say that
this priority could support accessibility and equity issues in both the
National Dissemination and State Entities grant programs.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion on how the
funds should be used. These priorities are intended as a menu of
options for our discretionary grant programs. The Department may choose
which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are appropriate for a
particular program competition, as well as the appropriate level of
funding and selection criteria. If the Department chooses to use a
supplemental priority, it will decide whether the priority will be used
as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority in a
grant competition, as well as the appropriate level of funding and
selection criteria, which may include peer-to-peer learning models.
Changes: None.
Definitions
Comments: One commenter supported, in general, the clarity that the
definitions offer.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the definitions and think
that they will ensure clarity in the use of the priorities.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters recommended adding a definition of
``technology,'' including their own proposed definitions that were
intended to help ensure aligning with Federal laws.
Discussion: While we appreciate all the commenters' suggestions, we
recognize that the definition of technology is continually changing and
therefore could create an obsolete definition upon programmatic use.
Lastly, the NPP already included the following language to ensure
compliance with Federal laws: ``Additionally, regarding each technology
reference, all technology developed or used under these proposed
priorities must be accessible to English learners, in addition to
individuals with disabilities . . .''
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested that we include a definition of
identity-safe learning environments.
Discussion: While we appreciate the commenter's suggestions, we
recognize that the definition of identity-safe is parallel to language
within priorities (2)(a)(2)(v) and(4)(b) and (c) that specifically
speaks to supporting teachers in creating safe, healthy, inclusive, and
productive classroom environments.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter proposed definitions of ``competency-
based'' and ``high-quality systems of assessments.''
Discussion: We thank the commenter and have already included a
definition of ``competency-based education,'' which includes mastery of
knowledge and skills, and a definition for ``high-quality systems of
assessments.''
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked that we include definitions of
``social and emotional learning,'' and another commenter noted that
social and emotional learning remains under-defined in Federal law and
policy and that it should be more explicitly defined.
Discussion: We appreciate the request, and we recognize that the
definition of social and emotional learning is continually changing and
therefore could create an obsolete definition upon programmatic use.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested that the definitions of ``career
and technical education,'' ``work-based learning,'' and ``area career
and technical education school'' be included in the final definitions.
Discussion: These are definitions that are included in the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) for programs authorized
by that statute, and therefore would not need to be included within
these priorities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended definitions for ``learning
model'' and ``whole-learner approaches.''
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations from the commenter
and note that these terms are not used within the priorities and
therefore do not need to be defined.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked the Department to add the following
language to the definition of children or students with disabilities:
``And which includes children or students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities'' to explicitly identify this subgroup of
students with disabilities.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' focus on children or
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. However, we
are not changing the definitions used in this NFP because they are the
definitions of a ``child with a disability'' and ``student with a
disability'' in section 602(3) of IDEA and its implementing regulations
at 34 CFR 300.8 and section 7(37) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and
34 CFR 361.5(c)(51) of the Vocational Rehabilitation program
regulations, respectively.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter encouraged the Department to expand the
definition of ``competency-based education'' by incorporating seven
components that are student focused.
Discussion: The definition of competency-based education as
currently written is in alignment with other Department rules, and as
such, we are not making any changes to the definition.
Changes: None.
Comments: Instead of just early learning, one commenter recommended
defining ``high quality early learning.''
Discussion: The current definition of ``early learning'' includes a
variety of early learning settings, and the quality piece of the early
learning is established by the regulator for the early learning
program.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested using, as a definition, the term
``Emergent Bilingual or Multilingual Learner'' instead of ``English
Learner'' to emphasize language as a valuable skill rather than a
limit.
Discussion: The Department wholeheartedly agrees with an asset-
minded approach to language learners and will adopt such an approach
where appropriate and when concepts are not tied to a specific term in
a governing statute or regulation. The term English learner is defined
in both the ESEA and the WIOA, which govern many of our grant programs.
Therefore, we did not make changes to the definition of English
learner.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter had strong support for the definition of
``evidence-based.''
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the definition and think
that it will ensure clarity in the use of the priorities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed support for a definition of the
term ``high-quality assessment.''
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the definition and think
that it will ensure clarity in the use of the priorities.
Changes: None.
[[Page 70635]]
Comments: One commenter recommended edits to the definition of
``high-quality assessment'' so that assessments are part of a
comprehensive assessment plan.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions and agree
that a comprehensive assessment plan benefits students by adding more
clarity around the expectation of high-quality assessment systems. For
this reason, we have modified the definition to broaden the scope of
high-quality assessment.
Changes: We are making edits to the definition of high-quality
assessment to include ``interim'' as part of the assessments, and that
policymakers support students at the student, classroom, school, and
system levels.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding the term ``interim'' to
the list of high-quality assessments to ensure the definition is
comprehensive and properly represents the field. The commenter
highlighted that interim assessments can measure growth and provide
information throughout a school year and that interim assessment
results are comparable across classrooms and schools, so they can help
districts and State leaders direct resources to where they are needed
most. This same commenter recommended adding language to the definition
describing the importance of the purpose when defining the assessment
and how the assessment will be used.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for the suggestions and
appreciate the recommendations and will include ``interim'' in the
definition, in addition to ``formative'', as they serve distinct
purposes. Regarding the important use of the data from the assessments,
we agree that there is a broader use that goes beyond the school and
community. For this reason, we have modified the definition to
strengthen the definition of high-quality assessment.
Changes: We have revised the definition for high-quality
assessments by adding interim assessments to not only help parents,
educators and caregivers, but to also help policymakers support
students at the student, classroom, school and system levels.
Comments: One commenter appreciated the inclusion of children and
students with disabilities in the definition of underserved student.
Another commenter expressed support for this definition, in particular
the focus on student caregivers. One commenter supported the
specificity of the definition to help States and communities to be
explicit about what equitable education systems include and how they
serve students from the lived experiences described in the priority.
The commenter noted the inclusion of adults and student parents, and
``a student performing significantly below grade level(s),'' stating
that inclusion of the latter acknowledges the role and responsibility
of the system. One commenter appreciated the expansive and inclusive
definition of underserved student. One commenter strongly supported the
Department's inclusion of (LGBTQI+) students; students of color;
students who are members of Tribal communities; and students with
disabilities.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their overall support for
the definition and appreciate that the inclusions to the definition are
comprehensive and relevant.
Changes: None
Comments: One commenter asked that military- or veteran-connected
students be added to the definition of underserved student.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. We agree with
the recommendation to include the military- and veteran-connected
student and had already included it as a separate definition but will
also include it within the definition of underserved student as we
believe that this is a group of students that has been underserved.
Changes: We have added military and veteran connected student to
the category list of underserved students.
Comments: Three commenters recommended that the Department add
students residing in Puerto Rico as additional definitions to the list.
Discussion: We do not believe it is appropriate to target any
particular State or territory as funding from the Department's
discretionary grant programs may generally be used within any of the 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Outlying Areas, and the tribal nations. We appreciate the second
comment on adding a proposed subpart, and we agree that proximate
involvement will help to identify community needs. We appreciate the
commenter's desire to include language specific to Puerto Rico.
Change: None.
Comments: One commenter asked that ``questioning'' be added to (i)
(LGBTQI+) under the definition of underserved student.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree that questioning is
an important part of the acronym.
Changes: We have added ``questioning'' as a part of the definition
of underserved student.
Comments: One commenter requested that the Department add
unconnected students to the definition of underserved student, which
includes students who do not have access to their own individual device
or high-quality internet at home.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request and agree that
there is a utility in including this group of students in the
definition as the pandemic showed that students without access to the
internet were unable to participate in learning.
Changes: We have updated the definition of ``underserved student''
to include technologically unconnected youth.
Comments: One commenter emphasized the importance of career
readiness and encouraging projects focused on post-graduate outcomes
and proposed a program that set undergraduates onto a path of strong
economic opportunity.
Discussion: We agree that college and career readiness is
important, and programs should have outcomes that set students onto a
path of strong economic opportunity that could be through either a
strong first job or matriculation into graduate school. We think that
there is a clear emphasis on college and career readiness incorporated
into the priorities and we do not reference specific programs within
the priorities.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
The Secretary establishes the following priorities for use in any
Department discretionary grant program.
Priority 1--Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Students, Educators,
and Faculty
Projects that are designed to address the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic, including impacts that extend beyond the duration of the
pandemic itself, on the students most impacted by the pandemic, with a
focus on underserved students and the educators who serve them, through
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Conducting community asset-mapping and needs assessments that
may include an assessment of the extent to which students, including
subgroups of students, have become disengaged from learning, including
students not participating in in-person or remote instruction, and
specific strategies for reengaging and supporting students and their
families.
(b) Providing resources and supports to meet the basic,
fundamental, health
[[Page 70636]]
and safety needs of students and educators.
(c) Addressing students' social, emotional, mental health, and
academic needs through approaches that are inclusive with regard to
race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status.
(d) Addressing educator, faculty, and staff well-being.
(e) Providing students and educators with access to reliable high-
speed broadband and devices; providing students with access to high-
quality, technology-supported learning experiences and ensuring these
experiences are accessible to, interoperable, and usable by children or
students with disabilities,\2\ educators with disabilities, and English
learners; and providing educators with access to job-embedded,
sustained, and collaborative professional development, to support the
effective use of technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In an NIA, the Department could use either ``children with
disabilities'' or ``students with disabilities,'' depending on which
term is more appropriate for the program. In this document, we use
these terms interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Using technology to enable evidence-based approaches to
personalized student learning as well as evidence-based supplemental
activities that extend learning time, such as comprehensive afterschool
and summer learning and enrichment programs, and increase student and,
where appropriate, parent engagement.
(g) Using evidence-based instructional approaches and supports,
such as professional development, coaching, ongoing support for
educators, high quality tutoring, expanded access to rigorous
coursework and content across K-12, and expanded learning time to
accelerate learning for students in ways that ensure all students have
the opportunity to successfully meet challenging academic content
standards without contributing to tracking or remedial courses.
(h) Using evidence-based instructional approaches or supports to
assist individuals who did not enroll in, withdrew from, or reduced
course loads in postsecondary education or training programs due to
COVID-19 to enroll in, remain enrolled in, and complete credit-bearing
coursework and earn recognized postsecondary credentials.
Priority 2--Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational Resources
and Opportunities
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one or both of
the following:
(a) The applicant proposes a project designed to promote
educational equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity for
underserved students--
(1) In one or more of the following educational settings:
(i) Early learning programs.
(ii) Elementary school.
(iii) Middle school.
(iv) High school.
(v) Career and technical education programs.
(vi) Out-of-school-time settings.
(vii) Alternative schools and programs.
(viii) Juvenile justice system or correctional facilities.
(ix) Adult learning;
(2) That examines the sources of inequity and inadequacy and
implement responses, and that may include one or more of the following:
(i) Rigorous, engaging, and well-rounded (e.g., that include music
and the arts) approaches to learning that are inclusive with regard to
race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status and prepare
students for college, career, and civic life, including one or more of
the following:
(A) Student-centered learning models that may leverage technology
to address learner variability (e.g., universal design for learning (as
defined in this notice), K-12 competency-based education (as defined in
this notice), project-based learning, or hybrid/blended learning) and
provide high-quality learning content, applications, or tools.
(B) Middle school courses or projects that prepare students to
participate in advanced coursework in high school.
(C) Advanced courses and programs, including dual enrollment and
early college programs.
(D) Project-based and experiential learning, including service and
work-based learning.
(E) High-quality career and technical education courses, pathways,
and industry-recognized credentials that are integrated into the
curriculum.
(F) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM),
including computer science coursework.
(G) Civics programs that support students in understanding and
engaging in American democratic practices.
(ii) Increasing the number and proportion of experienced, fully
certified, in-field, and effective educators, and educators from
traditionally underrepresented backgrounds or the communities they
serve, to ensure that underserved students have educators from those
backgrounds and communities and are not taught at disproportionately
higher rates by uncertified, out-of-field, and novice teachers compared
to their peers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ All strategies to increase racial diversity of educators
must comply with applicable law, including Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Improving the preparation, recruitment, and early career
support and development of educators in shortage areas or hard to staff
schools.
(iv) Improving the retention of fully certified, experienced, and
effective educators in high-need schools or shortage areas.
(v) Pedagogical practices in educator preparation programs and
professional development programs that are inclusive with regard to
race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status so that
educators are better prepared to create inclusive, supportive,
equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for their
students.
(vi) Using technology to enable evidence-based approaches to
personalized student learning in the classroom or support supplemental
activities that extend learning time and increase student and, where
appropriate, parent engagement.
(vii) Creating more equitable and adequate approaches to school
funding, by doing one or more of the following:
(A) Aligning funding levels to students' diverse needs; or
(B) Sufficiently accounting for districts' differential access to
local revenue given differences in local wealth and income levels.
(viii) Expanding access to high-quality early learning, including
in school-based and community-based settings, by removing barriers
through implementation of programs that are inclusive with regard to
race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status.
(ix) Establishing, expanding, or improving learning environments
for multilingual learners, and increasing public awareness about the
benefits of fluency in more than one language and how the coordination
of language development in the school and the home improves student
outcomes for multilingual learners.
(x) Establishing, expanding, or improving the engagement of
underserved community members (including underserved students and
families) in informing and making decisions that influence policy and
practice at the school, district, or State level by elevating their
voices, through their participation and their perspectives and
providing them with access to opportunities for leadership (e.g.,
establishing partnerships between civic student government programs and
parent and caregiver leadership initiatives).
[[Page 70637]]
(xi) Improving the quality of educational programs in juvenile
justice facilities (such as detention facilities and secure and non-
secure placements) or adult correctional facilities.
(xii) Supporting re-entry of, and improving long-term outcomes for,
youth and adults after release from juvenile justice system or
correctional facilities by linking youth and adults to appropriate
support, education, vocational rehabilitation, or workforce training
programs.
(xiii) Increasing student racial or socioeconomic diversity,
through one or more of the following:
(A) Using high-quality data collection methods to identify racial
and socioeconomic stratification, trends in and contributors to
stratification, and barriers to racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic
diversity.
(B) Developing or implementing evidence-based policies or
strategies that include one or more of the following:
(1) Ongoing, robust family and community involvement.
(2) Intra- or inter-district or regional coordination.
(3) Cross-agency collaboration, such as with housing or
transportation authorities.
(4) Alignment with an existing public diversity plan that is
evidence-based and designed to effectively promote diversity.
(5) School assignment or admissions policies that are designed to
promote socioeconomic diversity and provide equitable access to
educational opportunities for students from low-income backgrounds or
students residing in neighborhoods experiencing concentrated poverty.
(C) Establishing or expanding schools, or programs within schools,
that are designed to attract, and foster meaningful interactions among,
substantial numbers of students from different racial and/or
socioeconomic backgrounds, such as magnet schools.
(D) Developing evidence related to, or providing technical
assistance on, evidence-based policies or strategies designed to
increase inclusivity with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language,
and disability status.
(b) The project will be implemented by or in partnership with one
or more of the following entities:
(1) Community colleges (as defined in this notice).
(2) Historically Black colleges and universities (as defined in
this notice).
(3) Tribal Colleges and Universities (as defined in this notice).
(4) Minority-serving institutions (as defined in this notice).
(5) Career and technical education centers.
(6) Adult education.
Priority 3--Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional
Growth To Strengthen Student Learning
Projects that are designed to increase the proportion of well-
prepared, diverse, and effective educators serving students, with a
focus on underserved students, through one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number of diverse educator candidates who have
access to an evidence-based comprehensive educator preparation program.
(b) Increasing the number of teachers with certification or dual
certification in a shortage area, or advanced certifications from
nationally recognized professional organizations.
(c) Identifying and addressing disparities among educator subgroups
in graduation rates, passage rates for certification and licensure
exams, successful employment, retention, and professional growth.
(d) Promoting knowledge of universal design for learning in
educator preparation.
(e) Integrating universal design for learning principles in
pedagogical practices and classroom features, such as instructional
techniques, classroom materials and resources, and classroom seating.
(f) Implementing or expanding loan forgiveness or service-
scholarship programs for educators based on completing service
obligation requirements.
(g) Building or expanding high-poverty school (as may be defined in
the program statute or regulations) districts' capacity to hire,
support, and retain an effective and diverse educator workforce,
through one or more of the following:
(1) Providing beginning educators with evidence-based mentoring or
induction programs.
(2) Adopting or expanding comprehensive, strategic career and
compensation systems that provide competitive compensation and include
opportunities for educators to serve as mentors and instructional
coaches, or to take on additional leadership roles and responsibilities
for which educators are compensated.
(3) Developing data systems, timelines, and action plans for
promoting inclusive and bias-free human resources practices that
promote and support development of educator diversity.
(4) Providing opportunities for educators to be involved in the
design and implementation of local and district wide initiatives that
advance systemic changes.
(h) Supporting effective instruction and building educator capacity
through one or more of the following:
(1) Providing high-quality job-embedded professional development
opportunities focused on one or more of the following:
(i) Designing and delivering instruction in ways that are engaging,
effectively integrate technology, and provide students with
opportunities to think critically and solve complex problems, apply
their learning in authentic and real-world settings, communicate and
collaborate effectively, and develop academic mindsets, including
through project-based, work-based, or other experiential learning
opportunities.
(ii) Supporting students and their families at key transitional
stages in their education as they enter into one or more of the
following:
(A) Early learning programs.
(B) Elementary school.
(C) Middle school.
(D) High school.
(E) Postsecondary education.
(F) Career and technical education.
(G) Work.
(iii) Meeting the needs of English learners.
(iv) Meeting the needs of children or students with disabilities,
including children or students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities.
(v) Addressing inequities and developing and implementing
pedagogical practices that are inclusive with regard to race,
ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status.
(vi) Building meaningful and trusting relationships with students'
families to support in-home, community-based, and in-school learning.
(vii) For school leaders, improving mastery of essential
instructional and organizational leadership skills designed to improve
teacher and student learning.
(viii) Supporting teachers in creating safe, healthy, inclusive,
and productive classroom environments.
(2) Developing and implementing high-quality assessments (as
defined in this notice) of student learning (for example, curriculum-
aligned and performance-based tools aligned with State grade-level
content standards or, for career and technical education, relevant
industry standards) and strategies that allow educators to use the data
from assessments to inform instructional design and classroom practices
that meet the needs of all students and providing high-quality
[[Page 70638]]
professional development to support educators in implementing these
strategies.
(i) Increasing educator capacity to collaborate with diverse
stakeholders to carry out rapid cycle evaluation, design-based
research, improvement science, or other rapid cycle techniques to
design, develop, or improve promising innovations that are designed to
benefit underserved students.
Priority 4--Meeting Student Social, Emotional, and Academic Needs
Projects that are designed to improve students' social, emotional,
academic, and career development, with a focus on underserved students,
through one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Developing and supporting educator and school capacity to
support social and emotional learning and development that--
(1) Fosters skills and behaviors that enable academic progress;
(2) Identifies and addresses conditions in the learning
environment, that may negatively impact social and emotional well-being
for underserved students, including conditions that affect physical
safety; and
(3) Is trauma-informed, such as addressing exposure to community-
based violence and trauma specific to military- or veteran-connected
students (as defined in this notice).
(b) Creating education or work-based settings that are supportive,
positive, identity-safe and inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity,
culture, language, and disability status, through one or more of the
following activities:
(1) Developing trusting relationships between students (including
underserved students), educators, families, and community partners.
(2) Providing high-quality professional development opportunities
designed to increase engagement and belonging and build asset-based
mindsets for educators working in and throughout schools.
(3) Engaging students (including underserved students), educators,
families, and community partners from diverse backgrounds and
representative of the community as partners in school climate review
and improvement efforts.
(4) Developing and implementing inclusive and culturally informed
discipline policies and addressing disparities in school discipline
policy by identifying and addressing the root causes of those
disparities, including by involving educators, students, and families
in decision-making about discipline procedures and providing training
and resources to educators.
(5) Supporting students to engage in real-world, hands-on learning
that is aligned with classroom instruction and takes place in
community-based settings, such as apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships,
work-based learning, and service learning, and in civic activities,
that allow students to apply their knowledge and skills, strengthen
their employability skills, and access career exploration
opportunities.
(c) Creating a positive, inclusive, and identity-safe climate at
institutions of higher education through one or more of the following
activities:
(1) Fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion for underserved
students.
(2) Implementing evidence-based practices for advancing student
success for underserved students.
(3) Providing evidence-based professional development opportunities
designed to build asset-based mindsets for faculty and staff on campus
and that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture,
language, and disability status.
(4) Updating the institution's harassment policies and procedures
consistent with applicable Federal law to ensure they apply to
harassment that occurs in the institution's educational programs and
activities, including during hybrid and distance education.
(d) Providing multi-tiered systems of supports that address
learning barriers both in and out of the classroom, that enable healthy
development and respond to students' needs and which may include
evidence-based trauma-informed practices and professional development
for educators on avoiding deficit-based approaches.
(e) Developing or implementing policies and practices, consistent
with applicable Federal law, that prevent or reduce significant
disproportionality on the basis of race or ethnicity with respect to
the identification, placement, and disciplining of children or students
with disabilities.
(f) Providing all students access to physically healthy learning
environments, such as energy-efficient spaces, for one or more of the
following:
(1) Early learning environments.
(2) Elementary or secondary schools.
(3) Out-of-school time learning spaces.
(4) Postsecondary institutions.
(5) Career and technical education.
(6) Adult education learning environments.
(g) Providing students equitable access that is inclusive, with
regard to race, LGBTQI+, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability
status, to social workers, psychologists, counselors, nurses, or mental
health professionals and other integrated services and supports, which
may include in early learning environments.
(h) Preparing educators to implement project-based or experiential
learning opportunities for students to strengthen their metacognitive
skills, self-direction, self-efficacy, competency, or motivation,
including through instruction that: Connects to students' prior
knowledge and experience; provides rich, engaging, complex, and
motivating tasks; and offers opportunities for collaborative learning.
(i) Creating and implementing comprehensive schoolwide frameworks
(such as small schools or learning communities, advisory systems, or
looping educators) that support strong and consistent student and
educator relationships.
(j) Fostering partnerships, including across government agencies
(e.g., housing, human services, employment agencies), local educational
agencies, community-based organizations, adult learning providers, and
postsecondary education intuitions, to provide comprehensive services
to students and families that support students' social, emotional,
mental health, and academic needs, and that are inclusive with regard
to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status.
Priority 5--Increasing Postsecondary Education Access, Affordability,
Completion, and Post-Enrollment Success
Projects that are designed to increase postsecondary access,
affordability, com
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on December 10, 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.