Rule2023-17227
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Perkins Innovation and Modernization Grant Program
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
August 14, 2023
Effective
September 13, 2023
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the Perkins Innovation and Modernization (PIM) grant program, Assistance Listing Number 84.051F. The Department may use the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and later years. We take this action to support grant competitions that will identify strong and well-designed projects that incorporate evidence-based and innovative strategies and activities to improve student success in secondary education, postsecondary education, and careers.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 155 (Monday, August 14, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 155 (Monday, August 14, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54882-54899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17227]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2023-OCTAE-0048]
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Perkins Innovation and Modernization Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the Perkins
Innovation and Modernization (PIM) grant program, Assistance Listing
Number 84.051F. The Department may use the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year
(FY) 2023 and later years. We take this action to support grant
competitions that will identify strong and well-designed projects that
incorporate evidence-based and innovative strategies and activities to
improve student success in secondary education, postsecondary
education, and careers.
DATES: The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are effective September 13, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles ``Bryan'' Jenkins, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A192,
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-987-0815. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0f0e9ede7d2c1ced4d3e0c5c48ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94c4ddd9d3e6f5fae0e7d4f1f0baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the PIM grant program is to
identify, support, and independently evaluate evidence-based and
innovative strategies and activities to improve and modernize career
and technical education (CTE) and align workforce skills with labor
market needs. The Department anticipates using the PIM authority
beginning in FY 2023 to award competitive grants to support Career
Connected High Schools (CCHS) that will transform public high schools
by expanding existing and implementing new strategies and supports to
help their students identify and navigate pathways to postsecondary
education and career preparation, accrue college credit, pursue in-
demand and high-value industry-recognized credentials, and gain direct
experience in the workplace through work-based learning.
Program Authority: Section 114(e) of the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006, as amended by the Strengthening Career
and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V) (20 U.S.C.
2324).
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register on May 16,
2023 (88 FR 31196) (the NPP). The notice contained background
information and our rationale for proposing the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. As discussed in the
Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document, we made
substantive changes to Priorities 1, 2, 3 and 4, Application
Requirement 3, Program Requirement 3, and the selection criteria. We
also added a new application requirement.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 17
parties submitted comments. Generally, we do not address technical and
other minor changes or suggested changes that the law does not
authorize us to make. In addition, we do not address comments that are
outside the scope of the NPP.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows. We group
major issues according to subject.
Priority 1--Career-Connected High Schools.
[[Page 54883]]
Comments: Sixteen commenters expressed general support for Priority
1. One commenter felt that the activities contemplated under Priority 1
are not innovative because they already are allowable uses of funds
under the State formula grant program authorized by Perkins V. That
commenter instead recommended giving applicants the discretion to
determine their use of grant funds.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 1.
With respect to the commenter who advocated for allowing grantees to
determine how they use grant funds, the Department believes that
funding projects that meet the requirements of Priority 1 will be more
productive in building evidence and advancing equity than funding a set
of projects that lack a clear and consistent focus. While the
Department acknowledges that the activities described in Priority 1 are
allowable uses of funds under the Perkins V State grant program, to the
extent States and LEAs are using Federal funds for these activities,
they can be expanded to ensure these activities reach all students.
Priority 1 is innovative because it promotes the implementation of
these activities all together, equitably, and at a scale that will
benefit all students in a high school. For example, the opportunity to
participate in dual or concurrent enrollment programs (as defined in
section 3 of Perkins V) is now limited to a small group of students.
Among the high school class of 2019, only about one-third of white
students, about one-quarter of Asian, Native American, and Hispanic
students, and less than a fifth of Black students took one or more dual
enrollment courses during their time in high school.\1\ Other research
has documented that students from low-income backgrounds are
significantly underrepresented among dual enrollment course-takers.\2\
English learners (ELs) and students with disabilities are also often
shut out of dual enrollment opportunities. For example, during the
2017-18 school year, 50 percent of public schools that offered either
11th or 12th grade attended by ELs offered dual enrollment but did not
enroll any ELs in such courses, and 37 percent of such schools attended
by students with disabilities offered dual enrollment but did not
enroll any students with disabilities in such courses.\3\ Work-based
learning opportunities also are uneven in their availability across the
country.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National
Assessment of Educational Progress (2022), 2019 NAEP High School
Transcript Study (HSTS) Results: A Closer Look, Retrieved from:
<a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/hstsreport/#closerlook_3_0_el">https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/hstsreport/#closerlook_3_0_el</a>.
Dual credit course-taking by Native American students tabulated
using the Data Explorer for the High School Transcript Study at:
<a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/hsts">https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/hsts</a>.
\2\ See, for example, Lochmiller, C.R., et al. (2016), Dual
enrollment courses in Kentucky: High school students' participation
and completion rates (REL 2016-137). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Retrieved from <a href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/appalachia/pdf/REL_2016137.pdf">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/appalachia/pdf/REL_2016137.pdf</a>. Also
see Miller, Trey, et al. (2017), Dual Credit Education in Texas:
Interim Report, RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: <a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2043.html">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2043.html</a>.
\3\ Fink, John, ``How Many Schools in Your State Shut Out
Students from Dual Enrollment or AP?'' The Mixed Methods Blog
(November 10, 2021), Community College Research Center. Retrieved
from: <a href="https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/schools-dual-enrollment-ap.html">https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/schools-dual-enrollment-ap.html</a>.
\4\ Ross, M., Kazis, R., Bateman, N., and Stateler, L. (2020),
Work-Based Learning Can Advance Equity and Opportunity for America's
Young People, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings
Institution. Retrieved from: <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20201120_BrookingsMetro_Work-based-learning_Final_Report.pdf">https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20201120_BrookingsMetro_Work-based-learning_Final_Report.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's hope is that projects that deliver all four
Priority 1 components will be evidence-building pioneers whose results
will inspire States and LEAs to implement these activities at scale
using their own funds, as well as formula grants from the Department
that allow these activities. The Department believes this focused
effort will generate greater evidence and improve the outcomes of more
students than allowing each applicant to decide how to use limited PIM
grant funds.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters recommended that the Department revise
Priority 1 to require applicants to address all four components of the
priority, rather than only one or more of the components. One commenter
urged the Department to amend the priority to require universal student
participation in the development of personalized postsecondary and
career plans (as defined in this notice), implementation of two of the
remaining three components within the grant period, a plan for scaling
up all four components during the grant period (or a rationale that
describes why this could not be achieved and a timeline for when it
would be achieved), and a commitment to develop a plan to sustain these
activities after the grant period. Another commenter recommended that
the Department revise the priority to require a plan and timeline for
implementation of all four components and to amend and weigh the
selection criteria so that applicants planning to implement all four
components during the grant period are awarded more points by
reviewers. Another commenter suggested revising the priority to require
applicants to provide a plan for implementing all four components but
permit them to focus on implementing only a subset during the grant
period. One commenter recommended that the Department align the
priority with the keys to college and career success outlined in the
Department's Raise the Bar: Unlocking Career Success initiative \5\ and
require projects to strive for universal student participation in the
four components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ More information about Unlocking Career Success can be found
at <a href="https://cte.ed.gov/unlocking-career-success/home">https://cte.ed.gov/unlocking-career-success/home</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: By structuring Priority 1 to allow applicants to
implement one or more of four components of career-connected learning,
we preserve our flexibility to adjust the number of required components
in future grant competitions. For example, in a year in which limited
funds are available for a competition, we could use this flexibility to
support grantees in pursuing targeted approaches. At the same time,
using the ``one or more'' language allows us to include the priority in
a competition as an absolute priority that requires applicants to
include all four components. Program Requirement 5 requires grantees to
have a project plan that includes benchmarks for implementing one or
more of the four keys to career-connected learning by no later than the
end of the fifth year of the project. As with Priority 1, Program
Requirement 5 is constructed to give the Department flexibility to
specify the number of keys to career-connected learning that must be
implemented by the end of the project period. We also support the
commenter's suggestion to further align Priority 1 and the Raise the
Bar: Unlocking Career Success initiative where possible, and, based on
our own review, changed the language in the priority from ``pillars''
to ``keys.''
Changes: We have changed the reference to the four components in
Priority 1 from ``pillars'' to ``keys.''
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that Priority 1 was
not adequately focused on promoting equitable student participation in
career-connected learning. One commenter recommended that Priority 1 be
reoriented to emphasize improving the access and success of students
who are members of ``special populations'' \6\
[[Page 54884]]
in Perkins V. Another commenter recommended that Priority 1 focus on
promoting equity in student access and outcomes for students of color,
students from low-income backgrounds, and females, including by
expanding access to higher-wage CTE pathways, such as those that
prepare students for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) careers, for students from groups that have been historically
underrepresented in such programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 3(48) of Perkins V defines ``special populations''
to mean individuals with disabilities; individuals from economically
disadvantaged families, including low-income youth and adults;
individuals preparing for nontraditional fields, which are
occupations or fields of work for which individuals from one gender
comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in each
such occupation or field of work; single parents, including single
pregnant women; out-of-workforce individuals; English learners;
homeless individuals described in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a); youth who are in, or
have aged out of, the foster care system; and youth with a parent
who is a member of the armed forces (as such term is defined in
section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code); and is on active
duty (as such term is defined in section 101(d)(1) of such title).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Department appreciates the concerns of the
commenters and agrees that inequities in student access and success
should remain an important focus of this program. To that end, we note
that Priority 4 requires projects to demonstrate that at least 51
percent of the students they will serve will be from low-income
families. Moreover, there are other tools available to the Department
to make advancing equity a focus of future PIM grant competitions, such
as, for example: (a) the equitable access priorities from the
Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary
Grants Programs published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021
(86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities); (b) selection criteria from
the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) at
34 CFR 75.210(a) that assess the need for a proposed project; and (c)
the EDGAR selection criterion at 34 CFR 75.210(d)(2) that evaluates the
quality and sufficiency of a proposed project's strategies for ensuring
equal access and treatment for eligible participants who are members of
groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race,
color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged the Department to revise Priority 1 to
highlight and encourage applicants to develop and expand access to CTE
programs in the construction, transportation, electrification, and
manufacturing sectors, which the commenter describes as ``skilled
trades.'' The commenter also recommended adding a definition of
``skilled trades education'' to make clear that programs that prepare
individuals for occupations in these sectors are CTE.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that addressing the
workforce needs of the construction, transportation, electrification,
and manufacturing sectors is critically important. Historic investments
made through the American Rescue Plan, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act, as well as
associated private sector investments, will create millions of good-
paying jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, supply chains, and
manufacturing.\7\ We will encourage applicants to consider these new
opportunities as they develop college and career pathways under this
program. We decline, however, to create a special focus on these
sectors (or any others) in Priority 1, in favor of giving applicants
the flexibility to design projects that are responsive to the most
compelling workforce needs in their communities. Section 114(e)(3)(E)
of Perkins V requires each applicant to describe how the programs they
will implement reflect the needs of regional, State, or local
employers, as demonstrated by the biennial comprehensive needs
assessment that Perkins V subrecipients must complete under section
134(c) of that Act. In many communities, these will be jobs in the
construction, transportation, electrification, and manufacturing
sectors. We also decline to add a definition of ``skilled trades
education'' because we do not consider it necessary to use rulemaking
authority to clarify that the programs this term describes are
allowable uses of funds under PIM. These programs have long been an
important part of CTE, and we affirm that they are eligible uses of PIM
funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The White House (2023), Biden-Harris Administration Roadmap
to Support Good Jobs (Fact Sheet), May 16, 2023. Retrieved from:
<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/05/16/biden-harris-administration-roadmap-to-support-good-jobs">https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/05/16/biden-harris-administration-roadmap-to-support-good-jobs</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we require applicants to
describe how they will use evidence-based practices, including
universal design for learning,\8\ in carrying out the activities
described in Priority 1 to ensure that teachers, school leaders, and
industry partners are adequately trained to implement these activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 3(54) of Perkins V defines ``universal design for
learning'' by cross-referencing the definition of this term in
section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
as amended by Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA). Section 8101 of
ESEA cross-references the definition in section 103 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, which defines the term as ``a scientifically
valid framework for guiding educational practice that--(A) provides
flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways
students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the
ways students are engaged; and (B) reduces barriers in instruction,
provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and
maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including
students with disabilities and students who are limited English
proficient.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation, but we
decline to modify Priority 1 to require the description sought by the
commenter because we consider it unnecessary. Because several of the
selection criteria assess the likely effectiveness of applicants'
proposed strategies to increase student participation and success in
career-connected learning, we anticipate that successful applicants
will describe in their applications evidence-based practices, such as
universal design for learning, and how they will prepare teachers,
school leaders, and industry partners to implement them.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters suggested modifications to Priority 1's
reference to postsecondary credits earned through dual or concurrent
enrollment programs. One commenter recommended that the priority
specify that earning 12 postsecondary credits is the goal because there
is evidence that the benefits of dual enrollment increase with every
postsecondary credit earned, at least up to 12 credits. A second
commenter urged the Department to amend the priority to specify that
dual or concurrent enrollment courses must be part of a guided pathway
that begins in 11th grade, and is aligned with postsecondary pathways
and postsecondary programs of study, so that students' participation in
dual or concurrent enrollment courses helps them progress toward
identified postsecondary degrees or credentials, saving students and
their families time and money toward attaining a postsecondary
credential.
Discussion: We agree that promoting attainment of at least 12
postsecondary credits through participation in dual or concurrent
enrollment programs should be a goal of career-connected high schools
because research suggests that the benefits of dual enrollment increase
with every postsecondary credit earned, at least up to 12 credits.\9\
However, we
[[Page 54885]]
decline to modify Priority 1 to specify that projects must make this
the goal for all students, to preserve flexibility for applicants to
design projects that are responsive to the needs of their students and
local circumstances and resources. Instead, we are establishing an
application requirement that directs applicants to describe how they
will seek to increase not only the number of students who earn any
postsecondary credits through dual or concurrent enrollment programs
but also how they will seek to increase the average number of
postsecondary credits earned by students to 12 or more. To measure the
progress of grantees in pursuing those goals, we also are establishing
an additional reporting requirement that will collect data on the
average number of postsecondary credits earned by students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Taylor, J.L., Allen, T.O., An, B.P., Denecker, C., Edmunds,
J.A., Fink, J., Giani, M.S., Hodara, M., Hu, X., Tobolowsky, B.F., &
Chen,W. (2022), Research priorities for advancing equitable dual
enrollment policy and practice. Salt Lake City, UT: University of
Utah. Retrieved from: <a href="https://cherp.utah.edu/_resources/documents/publications/research_priorities_for_advancing_equitable_dual_enrollment_policy_and_practice.pdf">https://cherp.utah.edu/_resources/documents/publications/research_priorities_for_advancing_equitable_dual_enrollment_policy_and_practice.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree that participation in dual or concurrent programs should
be part of a defined program of study so that students may advance
toward their college and career goals and accelerate their attainment
of a postsecondary credential. As the commenter suggests, where
institutions of higher education (IHEs) are restructuring their
programs around broad career pathways, which are sometimes described as
``guided pathways,'' \10\ dual or concurrent programs should be
integrated into these efforts so that students and their families have
clear program maps showing how each postsecondary course adds up to a
postsecondary credential.\11\ We decline the commenter's recommendation
to specify that these programs must commence in 11th grade, however, to
give grantees flexibility in designing these programs of study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Jenkins, D., Lahr, H., Fink, J., and Ganga, E. (2018), What
We Are Learning About Guided Pathways: Part 1: A Reform Moves from
Theory to Practice, Community College Research Center, Teachers
College, Columbia University. Retrieved from: <a href="https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/guided-pathways-part-1-theory-practice.pdf">https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/guided-pathways-part-1-theory-practice.pdf</a>.
\11\ Mehl, G., Wynder, J., Barnett, E., Fink, J., Jenkins, D.
(2020), The Dual Enrollment Playbook: A Guide to Equitable
Acceleration for Students, Community College Research Center and the
Aspen Institute College Excellence Program. Retrieved from: <a href="https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/dual-enrollment-playbook-equitable-acceleration.pdf">https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/dual-enrollment-playbook-equitable-acceleration.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: We added a fifth application requirement that applicants
include in their applications a description of how they will seek to
increase the proportion of students who earn any postsecondary credits
from participation in dual or concurrent enrollment programs, and how,
over the 60-month project period, they also will seek to increase the
average number of postsecondary credits earned by students to 12 or
more. We also revised the program evaluation requirements to require
grantees to report annually on the average number of postsecondary
credits earned by students through participation in dual or concurrent
enrollment programs and the extent to which students attain any
postsecondary credits and at least 12 postsecondary credits in a
program of study that culminates with an associate, bachelor's, or
advanced degree, or completion of a Registered Apprenticeship Program.
We modified the dual or concurrent enrollment component of Priority
1 to specify that these postsecondary credits must be part of a program
of study that culminates with an associate, bachelor's, or advanced
degree, or completion of a Registered Apprenticeship Program. In
addition, we made several conforming changes to Priority 1 to reflect
the new program of study requirement. Because programs of study will
integrate both secondary and postsecondary content, we modified
Priority 1 to indicate that the 5-year plan it requires must not only
provide for the alignment of secondary and postsecondary education but
also the integration of the two. We also modified Application
Requirement 3, which relates to the 5-year plan, to conform with the
change to the 5-year plan in Priority 1. Because programs of study may
begin earlier than the last two years of high school, we also deleted
the reference in Priority 1 to the last two years of high school and
now specify that the plan address alignment and integration of high
school generally with the first two years of postsecondary education.
Comments: One commenter asked the Department to clarify whether
Priority 1's goal of substantially increasing the proportion of
students who graduate from high school with postsecondary credits
earned from dual or concurrent enrollment programs could be satisfied
through student participation in Advanced Placement (AP) courses,
expressing the view that students who score highly on AP examinations
also receive postsecondary credit. A second commenter supported
excluding participation in AP courses from the priority because, the
commenter maintained, students rarely receive postsecondary credit even
if they receive a high score on the associated examinations.
Discussion: AP courses can be a valuable part of a well-rounded
education and may be included in programs of study developed and
implemented with grant funds under this program. However, Priority 1
specifically promotes participation in dual or concurrent programs as
one of the four keys to college and career success, because such
programs enable students to earn postsecondary credits immediately upon
completion of each course, and these credits may usually be transferred
to other colleges and universities after the student completes high
school.\12\ Accumulating postsecondary credit through AP courses is
less certain. Students must first achieve a designated score, typically
3 or higher on a single examination; \13\ in 2022, the percentage of AP
test-takers who failed to score 3 or higher ranged from 11.7 percent in
Art and Design: Drawing to 56.7 percent in Physics 1.\14\ Students then
must petition the IHE in which they enroll to seek the postsecondary
credit. One study found that most colleges and universities imposed
restrictions on the award of credit for AP test scores, such as
requiring a score higher than 3, restricting the subject areas in which
credit could be awarded, limiting the awarded credit to elective
coursework, or limiting the total amount of credit a student could
receive.\15\ In addition, dual or concurrent programs are typically
available for a wider range of disciplines than the 38 subject areas in
which there are AP examinations, such as health science, engineering
technology, and other postsecondary CTE programs. Dual or concurrent
programs also require LEAs and schools to establish close partnerships
with the IHEs offering the postsecondary programming, which can benefit
students in other ways, such as by improving the alignment of
curriculum and the readiness of high school graduates to enter
postsecondary education without need for remediation.
[[Page 54886]]
Further, there is compelling evidence that participation in dual or
concurrent programs not only has positive effects on postsecondary
outcomes like postsecondary enrollment and degree attainment, but also
high school outcomes such as graduation and general academic
achievement.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ College in High School Alliance (n.d.), The Benefits of
College in High School Programs. Retrieved from: <a href="https://collegeinhighschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/TheBenefitsofCollegeinHighSchoolPrograms-1.pdf">https://collegeinhighschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/TheBenefitsofCollegeinHighSchoolPrograms-1.pdf</a>.
\13\ College Board (2022), New to AP? Here's Where to Start.
Retrieved from: <a href="https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/about-ap/district-leaders">https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/about-ap/district-leaders</a>.
\14\ College Board (2022), Student Scores Distribution: AP Exams
May 2022. Retrieved from: <a href="https://apstudents.collegeboard.org/about-ap-scores/score-distributions">https://apstudents.collegeboard.org/about-ap-scores/score-distributions</a>.
\15\ Weinstein, P., Jr. (2016), Diminishing Credit: How Colleges
and Universities Restrict the Use of Advanced Placement, Progressive
Policy Institute. Retrieved from: <a href="https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/MEMO-Weinstein-AP.pdf">https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/MEMO-Weinstein-AP.pdf</a>.
\16\ Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education (2017), What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Dual
Enrollment Programs. Retrieved from: <a href="https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_dual_enrollment_022817.pdf">https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_dual_enrollment_022817.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: We received a number of comments on the work-based
learning component of Priority 1. Several commenters supported the
inclusion of the work-based learning opportunity component in Priority
1. One commenter expressed concern that it would be difficult for
grantees to increase participation in work-based learning opportunities
for immigrant students who lack documentation that enables them to work
in the United States. One commenter supported the requirement that
wages or academic credit be provided to students for completing work-
based learning opportunities, and encouraged the Department to retain
this requirement, because compensated work-based learning experiences
result in higher levels of satisfaction for students than those that
are uncompensated. Another commenter maintained that the definition of
work-based learning opportunity used in the NPP, which is from section
3 of Perkins V, did not include a wide range of relevant experiences
and should be enhanced to include applied learning activities that are
not implemented in the context of work because they also enable
students to contextualize and apply the knowledge and skills taught in
classrooms. Another commenter recommended that the work-based learning
component of Priority 1 give students multiple means to demonstrate
what they have learned through work-based learning and that teachers,
work-based learning coordinators, and industry partners be trained to
assess student performance through multiple means. One commenter
highlighted a noteworthy innovation that offers postsecondary credit
and work experience simultaneously through work-based dual credit
courses that are co-taught by college faculty and employer supervisors,
using the workplace as a learning lab, with at least 20 percent of the
course taught at the workplace by an employer instructor. The commenter
recommended that this innovation be considered a work-based learning
opportunity under Perkins V.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the work-
based learning component of Priority 1. We understand the concerns of
the commenter who described the challenges associated with identifying
work-based learning opportunities for students who lack documentation
that authorizes them to work in the United States. We note that the
definition of work-based learning in Perkins V includes both actual
work in authentic workplace settings and also simulated work in
classroom environments. Simulated work in classroom environments may be
useful in helping these students, as well as those in remote, rural
communities develop professional skills. The State of West Virginia,
for example, has received considerable attention for the innovative
Simulated Workplace program that it has implemented statewide.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ D'Antoni, K. (2019), Simulated Workplaces in West Virginia,
State Education Standard, volume 19 number 3 (September 2019),
National Association of State Boards of Education. Retrieved from:
<a href="https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1229651">https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1229651</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate the support of the commenter for the requirement in
Priority 1 that students earn academic credit or wages for their
participation in work-based learning opportunities.
The Department agrees with the commenter who expressed the view
that applied learning activities can be valuable even when they are not
implemented in the context of work. While the definition of work-based
learning opportunity in Perkins V does not include such applied
learning opportunities, the statutory definition of CTE includes
applied learning activities and does not require that they be
implemented in the context of work. Consequently, projects may carry
out the activities the commenter recommends notwithstanding the
exclusion of applied learning from the definition of work-based
learning in Perkins V.
We agree with the commenter who stressed the importance of training
teachers, work-based learning coordinators, and industry partners in
assessing student participation in work-based learning opportunities,
but we decline to impose this as a Priority 1 requirement to preserve
applicants' flexibility to accommodate local circumstances and
contexts. The Department may include assessing work-based learning in
the technical assistance we intend to provide PIM grantees, however.
Similarly, with respect to work-based dual credit courses, we affirm
that such courses are consistent with the definition of work-based
learning opportunity in Perkins V, but do not believe it is necessary
to specify this in Priority 1.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters recommended revisions to Priority 1
relating to the personalized postsecondary and career plans that are
developed and updated annually through a system of career guidance and
academic counseling and postsecondary education navigation supports.
One commenter urged the Department to specify that the personalized
postsecondary education and career plan must provide multiple entry
points, be accessible to all students, including students with and
without disabilities, be co-designed with students, and include ways
for students to interact with role models or mentors from similar
backgrounds and with similar life experiences. These amendments, the
commenter contends, would strengthen this component of Priority 1 by
grounding it in research and best practices. Another commenter urged
the Department to expand this component of the priority to include
comprehensive wraparound supports to promote the successful
participation of all students, including tutoring, mentoring,
foundational coursework, and payment of any required participation
costs. Another commenter stated that Priority 1 would be more effective
if it specified that a project must include professional development to
train student advisers in delivering career coaching that is culturally
competent and informed by accurate and current labor market
information. Further, this commenter continued, Priority 1 should
require that students participate in a carefully sequenced set of
career development activities, such as completing career interest
inventories and participating in mock interviews. Another commenter
urged the Department to clarify that youth-serving organizations may be
sources of career exploration and support for education and career
planning assistance, noting an example of a youth-serving organization
that provides counseling and career planning to students participating
in internships in out-of-school time hours.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for personalized
postsecondary and career plans. With respect to the recommendation that
these plans provide multiple entry points and be co-designed with
students, we note that Priority 1 already specifies that the plans must
be updated annually, and the definition of personalized postsecondary
and career
[[Page 54887]]
plans already requires that these plans be developed with students and,
to the greatest extent practicable, the student's family or guardian.
All of the activities funded by PIM must meet or be consistent with the
requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. For this reason, while we
appreciate the commenter's recommendation that we modify the priority
to indicate that the plans be accessible to students with disabilities,
we believe this is already required. We agree that providing students
with mentors is a commendable practice, but we decline to require this
in Priority 1 or the definition of personalized postsecondary and
career plans, to give applicants flexibility to design a system of
career guidance and academic counseling and postsecondary education
navigation supports that reflects local needs, assets, and resource
limitations. We agree with the commenter who emphasized the importance
of providing students with comprehensive wraparound support services,
and so we have modified the definition of personalized postsecondary
and career plan to indicate that the plan must identify any wraparound
supports a student will need to carry out the activities and pursue the
goals described in the plan. We also agree with the commenter who
recommended that we require students to receive culturally responsive
career coaching and advising that is informed by the labor market and
delivered by trained personnel, and we have modified Priority 1
accordingly. We decline to amend the definition of personalized
postsecondary and career plan to require a specific sequence of career
development activities, to preserve applicant flexibility. We affirm
that youth-serving organizations can be useful partners in supporting
the career exploration and identification of postsecondary education
and career goals. We plan to support this work in our technical
assistance to applicants and grantees.
Changes: We modified Priority 1 to indicate that the system of
career guidance and academic counseling (as defined in section 3(7) of
Perkins V) and postsecondary education navigation must include college
and career coaching by trained advisors that is culturally responsive
and informed by accurate and current labor market information. We
modified the definition of personalized postsecondary and career plan
to specify that it must identify any comprehensive wraparound support
services that a student may need to carry out the activities and pursue
the goals described in the plan.
Priority 2--Partnership Applications.
Comments: Several parties expressed support for the focus in
Priority 2 on applications that include as partners at least one
business or industry representative, a local educational agency (LEA)
or other entity eligible to receive assistance under section 131 of
Perkins V, and an IHE eligible to receive assistance under section 132
of Perkins V. Three commenters recommended that the Department add
other categories of required partners to the priority. One commenter
urged the Department to require the inclusion of an entity that would
coordinate work-based learning opportunities for the project,
contending that such entities were necessary to ensure the work-based
learning opportunities were high-quality and successful. Similarly,
another commenter recommended including an intermediary organization to
facilitate and maintain relationships among schools and LEAs, IHEs, and
employers to ensure the quality, consistency, and scale of work-based
learning opportunities, better leverage resources, improve data
collection, and make the partnership sustainable in the long-term. The
same commenter also urged the Department to require the inclusion of
local workforce development boards as partners, to leverage resources
available under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) and help educators and students access and interpret labor
market information. A third commenter recommended adding as a required
partner a local teachers union, school staff union or organization, or
a representative organization of teachers, so that teachers understand
the work for which students are being prepared and the skills they will
need to be successful. Another commenter recommended adding afterschool
and summer learning programs to the list of optional partners.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' thoughtful support for
the partnership priority. We agree that qualified intermediaries (as
defined by section 3 of Perkins V) can be helpful partners in
coordinating work-based learning opportunities and in facilitating
relationships among the partners, and we strongly recommend that
prospective applicants consider including a qualified intermediary in
partnerships they develop to meet Priority 2 or 3. We decline to
require the inclusion of a qualified intermediary in the partnership
out of concern that appropriate intermediaries may not be available in
every community, but we modified Priority 2 to indicate that qualified
intermediaries may be optional partners. We decline to mandate the
inclusion of workforce development boards, local unions, or other
representatives of teachers and faculty in each partnership, to
preserve applicant flexibility to accommodate local circumstances, but
we agree that these entities can make useful contributions to a project
and should be identified as optional partners. We also agree that
afterschool and summer learning programs should be identified as
optional partners, because they can make valuable contributions to
expanding student access to the keys to career-connected learning.
Changes: We modified Priority 2 to identify as optional partners
qualified intermediaries, local teachers unions or school staff unions
or other representatives of teachers and faculty, and afterschool and
summer learning programs. For consistency, we also made these changes
to Priority 3.
Comments: Two commenters recommended that we modify the
specifications for some required partner categories. One commenter
urged the Department to require including at least two employers in
sectors aligned with regional labor market needs, rather than a single
business and industry representative, and to specify that these
employers must make explicit commitments to participate actively in the
project's leadership, assist the grantee in designing career pathways
that will prepare students for in-demand skills and include
certifications with labor market value, help develop a continuum of
work-based learning opportunities, and offer students a wide range of
such work-based learning opportunities. Another commenter recommended
that the Department clarify that the role of the higher education
partner must be carried out by a public or private nonprofit IHE,
contending that students educated in CTE programs offered by for-profit
institutions of higher education have lower earnings and employment
rates and are more likely to default on student loans.
Discussion: We agree that partnerships that include more than one
employer likely will be more effective than partnerships with only one
employer because, for example, they likely will be able to provide more
work-based learning opportunities for students, and we have modified
Priority 2 accordingly. While we agree that employers should have
significant and meaningful roles in project leadership and
implementation, we choose not to
[[Page 54888]]
elaborate on the nature and extent of the employer's role in Priority
2. Instead, one of the selection criteria included in the NPP and
retained in this notice assesses the extent to which employers in the
labor market served by the proposed project will be involved in making
decisions with respect to the project's implementation and in carrying
out its activities. The Department also intends to provide technical
assistance to grantees on expanding the number of employer partners and
giving these employers meaningful decision-making roles.
We agree with the commenter who recommended that the higher
education partner be a public or private non-profit IHE, but decline to
amend Priority 2 because it already contains this limitation. Priority
2 requires the IHE partner to be a community or technical college or
other IHE eligible to receive assistance under section 132 of Perkins
V. Private for-profit institutions of higher education are ineligible
for funding under section 132 of Perkins V.
Changes: We have modified Priority 2 to require the partnership to
include two or more employers. For consistency, we also made this
change to Priority 3.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to limit the
participation of non-profit organizations as optional partners to those
with expertise in delivering CTE, contending that projects would have
greater impact if non-profit organizations had specialized knowledge
about CTE.
Discussion: While we believe that nonprofit organizations,
especially those that have experience in CTE delivery, can play a
variety of valuable roles in a project's partnership we decline to
require all non-profit partners to have this expertise because such
expertise is not necessary for a non-profit partner to make meaningful
contributions to a project. For example, a non-profit civic
organization without expertise in CTE could provide mentors to help
students with college and career planning and a non-profit business
association without expertise in CTE could recruit local businesses to
provide work-based learning opportunities for students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require
applicants to provide training in the use of evidence-based practices,
including universal design for learning, to CTE teachers, school
leaders, and industry partners. The commenter believes that this
training is necessary and appropriate because CTE teachers often enter
the classroom from industry and do not receive the pedagogical training
that other teachers receive. The same commenter also recommended that
the Department amend the priority to indicate that partnerships may
support the design or expansion of research-to-practice partnerships
aimed at improving CTE instruction. It urged the Department to provide
funding for a national resource center that would provide support to
the partnerships, States, and LEAs to improve CTE instruction, address
the need for more diversity among the CTE teacher workforce, especially
in areas such as manufacturing and biotechnology where there is a
shortage of CTE instructors, and promote the use of universal design
for learning.
Discussion: As with a similar recommendation made with respect to
Priority 1, we decline to modify Priority 2 to require all partnerships
to provide training on the use of evidence-based practices, including
universal design for learning, to CTE teachers, school leaders, and
industry partners. Because several of the selection criteria assess the
likely effectiveness of the strategies that applicants propose to
implement to increase student participation and success in career-
connected learning, we anticipate that successful applicants will
describe in their applications evidence-based practices, such as
universal design for learning, and how they will prepare teachers,
school leaders, and industry partners to implement them.
We agree with the commenter that it is worthwhile for projects to
be designed in ways that support collaboration between practitioners
and researchers in both conducting research and applying the results to
improve practice and student outcomes. We do not believe modifying
Priority 2 is necessary to authorize projects to support the kinds of
research-to-practice partnerships described by the commenter. Section
114(e)(8) of Perkins V requires each project to independently evaluate
the activities carried out using grant funds and to produce an annual
report to the Department. Applicants may choose to organize their
relationships with the independent evaluators as research-to-practice
partnerships.
We appreciate the commenter's recommendation that the Department
provide funding for a national resource center that would provide
support to the partnerships, States, and LEAs to improve CTE
instruction, but such a center is outside the scope of this NFP. We do
expect to provide extensive technical assistance to the projects we
fund.
Changes: None.
Priority 3--State and Regional Partnerships.
Comments: As recommended for Priority 2, one commenter recommended
amending Priority 3 to add as a required partner a local teachers
union, school staff union or organization, or a representative
organization of teachers, because the commenter believes that it is
important for teachers to understand the work for which students are
being prepared and the skills they will need to be successful.
Similarly, a commenter who recommended making an intermediary
organization a required partner under Priority 2 made this same
recommendation with respect to Priority 3.
Another commenter urged the Department to permit the State agency
partner role in Priority 3 to be filled by agencies other than State
educational agencies (SEAs) because some other agencies could make
useful contributions to a project. The commenter notes, for example,
that some State longitudinal data systems are housed by State agencies
that are not SEAs. The commenter also noted that statewide college and
career pathway exploration tools in some States are not managed by SEAs
or State agencies; in one State, California, they are administered by
an LEA and a non-profit organization. For these reasons, the commenter
recommended that the Department permit the State agency role to be
filled by any entity housing the State longitudinal data system or an
entity that provides college and career planning tools to a State or
region. Another commenter also highlighted the importance of partnering
with the State agency responsible for the State longitudinal data
system but recommended that this be the sole State agency eligible to
participate in the partnership because, in the commenter's view, this
would be the most meaningful way for a State agency to help implement
career-connected learning at the regional level. Another party
recommended adding as optional partners in Priority 3 statewide youth-
serving organizations, such as statewide afterschool networks, because
these organizations represent entities that may provide work-based
learning opportunities to young people or make other contributions to
their career development.
Discussion: We agree that qualified intermediaries and local
teachers unions, school staff unions, or other representatives of
teachers and faculty can be valuable partners, but we decline to make
them required partners in Priority 3, to preserve flexibility for
[[Page 54889]]
applicants to assemble partnerships that accommodate local
circumstances. We agree that State agencies other than the SEA can make
important contributions to a partnership and, for that reason, the NPP
permitted the State role to be performed by any State agency. We do not
agree with the commenter who suggested that the State partner role be
limited to the State agency responsible for the statewide longitudinal
data system, because we think a variety of State agencies could be
helpful to a project. While we understand that regional entities might
also provide helpful support to partnerships, we believe Priority 3(a)
should focus on State agencies because they have greater resources that
can be leveraged by partnerships. However, regional entities like those
described by the commenter may be included in the regional partnerships
described in Priority 3(b). For the reasons suggested by the commenter,
we agree that statewide youth-serving organizations, such as statewide
afterschool networks, should be identified as optional partners in
Priority 3.
Changes: We modified Priority 3 to identify as optional partners
qualified intermediaries, local teachers unions or school staff unions
or other representatives of teachers and faculty, and statewide youth-
serving organizations, such as statewide afterschool networks.
Priority 4--Serving Students from Families with Low Incomes.
Comments: The Department received numerous comments that support
Priority 4, which requires that projects submit a plan and evidence
that at least 51 percent of the students to be served by the project
will be from low-income families, consistent with the statutory mandate
that the Department give priority to projects that will predominantly
serve students from families with low incomes. One commenter
recommended that applicants specifically address the targeted
recruitment, retention, and completion supports they will undertake
with respect to students from low-income families as part of the plan
they must submit to meet the requirements of Priority 4. Another
commenter expressed concern about using eligibility for Pell Grants as
a means to establish that postsecondary students who would be served by
the project are from low-income families, because many low-income
students in States with need-based student financial aid programs are
not eligible for Pell Grants where their needs are met by State
financial aid.
Discussion: We agree with the first commenter's suggestion
concerning the importance of asking applicants to describe their
strategies for recruiting and retaining students from low-income
backgrounds because these strategies will be key to the applicant's
success in meeting the 51 percent requirement. We have revised Priority
4 accordingly. We thank the second commenter for the information about
State student financial aid programs and agree that receipt of need-
based State financial aid should be a factor that applicants may use to
establish that a postsecondary student is from a low-income family. We
have modified Priority 4 accordingly.
Changes: Priority 4 has been amended to require applicants to
describe the recruitment and retention strategies they will employ to
meet the goal that 51 percent or more of students be from low-income
families. We also added receipt of need-based State student financial
aid as a factor that applicants may use in identifying postsecondary
students who are from low-income families.
Priority 5--Rural Communities.
Comments: Several commenters voiced support for Priority 5, which
gives priority to an applicant that demonstrates its proposed project
will serve students residing in identified rural communities. One party
opposed the priority, contending that it was unfair to schools outside
rural areas with large enrollments of students from low-income
backgrounds and that the Department should not give preference to
applicants in particular geographic areas. One commenter that supported
the priority recommended that we require an applicant to demonstrate
that the project will provide training to CTE teachers, school leaders,
and industry leaders in the use of evidence-based practices, including
universal design for learning.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the
priority, which is intended to facilitate the Department's
implementation of a statutory requirement. Section 114(e)(5) of Perkins
V directs the Department to award no less than 25 percent of PIM grant
funds to projects proposing to fund CTE activities that serve rural
communities. Because the priority for projects in rural communities is
statutory, the Department cannot omit Priority 5 from the NFP.
We appreciate the recommendation to require applicants to
demonstrate that the project will provide training in evidence-based
practices, including universal design for learning, but we decline to
modify Priority 5 to require this. As we note elsewhere in the NFP, we
expect that successful applicants will describe how they will use
evidence-based practices, because several of the selection criteria
assess the likely effectiveness of their plans to expand student
participation in the four keys to career-connected learning.
Changes: None.
Additional Priorities.
Comments: Five commenters encouraged the Department to establish
additional priorities. One commenter recommended priorities focused on
English learners and individuals with disabilities that would be
comparable to Priority 4, because these students, like students from
low-income backgrounds, do not have equitable access to dual or
concurrent enrollment programs and other components of Priority 1. As
an alternative to Priority 1, one party expressed support for a
priority for innovative solutions to challenges faced by rural and low-
income communities. One commenter recommended two additional
priorities, one focused on building employability skills among students
because, in the commenter's view, many jobseekers lack such skills, and
a second centered on promoting creative literacy projects for middle
school students because the commenter believes that cultivating
creativity in earlier grades can provide a strong foundation for
student success in high school and after graduation. Another commenter
recommended that the Department establish an additional priority for
projects that will employ innovative approaches to advancing
personalized learning, such as changing school schedules or calendars
to increase opportunities for career-connected learning and
implementing a performance-based accountability system that uses
portfolios and capstone projects to assess student mastery of core
content. In the commenter's view, rethinking the structure of high
school is necessary for college and career pathways to achieve their
full potential to improve student academic and career outcomes. A fifth
commenter urged the Department to create an additional priority that
would give preference to applications from States that have taken or
intend to take advantage of the opportunity WIOA offers to submit a
Combined State Plan that includes the Perkins V State formula grant
program, as well as the core education and workforce development
programs authorized by WIOA.\18\ The commenter
[[Page 54890]]
views this opportunity as a means of creating a comprehensive and
integrated approach to education and workforce development programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The six core WIOA programs are the Adult, Dislocated
Worker, and Youth programs (Title I of WIOA), the Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act (Title II of WIOA), the Employment Service
program (amended by Title III of WIOA), and the Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grant Program (amended by Title IV of WIOA). 29
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: We choose not to use rulemaking to establish separate
priorities focused on English learners and individuals with
disabilities that would be comparable to Priority 4 because the
Department has the discretion in the application process to focus
applicants on improving access to the four keys by these two groups of
students by using the equitable access priorities from the Supplemental
Priorities. We agree with the commenter about the importance of
strengthening the employability skills of young people, but we decline
to establish a separate priority for projects with this focus because
we consider it unnecessary. Priority 1 promotes the increased
participation of students in work-based learning opportunities that
will help students acquire the employability skills that the commenter
stresses are critical to success in the labor market. We do not agree
with the commenter who recommended establishing a priority for projects
that provide instruction in creative literacy for middle school
students because it would result in projects that would be narrowly
focused on a single strategy. We believe that projects that incorporate
multiple strategies, such as those that would meet Priority 1, are a
more appropriate use of limited PIM funds. With respect to the
commenter who suggested replacing Priority 1 with a priority for
innovative solutions to challenges faced by rural and low-income
communities, as noted elsewhere in the NFP, we believe that Priority 1
is innovative and will result in a more productive use of limited PIM
grant funds than giving applicants the discretion to decide how they
wish to use these resources. We support the goals of the commenter who
recommended that the Department establish an additional priority for
projects that will employ innovative approaches to advancing
personalized learning, such as changing school schedules or calendars,
and agree that traditional high school structures may pose barriers to
expanding career-connected learning. For that reason, we anticipate
that successful applicants will employ innovative approaches to
personalized learning in their projects, making the establishment of a
separate priority unnecessary. We also decline to establish an
additional priority for projects submitted by applicants in States that
include the Perkins V State formula grant program in a Combined State
Plan under WIOA because this decision is made by States and is outside
the control of eligible applicants.
Changes: None.
Program Requirements.
Program Requirement 1--Matching Contributions.
Comment: One commenter recommended permitting applicants to meet
the statutory matching requirement with Federal funds, noting that this
is permissible in the Education Innovation and Research program, which
is similar to PIM. The commenter stated that permitting the match to be
provided from other Federal program funds could promote greater
alignment of Federal investments in education.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation and
understand how this could be a useful tool to strengthen the alignment
of Federal education and workforce funding to support career-connected
learning in communities. However, we are unable to make this change
because section 114(e)(2)(A) of Perkins V specifies that the match must
be provided from non-Federal sources.
Changes: None.
Program Requirement 2--Programs of Study.
Comments: One commenter supported Program Requirement 2, which
would require alignment of the secondary portion of programs of study
offered by each project with the entrance requirements and college
credit criteria for public IHEs in the State, and mandate that the
postsecondary portion of these programs of study culminate in certain
degrees or lead seamlessly to and through a Registered Apprenticeship
program. The commenter supported alignment of the secondary portion of
programs of study with standards and criteria for accessing college-
credit courses because student placement in developmental or remedial
coursework is a barrier to timely completion of postsecondary
credentials. The commenter also expressed the view that industry-
recognized credentials should not be the terminal credential in a
program of study because the earnings associated with these credentials
vary greatly.
One party expressed opposition to Program Requirement 2, stating
that the requirements for programs of study were not innovative because
programs of study were included in Perkins V and the predecessor to
Perkins V (the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of
2006) and were based on Tech Prep programs that had been authorized
during the 1990s.
Discussion: We appreciate the first commenter's support for Program
Requirement 2. While the second commenter is correct that Perkins V and
its predecessor statute required subrecipients to offer at least one
program of study (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V), Program
Requirement 2 is important because a 2016-2017 survey of LEAs by the
National Center for Education Statistics found that only about a third
of LEAs reported that all of their CTE programs were structured as
pathways aligned with related postsecondary programs.\19\ In the Tech
Prep program referenced by the commenter, only about 10 percent of
consortia that received Tech Prep funds offered structured,
comprehensive programs of study.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Gray, L., and Lewis, L. (2018), Career and Technical
Education Programs in Public School Districts: 2016-17: First Look
(NCES 2018-028), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from: <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018028">https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018028</a>.
\20\ Hershey, A.M., Silverberg, M.K., et al. (1998), Focus for
the Future: The Final Report of the National Tech-Prep Evaluation,
Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from: <a href="https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED423395">https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED423395</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: None.
Discussion: After further review, we made a clarifying edit to
Program Requirement 2 to make it consistent with the statutory
definition of dual or concurrent enrollment program in Perkins V, by
indicating that dual or concurrent enrollment courses must confer
postsecondary credit.
Changes: We modified Program Requirement 2 to indicate that dual or
concurrent enrollment courses must confer postsecondary credit,
consistent with the statutory definition of dual or concurrent
enrollment programs.
Program Requirement 3--Independent Evaluation.
Comment: One commenter stated that the common performance
indicators described in Program Requirement 3 on the extent of student
participation in career-connected learning did not require grantees to
provide information on participation in and completion of career-
connected learning activities by students from low-income backgrounds,
students of color, students with disabilities, English learners, and
other underserved students. The commenter urged the Department to
require grantees to provide these data. Additionally, the commenter
recommended that the Department
[[Page 54891]]
collect data on the extent to which student participation in career-
connected learning activities and the college and career pathways
supported by the project reflected the demographic characteristics of
the overall student population, maintaining that this information is
important to assessing the success of each project.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the importance of
collecting and reporting data on student participation in the four keys
to career-connected learning and on student outcomes, and we share the
commenter's view that meaningful disaggregated data are critical to
evaluating the success of each project. We note that Program
Requirement 3 already requires the independent evaluation to report
annually on common performance indicators, including student completion
of career-connected learning activities, such as earning postsecondary
credits through participation in dual or concurrent enrollment
programs, and Program Requirement 3 requires disaggregation of those
data for the subgroups of students described in section 1111I(2)(B) of
the ESEA, namely students from major racial and ethnic groups, and
students who are members of special populations (as defined by section
3 of Perkins V), which include students with disabilities, students
from low-income families, and English learners, among others.
In addition, section 114(e)(8) of Perkins V requires PIM grantees
to report annually on student outcomes using the performance indicators
established by section 113 of Perkins V for the State formula grant
program, disaggregated by the student subgroups described in section
1111(c)(2)(B) of ESEA, special population status, and, as appropriate,
each CTE program and program of study.
The commenter's recommendation to collect data on the extent to
which student participation in learning activities and career pathways
supported by the project reflect the demographic characteristics of the
overall student population raises important issues that we think merit
revising Program Requirement 3, including by requiring the
disaggregation of student participation and outcome data by sex and
requiring that the evaluation report annually on the extent to which
student participation in each CTE program or program of study reflects
the demographics of the school (including major racial and ethnic
groups, sex, and special population status). These additional data will
give the Department a fuller picture of the performance of each
project.
Changes: We have modified Program Requirement 3 to require the
independent evaluation to disaggregate by sex the data it will collect
and report on student participation in and completion of career-
connected learning activities, as well as student outcomes measured by
the performance indicators established by section 113 of Perkins V for
the State formula grant program. We also have added a new paragraph
that requires the independent evaluation to report annually on the
extent to which CTE participants (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V)
and CTE concentrators (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) in each
CTE program or program of study reflect the demographics of the school
(including sex, major racial and ethnic groups, and special population
status).
Other Requirements.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to recommend or
require grantees to report information on credentials earned by
students using the Credential Transparency Description Language created
by Credential Engine, an openly licensed schema devised to describe and
provide information about credentials, because doing so would promote
transparency and facilitate greater understanding of a credential, how
it was earned, the entity that awarded it, and the skills for which it
was awarded.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for the suggestion. In its
instructions on performance reporting to grantees, the Department
expects to recommend that grantees consider using the Credential
Transparency Description Language when they report information on
credentials, but we decline to establish this as a requirement in the
NFP because we believe it is more appropriately addressed through sub-
regulatory guidance.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended requiring grantees to set aside
10 percent of their grant funds for activities carried out in the
middle grades (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) or to make such
activities an allowable use of funds so that students are aware of and
ready for college and career pathway opportunities when they enroll in
high school.
Discussion: While we agree with the commenter that career
development and other activities in the middle grades can be helpful to
students in clarifying their college and career goals and helping them
to make well-informed choices in high school, we do not agree that 10
percent of grant funds should be reserved for these purposes. The goals
for career-connected high schools set out in Priority 1 are ambitious
and will likely require grantees to use the preponderance of grant
funds to achieve them. We affirm, however, that, consistent with
section 215 of Perkins V, middle grade activities may be an allowable
use of funds.
Changes: None.
Application Requirement-4--Articulation and Credit Transfer
Agreements.
Comments: One commenter expressed support for Application
Requirement 4, which would require applicants to include in their
applications an assurance that, by no later than the end of the first
year of the project, LEAs and participating IHEs execute articulation
or credit transfer agreements ensuring that postsecondary credits
earned by students in dual or concurrent enrollment programs supported
by the project will be accepted for transfer at each participating IHE
and count toward the requirements for earning culminating postsecondary
credentials for the programs of study offered to students through the
project.
One commenter opposed Application Requirement 4, asserting that it
was not innovative because programs of study and articulation
agreements were included in Perkins V, as well as the predecessor to
Perkins V (the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of
2006), and were based on Tech Prep programs that had been authorized
during the 1990s.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for Application Requirement
4. With respect to the commenter concerned about the extent to which
Application Requirement 4 is innovative, we note that, while
articulation agreements have been addressed in Federal CTE legislation
for many years, there remains considerable work to do to ensure that
that dual and concurrent enrollment programs deliver on their promises
and students are able to use the postsecondary credits they earn when
they enroll in postsecondary education. A 2022 analysis of dual
enrollment and other early postsecondary opportunities in CTE found
that most States reported having statewide articulation agreements for
some CTE courses but that these agreements were often not required or
did not cover all CTE courses that were represented to students as
offering postsecondary credits. As a result, postsecondary credits may
or may not be available to all students when they enroll in higher
[[Page 54892]]
education.\21\ Application Requirement 4 is intended to ensure that
postsecondary credits will be available to all students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Advance CTE and College in High School Alliance (2022), The
State of Career Technical Education: Early Postsecondary
Opportunities. Retrieved from: <a href="https://careertech.org/resource/state-of-cte-epso">https://careertech.org/resource/state-of-cte-epso</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Definitions.
Definition--Personalized postsecondary educational and career plan.
Comment: One commenter recommended amending the definition of
``personalized postsecondary educational and career plan'' to specify
that its development must include completing informational interviews,
job shadowing opportunities, and mock interviews because these
activities would be helpful to students in identifying postsecondary
educational and career goals.
Discussion: We agree that informational interviews, job shadowing
opportunities, and mock interviews can be helpful to students in
identifying postsecondary educational and career goals, but we decline
to modify the definition of ``personalized postsecondary educational
and career plan'' to mandate their inclusion, to preserve flexibility
for applicants to design career guidance and academic counseling
programs and work-based learning opportunities that reflect local
circumstances, assets, and resource limitations.
Change: None.
Definitions of Additional Terms.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department add a
definition of ``career-connected high school'' that specifies that such
a school provides all students with each of the four components
described in Priority 1, including participation in a comprehensive
postsecondary education and career navigation system, opportunities to
acquire at least 12 postsecondary credits through dual or concurrent
enrollment programs, participation in work-based learning, and
attainment of an in-demand and high-value industry-recognized
credential. The commenter contended that adding such a definition would
underscore the Department's intention to support projects that provide
all four components to students.
Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in this notice, Priority 1 was
constructed to require applicants to implement one or more of four
components of career-connected learning, to give the Department
flexibility to determine the number of components to include in each
grant competition. We decline to add a definition of career-connected
high school to preserve this flexibility.
Change: None.
Selection Criteria.
Selection Criteria--(a) Significance.
Comment: One commenter recommended that selection criterion (a)(2),
which evaluates the extent to which a project will serve students who
are predominantly from low-income families, be revised to incorporate
provisions of Priority 4. Specifically, the commenter urged the
Department to specify that, consistent with Priority 4, reviewers must
evaluate the extent to which the applicant provides evidence that 51
percent of the students who will be served will be from low-income
families.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that this selection
criterion should be fully aligned with Priority 4, as it is our intent
to establish this selection criterion so that it would be available to
assess the extent to which a project meets Priority 4.
Change: We have modified selection criterion (a)(2) to specify
that, consistent with Priority 4, reviewers must evaluate the extent to
which the applicant provides evidence that at least 51 percent of the
students who will be served will be from low-income families.
Selection Criteria--(b) Quality of Project Design.
Comment: One commenter recommended amending selection criterion
(b)(1), which evaluates the extent to which the proposed project is
likely to be effective in increasing successful participation in dual
or concurrent enrollment programs, to specify that reviewers evaluate
the extent to which the proposed project is likely to be effective in
increasing the acquisition of at least 12 postsecondary credits. The
commenter noted that the NPP stated that the benefits of dual
enrollment can increase with every postsecondary credit earned, at
least up to 10 to 12 credits.
Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in this notice in our response
to a similar comment about Priority 1, we agree that career-connected
high schools should encourage the attainment of 12 postsecondary
credits, but we decline to mandate this be the goal for all students to
preserve the flexibility of applicants to design projects that are
responsive to local needs, circumstances, and resources.
Changes: None.
Selection Criteria--Additional Recommendations.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add two
selection criteria, one that would assess the extent to which the
proposed project will integrate and provide students with each of the
components of career-connected learning described in Priority 1, and a
second that would assess the likelihood that the proposed project will
ensure that postsecondary credits earned by students will be accepted
for transfer and count toward the requirements for earning culminating
postsecondary credentials for programs of study offered to students
through the project at all public institutions of higher education in
the state, as demonstrated through statewide articulation or credit
transfer agreements. The commenter indicated that the former suggested
criterion would incentivize grantees to develop projects that include
all four keys to career-connected learning and assess the extent to
which a project would provide students with a transformative experience
that could only be accomplished by implementing the four keys all
together. The commenter stated that the latter recommended criterion
would be beneficial because it would maximize the utility and
portability of the postsecondary credits earned by students through the
project, enabling them to be used not only at a local IHE, but at any
public IHE in the State.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the suggestions. We decline
to add a selection criterion that assesses the extent to which an
applicant will implement all four keys, because the Department does not
anticipate giving applicants the discretion to choose the number of
keys they will implement by the end of the fifth year of the project,
and the Department also seeks to maintain its discretion to determine
whether to make Priority 1 an absolute or competitive preference
priority.
We agree with the commenter that statewide articulation agreements
or other means of assuring that postsecondary credits earned through
dual or concurrent enrollment programs are portable and will be
accepted by all public IHEs in a State are optimal and in the best
interests of students. As a practical matter, however, we are concerned
that it will be difficult for grantees to secure articulation or credit
transfer agreements with every public IHE in the State during the first
year of the project. This will not be an issue for applicants in those
States that have established effective and comprehensive statewide
articulation agreements, but we do not wish to put applicants in other
States at a competitive disadvantage because State actions are outside
their control. Consequently, we decline to add the second recommended
selection criterion.
[[Page 54893]]
We agree, however, that postsecondary credits that are accepted by
multiple IHEs in a state are more valuable to students than credits
accepted only by one institution. Consequently, we are revising
Application Requirement 4 to make clear that the articulation or credit
transfer agreements that LEAs and IHEs must execute may also include
IHEs that are not participating in the project, if applicable. We make
this change so that the requirement does not inadvertently discourage
projects from entering into agreements with IHEs that are not
participating in the project.
Changes: We modified Application Requirement 4 to indicate that the
articulation and credit transfer agreements may include IHEs that are
not participating in the project, if applicable.
Final Priorities
This notice contains five final priorities. We may apply one or
more of these priorities for a PIM competition in FY 2023 or in
subsequent years.
Final Priorities:
Final Priority 1--Career-Connected High Schools.
To meet this priority, an applicant must submit a detailed 5-year
planning and implementation plan to increase the alignment and
integration of high school and the first 2 years of postsecondary
education in one or more high schools that describes the extent to
which the applicant is currently implementing career-connected
learning, with supporting data if available; and describes how the
applicant will substantially increase the proportion of students who
graduate from high school with one or more of the following four keys
of career connected learning:
(a) Education and career goals documented in a personalized
postsecondary education and career plan (as defined in this notice)
that was updated in each year of high school through a system of career
guidance and academic counseling (as defined in section 3(7) of Perkins
V) and postsecondary education navigation supports that offers college
and career coaching from trained advisors that is culturally responsive
and informed by accurate and current labor market information;
(b) Postsecondary credits earned from dual or concurrent enrollment
programs (as defined in section 3 of Perkins V) that are part of a
program of study (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) that culminates
with an associate, bachelor's, or advanced degree, or completion of a
Registered Apprenticeship Program;
(c) Work experience gained through participation in one or more
work-based learning opportunities (as defined in section 3 of Perkins
V) for which they received wages, academic credit, or both; or
(d) An in-demand and high-value industry-recognized credential (as
defined in this notice).
Final Priority 2--Partnership Applications.
To meet this priority, an application--
(1) Must be submitted by an applicant that includes one or more
partners in each of the following categories except as otherwise
indicated:
(A) An LEA(including a public charter school LEA), an area career
and technical education school, an educational service agency serving
secondary school students, an Indian Tribe, Tribal organization, or
Tribal educational agency, eligible to receive assistance under section
131 of Perkins V;
(B) A community or technical college or other IHE eligible to
receive assistance under section 132 of Perkins V; and
(C) Two or more business or industry representative partners, which
may include representatives of local or regional businesses or
industries;
(2) May include any other relevant community stakeholders, such as
local workforce development boards, labor-management partnerships,
youth-serving organizations, nonprofit organizations, qualified
intermediaries, local teachers unions or school staff unions or other
representatives of teachers and faculty, and afterschool and summer
learning programs; and
(3) Must include a partnership agreement or proposed memorandum of
understanding (MOU) among all members of the application, identified at
the time of the application, that describes the role of each partner in
carrying out the proposed project and the process for a formal MOU to
be established.
Final Priority 3--State and Regional Partnerships.
To meet this priority--
(a) State Partnership--A State partnership application--
(1) must be submitted by an applicant that includes one or more
partners in each of the following categories except as otherwise
indicated:
(A) A State agency, such as an SEA, State higher education agency
or system, State workforce development agency, Governor's office, or a
State economic development agency; and
(B) An LEA (including a public charter school LEA), an area career
and technical education school, an educational service agency, an
Indian Tribe, Tribal organization, or Tribal educational agency
eligible to receive assistance under section 131 of Perkins V;
(C) A community or technical college or another IHE eligible to
receive assistance under section 132 of Perkins V;
(D) Two or more business or industry representative partners, which
may include representatives of local or regional businesses or
industries; and
(2) May include any other relevant State or community stakeholders,
such as local workforce development boards, labor-management
partnerships, statewide youth-serving organizations, such as statewide
afterschool networks, nonprofit organizations, intermediary
organizations, local teachers unions or school staff unions or other
representatives of teachers and faculty, and afterschool and summer
learning programs; and
(3) Must include a description of how the project will be
coordinated among partners and will leverage State resources in the
achievement of program outcomes and the partnership's scope of
activities that will support development or implementation of one or
more of the pillars of career-connected learning, which may include
setting up a governance structure to support implementation, reviewing
or changing State policies, setting goals, using data to inform
decisions, and convening stakeholders; and
(4) Must include a partnership agreement or proposed MOU among all
partner entities, identified at the time of the application, that
describes the role of each member of the partnership in carrying out
the proposed project and the process for a formal MOU to be
established.
(b) Regional Partnership--A regional partnership application--
(1) Must be submitted by a partnership that includes one or more
members from each of the following categories except as otherwise
indicated:
(A) An LEA (including a public charter school that operates as an
LEA), an area career and technical education school, an educational
service agency, an Indian Tribe, Tribal organization, or Tribal
educational agency, eligible to receive assistance under section 131 of
Perkins V;
(B) A community or technical college or another IHE eligible to
receive assistance under section 132 of Perkins V;
(C) Two or more business or industry representative partners, which
may
[[Page 54894]]
include representatives of local or regional businesses or industries;
and
(2) Must propose to serve two or more LEAs in the same State or
region;
(3) May include any other relevant community stakeholders, such as
local workforce development boards, labor-management partnerships,
youth-serving organizations, nonprofit organizations, qualified
intermediaries, local teachers unions or school staff unions or other
representatives of teachers and faculty, and afterschool and summer
learning programs; and
(4) Must include a description of how the project will be
coordinated among partners that share a common economic region or labor
market area, utilize labor market information to support development or
implementation of the four pillars of career-connected learning, and
leverage regional, State, or other resources in the achievement of
program outcomes; and
(5) Must include a partnership agreement or proposed MOU among all
partner entities, identified at the time of the application, that
describes the role of each member of the partnership in carrying out
the proposed project and the process for a formal MOU to be
established.
Final Priority 4--Serving Students from Families with Low Incomes.
To meet this priority, applicants must submit a plan to
predominantly serve students from families with low incomes.
The plan must include--
(a) The specific activities the applicant proposes to ensure that
the project will predominantly serve students from low-income families,
including how the project will recruit and retain students and the
supports it will provide to students to promote retention and
completion;
(b) The timeline for implementing the activities;
(c) The parties responsible for implementing the activities;
(d) The key data sources and measures demonstrating that the
project is designed to predominantly serve students from low-income
families; and
(e) Evidence that at least 51 percent of the students to be served
by the project are from low-income families.
(1) When demonstrating that the project is designed to
predominantly serve secondary students from low-income families, the
applicant must use one or more of the following data sources and
measures:
(A) Children aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most
recent census data approved by the Secretary; \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The U.S. Census Bureau LEA poverty estimates are available
at: <a href="http://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/demo/saipe/2017-school-districts.html">www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/demo/saipe/2017-school-districts.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Students eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
(C) Students whose families receive assistance under the State
program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
(D) Students who are eligible to receive medical assistance under
the Medicaid program;
(E) Residence in a Census tract, a set of contiguous Census tracts,
an American Indian Reservation, Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (as
defined by the U.S. Census Bureau), Alaska Native Village Statistical
Area or Alaska Native Regional Corporation Area, Native Hawaiian
Homeland Area, or other Tribal land as defined by the Secretary of
Labor in guidance, or a county that has a poverty rate of at least 25
percent as set every 5 years using American Community Survey 5-year
data; or
(F) A composite of such indicators.
(2) When demonstrating that the project is designed to
predominantly serve secondary students from low-income families,
applicants may use data from elementary or middle schools that feed
into a secondary school to establish that 51 percent of the students to
be served by the project are students from low-income families.
(3) For projects that will serve postsecondary students, the
applicant must use one or more of the following data sources to
demonstrate that the project is designed to predominantly serve
students from families with low-incomes:
(A) Students who are recipients of Federal Pell Grants, tuition
assistance from the Bureau of Indian Education, or need-based State
student aid;
(B) Students who receive, or whose families receive, assistance
under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
(C) Students who are eligible to receive medical assistance under
the Medicaid program; or
(D) A composite of such indicators.
Final Priority 5--Rural Communities.
To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the
proposed project will serve students residing in rural communities (as
defined in this notice) and identify, by name, the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) LEA identification number, and NCES locale
code, the rural LEA(s) that it proposes to serve in its grant
application. Applicants may retrieve locale codes from the NCES School
District search tool (<a href="http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/">nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/</a>).
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
Final Program Requirements.
This document contains five final program requirements. These final
program requirements are related to the matching requirement in section
114(e)(2) of Perkins V, the programs of study offered to students by
each project, the independent evaluation (as defined in this notice)
required by section 114(e)(8) of Perkins V, a final MOU, and a project
implementation plan and timeline. We may apply these requirements in
any year in which this program is in effect.
1. Matching Contributions.
(a) A grantee must provide from non-Federal sources (e.g., State,
local, or private sources), an amount equal to not less than 50 percent
of funds provided under the grant, which may be provided in cash or
through in-kind contributions, to carry out activities supported by the
grant, except that the Secretary may waive the matching funds
requirement, on a case-by-case basis, upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances, such as (but not limited to)--
(1) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve
a rural area.
[[Page 54895]]
(2) The difficulty of raising matching funds on Tribal land.
(3) The difficulty of raising matching funds in areas with a
concentration of LEAs or schools with a high percentage of students
aged 5 through 17--
(A) who are living in poverty, as counted in the most recent census
data approved by the Secretary;
(B) who are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
(C) whose families receive assistance under the State program
funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
601 et seq.); or
(D) who are eligible to receive medical assistance under the
Medicaid program.
(4) The difficulty of raising matching funds by an institution of
higher education that, during the current or preceding year, has been
granted a waiver by the Department of certain non-Federal cost-sharing
requirements under the Federal Work Study program, the Federal
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants program, or the TRIO
Student Support Services program because it has low education and
general expenditures and serves a large proportion of students
receiving need-based assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education
Act.
(b) Non-Federal funds used by a grantee to support activities
allowable under this program prior to its receipt of the grant may be
used to meet the matching requirements of this program. The prohibition
against supplanting non-Federal funds in section 211(a) of Perkins V
applies to grant funds provided under this program but does not apply
to the matching requirement.
(c) Matching funds provided by a grantee may be met over the full
duration of the grant award period, rather than per year, except that
the grantee must make progress towards meeting the matching requirement
in each year of the grant award period.
2. Programs of Study.
By no later than the end of the first year of the project, courses
in programs of study offered by grantees to students for completion
during high school must be designed to meet the entrance requirements
and expectations for placement in credit-bearing coursework at public,
in-state IHEs. Dual enrollment courses must confer postsecondary
credit. The programs of study offered to students by grantees may
include opportunities to attain an industry-recognized credential or a
postsecondary certificate that participating students may earn during
high school but must culminate with an associate, bachelor's, or
advanced degree, or completion of a Registered Apprenticeship Program,
upon completion of additional postsecondary education after high school
graduation.
3. Independent Evaluation.
(a) The independent evaluation (as defined in this notice)
supported by a grantee must, in accordance with instructions and
definitions provided by the Secretary, report annually the number and
percentage of students who graduated from high schools served by the
proposed project who, prior to or upon graduation--
(1) Earned, through their successful participation in dual or
concurrent enrollment programs in academic or career and technical
education subject areas--
(i) any postsecondary credits; and, separately,
(ii) 12 or more postsecondary credits that are part of a program of
study (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) that culminates with an
associate, bachelor's, or advanced degree, or completion of a
Registered Apprenticeship Program.
(2) Completed 40 or more hours of work-based learning for which
they received wages or academic credit, or both.
(3) Attained an industry-recognized credential that is in-demand in
the local, regional, or State labor market and associated with one or
more jobs with median earnings that exceed the median earnings of a
high school graduate.
(4) Met, in each year of high school, with a school counselor,
college adviser, career coach, or other appropriately trained adult for
education and career counseling during which they reviewed and updated
a personalized postsecondary educational and career plan (as defined by
this notice).
(b) The outcomes described in paragraph (a) must be disaggregated
by--
(1) Subgroups of students, described in section 1111(c)(2)(B) of
the ESEA; and
(2) Special populations, as defined by section 3(48) of Perkins V;
(3) Sex; and
(4) Each CTE program and program of study (as defined by section 3
of Perkins V).
(c) The independent evaluation (as defined by this notice)
supported by grantee must report annually on the extent to which CTE
participants (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) and CTE
concentrators (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) in each CTE
program or program of study reflect the demographics of the school,
including sex, major racial and ethnic groups, and special populations
status.
(d) The independent evaluation (as defined in this notice)
supported by a grantee must also report annually on the average number
of postsecondary credits earned by students through their successful
participation in dual or concurrent enrollment programs in academic or
career and technical education subject areas and any project-specific
indicators identified by the grantee.
4. Final MOU.
Within 120 days of receipt of its grant award, each grantee that
submitted a partnership application must submit a final MOU among all
partner entities that describes the roles and responsibilities of the
partners in carrying out the project and its activities.
5. Project Implementation Plan and Timeline.
Each grantee must have a project plan that includes an
implementation timeline with benchmarks to implement one or more of the
four keys to career-connected learning for students served by the
project, as described in Priority 1, by no later than the end of the
fifth year of the project. Each grantee must submit a report
documenting progress on the implementation plan and the timeline on an
annual basis.
Final Application Requirements:
This document contains four final application requirements, one
relating to matching funds and three related to the course sequences of
the programs of study that will be offered to students by the proposed
project. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this
program is in effect.
1. Demonstration of Matching Funds.
(a) Each applicant must provide from non-Federal sources (e.g.,
State, local, or private sources) an amount equal to not less than 50
percent of funds provided under the grant, which may be provided in
cash or through in-kind contributions, to carry out activities
supported by the grant unless it receives a waiver due to exceptional
circumstances. The applicant must include in its grant application a
budget detailing the source of the matching funds or a request to waive
the entirety or a portion of the matching requirement due to
exceptional circumstances.
(b) An applicant that is unable to meet the matching requirement
must include in its application a request to the Secretary to reduce
the matching requirement, including the amount of the requested
reduction, the total remaining match contribution, an explanation and
evidence of the exceptional circumstances that make it difficult for
the applicant to provide
[[Page 54896]]
matching funds, and an indication as to whether it can carry out its
proposed project if the matching requirement is not waived.
2. Programs of Study.
Each applicant must identify and describe in its application the
course sequences in the programs of study that will be offered by high
schools in the proposed project, including the associate, bachelor's,
advanced degree, or certificate of completion of a Registered
Apprenticeship that students may earn by completing each program of
study, and how students served by the proposed project will have
equitable access to such programs of study.
3. Secondary and Postsecondary Alignment and Integration.
Each applicant must describe how it has aligned and integrated or
will align and integrate the secondary coursework offered to students
in funded projects to meet the entrance requirements and expectations
for placement in credit-bearing coursework at public, in-state IHEs. If
the alignment and integration has not been achieved at the time of
application, this description must include a timeline for completion of
this work by the end of the first year of the project, as well as
information on the persons who will be responsible for these activities
and their roles and qualifications.
4. Articulation and Credit Transfer Agreements.
Each applicant must include in its application an assurance that by
no later than the end of the first year of the project, LEAs, and IHEs
participating in the project will execute articulation or credit
transfer agreements that ensure that postsecondary credits earned by
students in dual or concurrent enrollment programs supported by the
project will be accepted for transfer at each participating IHE, and
other IHEs, if applicable, and count toward the requirements for
earning culminating postsecondary credentials for programs of study
offered to students through the project.
5. Dual or Concurrent Enrollment Goals.
Each applicant must include in its application a description of how
it will substantially increase the proportion of students who graduate
from high school with postsecondary credits earned through
participation in dual or concurrent enrollment programs and how, over
the 60-month project period, it also will seek to increase the average
number of postsecondary credits earned by students to 12 or more
credits.
Final Definitions
The following definitions apply to this program. We may apply these
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
Independent evaluation means an evaluation that is designed and
carried out independent of and external to the grantee but in
coordination with any employees of the grantee who developed a project
component that is currently being implemented as part of the grant
activities.
Industry-recognized credential means a credential that is--
(a) Developed and offered by, or endorsed by, a nationally
recognized industry association or organization representing a sizable
portion of the industry sector, or a product vendor;
(b) Awarded in recognition of an individual's attainment of
measurable technical or occupational skills; and
(c) Sought or accepted by multiple employers within an industry or
sector as a recognized, preferred, or required credential for
recruitment, hiring, retention, or advancement.
Personalized postsecondary educational and career plan means a
plan, developed by the student and, to the greatest extent practicable,
the student's family or guardian, in collaboration with a school
counselor or other individual trained to provide career guidance and
academic counseling (as defined in section 3(7) of Perkins V), that is
used to help establish personalized academic and career goals, explore
postsecondary and career opportunities, identify programs of study and
work-based learning that advance the student's personalized
postsecondary education and career goals, including any comprehensive
wraparound support services the student may need to participate in
programs of study and work-based learning, and establish appropriate
milestones and timelines for tasks important to preparing for success
after high school, including applying for postsecondary education and
student financial aid, preparing a resume, and completing applications
for employment.
Rural community means an area served by an LEA with an urban-
centric district locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by
the Secretary and defined by the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) Locale framework.
Final Selection Criteria
(a) Significance.
In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Department considers one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses a regional
or local labor market need identified through a comprehensive local
needs assessment carried out under section 134(c) of Perkins V or labor
market information produced by the State or other entity that
demonstrates the proposed project will address State, regional, or
local labor market needs.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it
will serve students who are predominantly from low-income families,
including evidence that at least 51 percent of the students served will
be from low-income families.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project addresses significant
barriers to enrollment and completion in dual or concurrent enrollment
programs and will expand access to these programs for students served
by the project.
(b) Quality of the project design.
In determining the quality of the project design, the Department
considers one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to be
effective in increasing the attainment of postsecondary credits earned
through participation in dual or concurrent enrollment programs (as
defined by section 3 of Perkins V) by students who are not currently
participating in such programs and the likely magnitude of the
increase.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project will increase the
successful participation in work-based learning opportunities (as
defined by section 3 of Perkins V) for which they received wages or
academic credit, or both, prior to graduation by students who are not
currently participating in such opportunities, and the likely magnitude
of the increase.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to be
effective in increasing successful participation in opportunities to
attain an in-demand and high-value industry-recognized credential (as
defined in this notice) that is sought or accepted by multiple
employers within an industry or sector as a recognized, preferred, or
required credential for recruitment, hiring, retention, or advancement
by students who are not currently participating in such opportunities,
and the likely magnitude of the increase.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project will implement
strategies that are likely to be effective in eliminating or mitigating
barriers to the successful participation by all students in dual or
[[Page 54897]]
concurrent programs (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V), work-based
learning opportunities (as defined by section 3 of Perkins V), and
opportunities to attain in-demand and high-value industry-recognized
credentials (as defined in this notice), including such barriers as the
out-of-pocket costs of tuition, books, and examination fees;
transportation; and eligibility requirements that do not include
multiple measures of assessing academic readiness.
(5) The extent to which the proposed project will provide all
students effective and ongoing career guidance and academic counseling
(as defined by section 3 of Perkins V) in each year of high school
that--
(A) Will likely result, by no later than the end of the second year
of the project, in a personalized postsecondary education and career
plan (as defined in this notice) for each student that is updated at
least once annually with the assistance of a school counselor, career
coach, mentor, or other adult trained to provide career guidance and
counseling to high school students; and
(B) Includes the provision of current labor market information
about careers in high-demand fields that pay living wages; advice and
assistance in identifying, preparing for, and applying for
postsecondary educational opportunities; information on Federal student
financial aid programs; and assistance in applying for Federal student
financial aid.
(6) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to prepare
all students served by the project to enroll in postsecondary education
following high school without need for remediation.
(c) Quality of the management plan.
In determining the quality of the management plan, the Department
considers one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the project goals are clear, complete, and
coherent, and the extent to which the project activities constitute a
complete plan aligned to those goals, including the identification of
potential risks to project success and strategies to mitigate those
risks;
(2) The extent to which the management plan articulates key
responsibilities for each party involved in the project and also
articulates well-defined objectives, including the timelines and
milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics that
will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual
performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the
project is achieving its goals;
(3) The adequacy of the project's staffing plan, particularly for
the first year of the project, including:
(A) The identification of the project director and, in the case of
projects with unfilled key personnel positions at the beginning of the
project, a description of how critical work will proceed; and
(B) The extent to which the project director has experience
managing projects similar in scope to that of the proposed project.
(4) The extent of the demonstrated commitment of any partners whose
participation is critical to the project's long-term success, including
the extent of any evidence of support or specific resources from
employers and other stakeholders.
(5) The extent to which employers in the labor market served by the
proposed project will be involved in making decisions with respect to
the project's implementation and in carrying out its activities.
(d) Support for rural communities.
In determining the extent of the project's support for rural
communities, the Department considers one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the applicant presents a clear, well-
documented plan for primarily serving students from rural communities.
(2) The extent to which the applicant proposes a project that will
improve the education and employment outcomes of students in rural
communities.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements,
definitions, or selection criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, as modified by Executive Order 14094,
the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is
``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order and subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as modified,
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in
gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or
Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues for which centralized review
would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles
stated in the Executive Order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, as modified.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866, as modified. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
[[Page 54898]]
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their
benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize
net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department
believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments
in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Summary of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that these
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
will not impose significant costs on applicants applying for assistance
under section 114 of Perkins V. We also believe that the benefits of
implementing the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria justify any associated costs.
The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria will help to ensure that grants
provided under section 114(e) of Perkins V are awarded only for
allowable, reasonable, and necessary costs; and eligible applicants
consider carefully in preparing their applications how the grants may
be used to improve student success in secondary education,
postsecondary education, and careers. The final priorities, program
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are necessary to
ensure that taxpayer funds are expended appropriately.
The Department further believes that the costs imposed on an
applicant by the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria will be largely limited to the paperwork burden
related to meeting the application requirements and that the benefits
of preparing an application and receiving an award would justify any
costs incurred by the applicant. The costs of these final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will not be a
significant burden for any eligible applicant.
Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in this notice are needed to
administer the PIM grant program effectively. The priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will enable the
Department to administer a competitive grant program consistent with
the intent of Congress as expressed in House Report 117-403
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. (Pub. L. 117-
328), which provided funding for the program in fiscal year 2023.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/">https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/</a>), in the
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal
Government to LEAs and IHEs.
Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers......... $24.25.
From Whom To Whom?..................... from the Federal Government to
LEAs and IHEs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this regulatory action does not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) Size Standards define ``small entities'' as for-
profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts),
with a population of less than 50,000. The small entities that this
regulatory action affects are school districts and IHEs. We believe
that the costs imposed on an applicant by the final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the
benefits of the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
Participation in the PIM grant program is voluntary. For this
reason, the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria will not impose a burden on small entities unless they apply
for funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to
apply for program funds, an eligible entity will evaluate the
requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and
weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a
program grant. An eligible entity will probably apply only if it
determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an
application.
We believe that the final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria will not impose any additional burden on a small
entity applying for a grant than the entity would face in the absence
of the action. That is, the length of the applications those entities
would submit in the absence of the regulatory action and the time
needed to prepare an application would likely be the same.
This regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact
on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be able to
meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this
program.
[[Page 54899]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond
to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control
number. We display the valid OMB control number assigned to the
collection of information in this notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria at the end of the
affected sections of the requirements.
The final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved
by OMB. The final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria do not affect the currently approved data collection. For the
years that the Department holds a PIM grant competition, we estimate
150 entities will submit an application for Federal assistance using
the required Department standard application forms. We estimate that it
will take each applicant 40 hours to complete and submit the
application, including time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. The total
burden hour estimate for this collection is 6,000 hours.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: On request to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities can obtain
this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the
requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format
(RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Luke Rhine,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the Duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 2023-17227 Filed 8-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 14, 2023.
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.