Rule2024-05202
Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions-National Professional Development 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
March 12, 2024
Effective
April 11, 2024
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) establishes these final priorities, requirements, and definitions for use in the National Professional Development (NPD) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.365Z. The Department may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We intend for these priorities, requirements, and definitions to increase the number of bilingual and multilingual teachers supporting English learners (ELs).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17753-17759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05202]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2023-OELA-0132]
Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions--National
Professional Development Program
AGENCY: Office of English Language Acquisition, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) establishes these
final priorities, requirements, and definitions for use in the National
Professional Development (NPD) program, Assistance Listing Number
84.365Z. The Department may use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024
and later years. We intend for these priorities, requirements, and
definitions to increase the number of bilingual and multilingual
teachers supporting English learners (ELs).
DATES: These priorities, requirements, and definitions are effective
April 11, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco Javier L[oacute]pez, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 558-4880. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c7a4e5d525f554f5f5312765d4a55594e1270534c59467c5958125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="733501121d101a00101c5d3912051a16015d3f1c0316093316175d141c05">[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 NPD program, authorized by sections
3111(c)(1)(C) and 3131 of the ESEA, provides grants to IHEs or public
or private entities with relevant experience and capacity, in consortia
with State educational agencies (SEAs) or local educational agencies
(LEAs), to implement pre-service and in-service professional
development activities intended to improve instruction for ELs and
assist education personnel working with ELs to meet high professional
standards.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6861.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and
definitions (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on September
15, 2023 (88 FR 63543). The NPP contained background information and
our reasons for proposing the priorities, requirements, and
definitions. As discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
section of this document, we revised the definition of ``pre-service''
to ensure that GYO programs are part of, and aligned with, State-
approved, State-registered pre-service programs. In addition, we added
a priority (Final Priority 2) to specifically address the recruitment,
preparation, and retention needs of emergent bilingual or multilingual
teacher candidates (i.e., not yet bilingual or multilingual, or not yet
fully licensed or certified as a teacher, or both) and adjusted the
numbering of the priorities accordingly. Next, we revised Priority 4
(formerly Proposed Priority 3) to include school leaders and
individuals who are pursuing an additional credential to work in a
multilingual setting. Additionally, we consolidated the strategies in
Final Priority 1 along with clarifying that the term ``evidence-based''
in Final Priorities 1, 2, and 4 is as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c).
Finally, we simplified the definition of ``low-income'' for clarity and
opted for the term ``student from a low-income background'' instead of
``low-income student'' as well as clarified the definition of
``bilingual or multilingual.''
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 35
parties submitted comments addressing the proposed priorities,
requirements, and definitions. We group major issues according to
subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes
or suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under
the applicable statutory authority.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since
publication of the NPP follows.
General Comments
Comment: Eighteen commenters expressed support for the Department's
efforts to meet the needs of our Nation's multilingual students by
addressing the teacher shortage. Many of these commenters applauded the
Department's emphasis on GYO strategies. Several commenters noted the
timeliness of the proposed priorities and the Secretary's Raise the Bar
initiative. More specifically, a couple of commenters emphasized the
need for such pre-service programs while others emphasized the
importance of the in-service training articulated in Final Priority 4.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the NPD program and for
the specific emphasis on increasing the numbers of bilingual and
multilingual teachers, specifically through GYO strategies, improving
instruction for ELs, and promoting pathways to multilingualism for all
students.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters offered broad strategies for the
Department and the field to consider, noting the importance of
incentives to encourage participation. One of these commenters
expressed the importance of incentivizing participation specifically in
GYO programs. In addition, this commenter detailed numerous strategies
to address the shortage of multilingual teachers. Two of the three
commenters recommended that the Department provide targeted incentives
for current
[[Page 17754]]
teachers to pursue and obtain bilingual certifications.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the suggestions for
increasing the number of bilingual or multilingual teachers and
recognizes the importance of incentives to encourage participation in
teacher professional development programs. The NPD program allows for
projects that incentivize participation through preparation stipends
and tuition payments.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter agreed that, to provide an equitable
education to students, it is critical to increase the number of
teachers with bilingual or ESL certification. Two commenters
highlighted the importance of ensuring equitable access to bilingual
opportunities for emergent bilingual students and children with
disabilities. One of these commenters offered several suggestions,
including incentivizing schools to create policies to honor emergent
bilingual students' multilingualism with the seal of biliteracy and
incentivizing teachers to pursue dual certification in bilingual
education and special education to improve bilingual services for
emergent bilingual students with disabilities.
Discussion: We appreciate these comments and have designed these
priorities with the goal of expanding pathways to multilingualism for
all students, including English learner students and students with
disabilities. While this regulatory action does not focus specifically
on special education, applications that incorporate opportunities for
certification in bilingual education for special education candidates
are allowable and encouraged in the NPD program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter highlighted the distinction between the
terms ``bilingual educator'' and ``English language learner teacher''
with regards to the way instruction is delivered.
Discussion: We appreciate this comment and recognize that the
language used to describe educators and students in the field of
multilingual and English learner education varies.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted the challenge to effective
multilingual education due to teachers having large caseloads of
students and recommended imposing a cap on teachers' caseloads.
Discussion: While we acknowledge the commenter's suggestion that
there should be a Federal cap on caseloads, which we interpret to mean
class size, we are unable to establish Federal requirements that are
beyond the scope of the statutory authority for Department programs and
therefore have not added the requested cap to this rule.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended increasing teacher salaries and
establishing regulations on the number of hours teachers work beyond
the educational day. In addition, this commenter suggested that schools
provide more supplies and other resources.
Discussion: We recognize the importance of teacher salaries and
workloads and encourage states to ensure that all teachers are paid a
livable and competitive wage. However, we are unable to establish
Federal requirements beyond the scope of the statutory authority for
Department programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed recommendations for improving the
number and quality of qualified bilingual and multilingual programs/
classes in their State.
Discussion: We appreciate this comment. However, the systems and
structures at the State and district levels that were recommended are
beyond the scope of the statutory authority of this Federal program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter detailed their organization's efforts and
support for GYO programs designed to increase the number of
multilingual teachers via various pathways.
Discussion: We appreciate the work of the commenter to address the
shortage of multilingual teachers.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters urged funding for in-service English as a
Second Language (ESL) teachers as well as the school districts who
employ them to promote bilingualism, particularly advocating for
increased language opportunities for teachers who only speak English.
The commenters also shared that support should be directed towards
enhancing literacy instruction.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenters for these
suggestions and recognizes the importance of in-service training. There
is already an established NPD priority for projects that provide in-
service professional development to improve instruction for ELs. This
is inclusive of all educators who work with ELs. We agree with the
importance of literacy instruction but do not think it is necessary to
prescribe specific content areas within the priorities. We believe that
applicants should propose the content areas they believe will best
prepare education personnel who are serving ELs, such as literacy
instruction.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested requirements for entities offering
accredited pre-service training programs, including that the programs
be specialized according to content area and be composed of at least 18
hours of training to prepare teachers to support linguistically diverse
students. In addition, this commenter stated that SEAs and LEAs need
models and guidance for supporting newcomer students and migratory
youth, and the commenter highlighted benefits of universal bilingual
kindergarten.
Discussion: We recognize the importance of teacher preparation and
programs that provide teachers with the skills needed to support
classrooms that include students who speak multiple languages and
students with varying levels of language proficiency in these
languages. We appreciate the commenter's suggestions for supporting
newcomer students and migratory youth and the support for early
childhood education. Rather than prescribing specific types of
instruction for pre-service training programs, we encourage applicants
to propose programs that are evidence-based and that will best prepare
education personnel who are serving ELs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Five commenters explained the importance of supporting
educational programs in rural communities where there are a growing
number of multilingual and English learner students. Three of these
commenters suggested that the NPD program incorporate a priority for
bilingual and multilingual educators in rural school districts. One of
these commenters expressed concern that peer reviewers from past
competitions were not aware of the needs of rural communities.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendation to support
rural communities and recognize the growing number of multilingual and
EL students attending schools in rural communities. Eligible rural-
serving entities are encouraged to apply for NPD program grants. The
Department offers a variety of supports for all applicants, including
those who have not received an NPD program grant in prior years. For
example, the Department offers a pre-application webinar and responds
to questions as part of every NPD competition. The Department also
provides more general resources that are available to entities applying
for any grant program. Please see https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/
[[Page 17755]]
about/discretionary/index.html. We did not create a new priority or
expand an existing priority to focus on rural communities in the final
priorities because there is an administrative priority for rural
applicants (85 FR 13640) \1\ that remains in effect and is available
for use by the NPD program. Finally, the Department's procedures for
awarding discretionary grants include a variety of safeguards and
technical assistance to ensure fair grant competitions. For example,
for almost all the Department's grant competitions, program staff
recruit application reviewers from outside the Federal Government. Peer
reviewers for the NPD program are recruited and selected based on their
qualifications and experience in serving EL students. And, while
Department staff screen applications to ensure that they meet all
program requirements, the non-Federal reviewers read and independently
score the applications assigned to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/85-FR-13640">https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/85-FR-13640</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters noted the importance of training
multilingual teachers for children aged five and under. One of these
commenters asked that we expand Priority 1 to specifically include
early childhood educators. The second commenter advocated for making
Proposed Priorities 1 and 3 (Final Priorities 1 and 4) absolute
priorities and weighting Proposed Priority 2 (Final Priority 3) heavily
as a competitive preference priority.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support of these
commenters and shares the belief in the importance of expanding the
number of bilingual and multilingual educators supporting early
learning. We encourage applications that incorporate training for
bilingual and multilingual teachers on how best to support children
aged five and under. In general, we believe this type of training is
allowable under Final Priorities 1, 2, and 4. Therefore, we do not
believe it is necessary to modify the priorities or requirements. We
think it is important to allow flexibility for applicants to propose
projects they believe will best prepare teacher candidates for serving
ELs and based on the need at the time.
Details about future competitions, including absolute and
competitive preference priorities, will be published in the Federal
Register in future notices inviting applications.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter, writing on behalf of their association,
explained the importance of supporting students and educators from
Latino backgrounds. This commenter specifically advocated for Proposed
Priority 3 (Final Priority 4), stating that it would help eliminate the
educator shortage, increase services for students who are ELs, and
expand pathways to multilingualism for all students.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendations to ensure
that the priorities and strategies for the NPD program address the
unique considerations of specific linguistic and cultural communities,
and we acknowledge the commenter's support for Proposed Priority 3
(Final Priority 4). Because the NPD program is statutorily authorized
to serve all ELs, and we intend for the final priorities, requirements,
and definitions to expand capacity to support culturally and
linguistically diverse students and educators, we have not changed the
priorities to focus explicitly on specific communities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters highlighted that consideration should be
made for varying language proficiency within certain contexts,
particularly within specific languages and populations, such as
indigenous and refugee communities. One of the commenters advised that
there may be certain languages where there may not be a large
population of advanced speakers, and some advanced speakers may not
have advanced proficiency in all domains of the language. A second
commenter advocated for targeted programming and support for Native
American languages as defined in section 104 of the Native American
Language Act of 1990 (NALA 1990) and in ESEA sections 3127 and 3124(3).
Both commenters made specific recommendations for the explicit
inclusion of Native American languages within the priorities and an
adjustment of the definition of ``bilingual or multilingual'' to allow
for various levels of proficiency for Native American languages.
Finally, the second commenter also recommended allowing projects to
support teacher candidates' language development in Native American
languages given that many Native American languages have declining
numbers of individuals who are highly proficient.
Discussion: We recognize the importance of strengthening and
revitalizing Native American languages through the recruitment,
retention, and empowerment of Native American educators, and encourage
projects designed to foster a high level of proficiency in Native
American languages. The Department is actively supporting Native
American language revitalization through this and other programs.
The NPD program is designed to support professional development for
educators working with ELs who speak all languages, including Native
American languages as defined by NALA 1990 and amended by the Durbin
Feeling Languages Act. For this reason, we do not believe it is
appropriate to reference specific languages.
We do not believe it is appropriate to revise the definition of
``bilingual or multilingual'' to allow for various levels of
proficiency for Native American languages, as we hope to maintain a
focus on high levels of proficiency across all languages. At the same
time, we appreciate the importance of supporting educators and teacher
candidates in reaching proficiency. To meet this need, we added a new
priority (Final Priority 2) that allows for pre-service programs that
support teacher candidates who are acquiring an additional language but
may not yet be highly proficient in the four domains of listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. We also revised the definition of
``bilingual or multilingual'' to include languages with fewer than four
domains (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), by clarifying that
``bilingual or multilingual'' applies to those with a high level of
proficiency in the domains that exist for the language. It is expected
that applicants will identify appropriate indicators for measuring
proficiency in these languages and equip educators to teach in these
languages, and that teacher candidates will finish the pre-service
program highly proficient in two or more languages and with a teaching
credential.
Additionally, in support of strengthening and revitalizing Native
American languages through Native American educators, the Department
recently announced \2\ new awards totaling more than $11 million for
the new Native American Language Resource Centers (NALRC) program, the
first-ever Native American Teacher Retention Initiative (NATRI)
program, and the State Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) program.
Through these awards, the Department seeks to strengthen the vitality
of Native American languages in schools, support Native American
teachers, and ensure Tribal Educational Agencies can
[[Page 17756]]
coordinate grant resources alongside State and local partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ <a href="http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-awards-more-11-million-preserve-native-languages-increase-native-teacher-retention-and-support-tribal-educational-agencies">www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-awards-more-11-million-preserve-native-languages-increase-native-teacher-retention-and-support-tribal-educational-agencies</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: The Department added new Final Priority 2 and revised the
definition of ``bilingual or multilingual'' to include all languages,
including those with fewer than four domains.
Priorities
Comment: One commenter suggested that current multilingual
educators be offered pathways to other content area certifications. A
second commenter recommended opening multilingual teacher training to
educators of all content areas, not solely to EL educators.
Discussion: We appreciate the work of bilingual and multilingual
teachers and recognize the importance of professional development
opportunities to support them in other content areas. The NPD program
provides professional development to improve instruction for ELs. This
is inclusive of all educators who work with ELs across content areas.
Furthermore, in response to the comment about the availability of
training for all teachers of ELs, not just EL educators, we revised
Final Priority 4 (formerly Proposed Priority 3) to clarify that current
educators of ELs, including content area educators, are eligible for
additional development to work in multilingual contexts serving EL
students.
Changes: We have revised Final Priority 4 (formerly Proposed
Priority 3) to clarify that current educators of ELs, including content
area educators, are eligible for additional development to work in
multilingual contexts serving EL students.
Comment: Six commenters suggested that the Department support
pathways for in-service school leaders to further their knowledge of
multilingual learner education. This focus would help to ensure that
multilingual teachers have support and guidance from school
administration.
Discussion: We agree that school leadership is important in the
provision of multilingual education. We added language to Final
Priority 4 to clarify that applicants may propose projects to create
pathways for school leaders to further their knowledge of multilingual
learner education.
Changes: We have added ``school leaders'' to the list of examples
of education personnel who may receive in-service professional
development under Final Priority 4.
Comment: One commenter recommended that multilingual teacher
education programs be encouraged to think strategically about how
teachers are prepared to teach content in other languages. Another
commenter stated that educators must know English language basics to
teach English as a second language in a bilingual classroom. The
commenter suggested that professional development should be focused on
English language phonics and phonemic awareness for all educators.
Finally, a third commenter requested that the Department provide
guidance on the types of professional development addressed under these
final priorities. The commenter wanted to ensure that the NPD program
supports comprehensive training for teachers.
Discussion: We recognize the importance of fully equipping
bilingual and multilingual teachers with the knowledge and skills to
teach across content areas and languages. The NPD program allows
applicants to prepare their pre-service and in-service programs in
response to the unique needs of their respective settings, which could
include a comprehensive approach or a more targeted focus, such as on a
specific content area or on teaching English as a second language in a
bilingual classroom.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter questioned whether there are enough
personnel to guide and oversee newly trained teachers in bilingual
education and ensure high-quality teaching.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern. While this
comment referred to oversight on a nationwide scale and cannot be
addressed solely through this program, applicants that propose a grant
under this program are encouraged to incorporate teacher supervision
into their grant proposal to ensure that teachers, in both pre-service
and in-service programs, are meeting the expectations of the
preparation program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters commended the efforts to increase
opportunities for bilingual education for multilingual learners,
stating that increased pre-service opportunities are important and
needed. One commenter expressed that there might be confusion created
by using the term ``pre-service'' given that, as proposed, this term
includes paraprofessionals and those with other teaching credentials
who are not currently multilingual teachers. This commenter wanted to
ensure that pathways are expanded to diversify the teacher pipeline
rather than limited by traditional notions of ``pre-service.'' In
addition, two commenters suggested that education and training
opportunities be made available to bilingual and multilingual
educational assistants working in schools who do not have a college
degree or education credentials, and to multilingual, English learner,
and emergent bilingual teachers who would like to become credentialed
as bilingual educators.
Discussion: While we acknowledge the commenters' concerns, the
definition of ``pre-service'' is intended to capture the broad array of
pathways to becoming a certified bilingual or multilingual teacher.
These pathways can include pre-service programs in which bilingual or
multilingual paraprofessionals, who work in schools and are interested
in obtaining their teaching credential to support ELs directly, are
enrolled. We envision other bilingual and multilingual individuals who
are already teachers to be eligible for projects proposed under Final
Priority 1 to the extent that they want to move into teaching in
bilingual or multilingual education settings. Additionally, we revised
Final Priority 4 (formerly Proposed Priority 3) to include individuals
who have a teaching credential but have not been teaching in bilingual
or multilingual education settings and are pursuing an additional
credential to do so.
Changes: We revised Final Priority 4 to include individuals who may
have a teaching credential but have not been teaching in bilingual or
multilingual education settings and are pursuing an additional
credential to do so.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for both Proposed Priority
1 and Proposed Priority 3 (Final Priority 4) as both will help address
the teacher shortage for ELs and multilingual learners.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's support of
ELs and their teachers and looks forward to working collectively to
address the nationwide teacher shortage of multilingual educators.
Changes: None.
Comment: Eight commenters addressed Proposed Priority 2 (Final
Priority 3). Two of these commenters supported the priority because it
would create more equitable pathways for aspiring teachers from low-
income populations. One of the commenters asked for clarity on how
applicants could meet the conditions within Final Priority 3. Another
one of these commenters suggested that the Department expand the
definition of ``low-income'' to factor in other socioeconomic
considerations beyond Pell Grant eligibility. Another of the commenters
encouraged the Department to use available data to target programs that
serve socioeconomically diverse students. Four of the commenters raised
[[Page 17757]]
concerns that Proposed Priority 2 would exclude individuals who are not
low-income as defined or do not have the support to apply for Pell
grants. Two of the commenters addressed the importance of serving
first-generation college applicants as part of Proposed Priority 2.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions. We believe
Final Priority 3 will, by design, target programs that are serving
socioeconomically diverse students, while allowing for inclusion of
students who do not meet the definition of ``low-income.'' Under Final
Priority 3 (formerly Proposed Priority 2), 30, 40, or 50 percent of the
candidates in a pre-service program must meet the definition of ``low-
income.'' This priority imposes a minimum, but outside of this minimum,
a project could meet this priority by serving a group of potential
candidates that is comprised of 50 to 70 percent of individuals who do
not meet the definition of ``low-income.'' Given that the priority
would allow for a large percentage of candidates who are not from low-
income backgrounds and the importance of building a diverse and
representative teacher workforce, we do not believe it is necessary to
make changes to the priority.
Finally, we believe that Pell eligibility is a reasonable indicator
of low-income status, due to its use as such in other contexts, its
validity and reliability, and its availability to institutions. We note
that Pell eligibility requirements factor in family size, which is an
important consideration in qualifying as low-income. Furthermore, the
definition does not require that students have applied for or received
Pell Grants, but rather that they would be eligible for, or meet the
financial threshold for, a Pell Grant. Accordingly, the definition
would not exclude students who lack the support to complete a FAFSA,
which is used to determine Pell eligibility. Further, outreach may be
conducted as part of an NPD project to help students complete the
FAFSA. The purpose of this priority is, in part, to encourage
applicants to use funding to work with and recruit students from low-
income backgrounds, including those who live in rural areas or who are
first-generation candidates, as they transition to and enroll in
postsecondary education.
To simplify the definition of ``low-income student,'' we are
removing the reference to section 484(a)(5) of the Higher Education
Act. This revision does not substantively change the defined term.
Changes: In the definition of ``low-income,'' we have removed the
reference to section 484(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act.
Definitions
Comment: Four commenters suggested that the Department explicitly
include alternative teacher training pathways in its definition of
``pre-service'' programs rather than only including traditional IHE
teacher preparation programs. One of the four commenters recommended
that we revise the definition of ``pre-service'' to include individuals
who are participating in State-approved programs offered by non-
traditional educational providers. Another of the four commenters
explained that alternative pathways programs train new teachers more
practically, and such pathways may better serve candidates who come
from low-income backgrounds, consistent with the focus of Proposed
Priority 2 (Final Priority 3).
Discussion: The Department recognizes the value of comprehensive,
high-quality alternative pathways programs for preparing new teachers
and the importance of responding to the needs of socioeconomically
diverse bilingual and multilingual teacher candidates through these
programs which can provide more flexibility. We revised the definition
of ``pre-service'' to clarify that teacher candidates are not limited
to programs solely provided by IHEs; rather they include State-
accredited pre-service programs that lead to State-approved full
certification or licensure.
Changes: We revised the definition of ``pre-service'' such that it
is not limited to teacher education programs only through IHEs.
Final Priorities
The Department establishes the following four priorities for this
program. We may use one or more of these priorities in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Final Priority 1--Increase the Number of Bilingual or Multilingual
Teachers Through a Grow-Your-Own (GYO) Pre-Service Program that
Recruits Teacher Candidates who are Bilingual or Multilingual.
Projects that propose to increase the number of fully licensed or
certified bilingual or multilingual teachers working in language
instruction educational programs or serving ELs, and improve their
qualifications and skills, through evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR
77.1(c)) pre-service programs. Applicants must describe their plan for
recruiting, supporting, and retaining teacher candidates who are
bilingual or multilingual. Applicants must include in their proposed
plan for a pre-service program, one or more of the following GYO
strategies that are designed to address shortages of bilingual or
multilingual teachers and increase the diversity of qualified
individuals entering the educator workforce:
(a) Implementing evidence-based GYO strategies for bilingual or
multilingual individuals (e.g., creating dual enrollment, early
college, and Career and Technical Education programs in teaching for
middle and high school students paired with offering seals of
biliteracy or supporting bilingual or multilingual paraprofessionals
actively working in P-12 schools in becoming teachers).
(b) Recruiting bilingual or multilingual individuals who may have a
teaching credential, but who are not certified to teach bilingual or
multilingual education, and supporting them in earning the additional
certification.
(c) Implementing evidence-based teacher residencies in bilingual or
multilingual education, including scaling these evidence-based pathways
through a registered teacher apprenticeship program.
Final Priority 2--Increase the Number of Bilingual or Multilingual
Teachers Through a Grow-Your-Own (GYO) Pre-Service Program that
Recruits Teacher Candidates who are Emergent Bilinguals or
Multilinguals.
Projects that propose to increase the number of fully licensed or
certified bilingual or multilingual teachers working in language
instruction educational programs or serving ELs, and improve their
qualifications and skills, through evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR
77.1(c)) pre-service programs that recruit teacher candidates who are
emergent bilinguals or multilinguals. Applicants must describe their
plan for recruiting, supporting, and retaining teacher candidates who
are not yet, but are aspiring to be, teachers who are bilingual or
multilingual, and their plan for ensuring that teacher candidates
complete the pre-service program as fully licensed or certified
teachers who are also bilingual or multilingual. Applicants must
include in their proposed plan for a pre-service program, one or more
of the following GYO strategies that are designed to address shortages
of bilingual or multilingual teachers and increase the diversity of
qualified individuals entering the educator workforce:
(a) Implementing evidence-based GYO strategies for bilingual or
[[Page 17758]]
multilingual individuals (e.g., creating dual enrollment, early
college, and Career and Technical Education programs in teaching for
middle and high school students paired with offering seals of
biliteracy or supporting paraprofessionals actively working in P-12
schools in becoming bilingual or multilingual teachers).
(b) Recruiting individuals who may have a teaching credential, but
who are not certified to teach bilingual or multilingual education, and
supporting them in earning the additional certification.
(c) Implementing evidence-based teacher residencies in bilingual or
multilingual education, including scaling these evidence-based pathways
through a registered teacher apprenticeship program.
Final Priority 3--Service to Students from Low-income Backgrounds.
Projects that propose to recruit, prepare, and retain in the pre-
service program classes of participants for which one or more of the
following conditions are met:
(a) At least 30 percent of the participants are from low-income
backgrounds.
(b) At least 40 percent of the participants are low-income
students.
(c) At least 50 percent of the participants are low-income
students.
Final Priority 4--Improve In-Service Professional Development
Programs Targeting Bilingual or Multilingual Educational Personnel Who
Serve English Learners.
Projects that propose evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c))
in-service professional development programs designed to expand the
number, and improve the qualifications and skills, of educational
personnel working in language instruction educational programs or
serving ELs, including--
<bullet> Bilingual or multilingual educational paraprofessionals
and personnel who are not certified or licensed as teachers;
<bullet> Bilingual or multilingual individuals who have a teaching
credential but have not been teaching in bilingual or multilingual
education settings and are pursuing an additional credential to do so;
<bullet> School leaders who are furthering their knowledge and
skills to support bilingual or multilingual educators working in
language instruction educational programs or serving Els; and
<bullet> Other bilingual or multilingual individuals who can
benefit from in-service professional development with the goal of
increasing the number and skills of individuals working in language
instruction educational programs or serving ELs.
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
The Department establishes the following requirements for this
program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Final Application Requirements: An applicant must provide the
indicators it proposes to use to determine if a participant meets the
definition of ``bilingual or multilingual.'' Applicants may provide
this information in response to the selection criteria, or otherwise as
applicable, in their applications.
Final Definitions
The Department establishes the following definitions for this
program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Bilingual or multilingual means able to listen, speak, read, and
write in two or more languages with at least a high level of
proficiency in each language, as determined based on indicators of
proficiency established by the grantee. Note, bilingual or multilingual
means a high level of proficiency in the domains that exist for the
language, which may be fewer than four domains for some languages.
Student from a low-income background means a student--
(a) Who is eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant for the award
year for which the determination is made; or
(b) Who meets the financial threshold to receive a Federal Pell
Grant for the year for which the determination is made.
Pre-service means the period of preparation for a person who does
not have a teaching certificate or license and who is enrolled in a
State-approved teacher education program that leads to a State-approved
full certificate or license.
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements,
or definitions, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 three 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 legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to
[[Page 17759]]
review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended
by Executive Order 14094.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. 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
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, and
definitions 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 does not unduly
interfere with State, local, 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.
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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these final priorities, requirements,
and definitions would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this final regulatory action would affect
are IHEs, or public or private entities with relevant experience and
capacity, in consortia with LEAs or SEAs applying for and receiving
funds under this program. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed
on applicants by the final priorities, requirements, and definitions
would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an
application and that the benefits would outweigh any costs incurred by
applicants.
Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the
final priorities, requirements, and definitions would impose no burden
on small entities in general. Eligible applicants would determine
whether to apply for funds and can weigh the requirements for preparing
applications, and any associated costs, against the likelihood of
receiving funding and the requirements for implementing projects under
the program. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they
determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an
application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a
grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through
its development of an application, such as the use of that application
to seek funding from other sources to address a shortage in bilingual
or multilingual teachers working in a language instruction education
program or serving ELs.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These final priorities, requirements, and definitions do not
contain any information collection requirements.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible
format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Montserrat Garibay,
Assistant Deputy Secretary and Director for the Office of English
Language Acquisition.
[FR Doc. 2024-05202 Filed 3-8-24; 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 March 12, 2024.
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.