Rule2024-09877
Comprehensive Centers 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
May 13, 2024
Effective
June 12, 2024
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Comprehensive Centers Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.283B. The Department may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and in later years. The Department establishes these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to help ensure that Comprehensive Centers provide high-quality capacity- building services to State, regional, Tribal and local educational agencies and schools that improve educational opportunities and outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction for all students.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 93 (Monday, May 13, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41498-41520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09877]
[[Page 41497]]
Vol. 89
Monday,
No. 93
May 13, 2024
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Chapter II
Comprehensive Centers Program; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 2024 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 41498]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2023-OESE-0209]
Comprehensive Centers Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary 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 under the
Comprehensive Centers Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.283B. The
Department may use one or more of these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year
(FY) 2024 and in later years. The Department establishes these
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to help
ensure that Comprehensive Centers provide high-quality capacity-
building services to State, regional, Tribal and local educational
agencies and schools that improve educational opportunities and
outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of
instruction for all students.
DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are effective June 12, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michelle Daley. Telephone: (202)
987-1057. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1aea4b2a4cfa28e8c91938489848f92889784a2848f95849392a18485cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c53594f59325f73716c6e797479726f756a795f797268796e6f5c7978327b736a">[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 Comprehensive Centers Program supports the
establishment of Comprehensive Centers to provide capacity-building
services to State educational agencies (SEAs), regional educational
agencies (REAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools that
improve educational opportunities and outcomes, close achievement gaps,
and improve the quality of instruction for all students, particularly
for groups of students with the greatest need, including students from
low-income families and students attending schools implementing
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted or additional
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
Program Authority: Section 203 of the Educational Technical
Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
The Department published a notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program in
the Federal Register on January 23, 2024 (89 FR 4228) (the NPP). That
document contained background information and reasons for proposing the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
Public Comment: In response to the invitation in the NPP, we
received 45 comments on the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. We discuss substantive issues
under each priority, requirement, definition, or selection criteria to
which they pertain. We first discuss general issues and then group
specific comments according to subject. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes or suggested changes the law does not
authorize us to make. In addition, we do not address comments that are
outside the scope of the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. We also describe below additional
changes the Department made to the priorities and selection criteria
following internal review.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria since publication of the NPP follow.
General Comments; Priorities
Comment: One commenter provided broad support for the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria,
particularly noting support for the foci and priorities designed to
ensure that Comprehensive Centers provide support and assistance to
schools and students with the greatest need, as well as the focus on
ensuring that the work of the Centers is responsive to the needs of
schools, districts, and States by requiring stakeholder engagement and
needs-sensing activities. The commenter also had several
recommendations regarding the upcoming Comprehensive Centers
competition, including ensuring that Centers support each State,
including rural and Tribal communities, and that the program include a
unifying body that assists with coordination of efforts across all
Centers and is nimble enough to address emerging issues and needs.
Discussion: We appreciate the support and feedback from the
commenter and agree with their recommendations. We believe that the
recommendations are addressed by the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, and that no changes are needed in
that regard. In particular, we note that through Priority 2 titled
``Regional Centers,'' the Comprehensive Centers program is designed to
support all States, and its services must address the unique
educational obstacles faced by underserved populations, including
students living in rural areas and Tribal students. Through Priority 1
titled ``National Comprehensive Center,'' we intend to establish and
implement a unifying National Center with specific requirements for
coordinating work across all Centers while also reserving resources to
address emerging needs. Additionally, Program Requirement 8, for all
Centers, requires an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant
amount to support emerging needs which ensures that all Centers retain
flexibility to address needs that may emerge throughout the grant
cycle.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the language in
Priority 1 requiring that the approach to capacity-building be driven
by adult learning strategies and incorporate implementation,
improvement, and systems change frameworks. The commenter further
stated that this approach is imperative to the work of the Regional
Centers and Content Centers and recommended that the same language be
included in Priorities 2 and 3.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for this
language and agrees with the commenter that all Centers should
incorporate in their work adult learning principles and implementation,
improvement, and systems change frameworks in order to most effectively
support clients. The importance of this approach to providing high-
quality capacity-building services is not unique to the National
Center. Accordingly, we are adding this requirement to Priority 2 and
Priority 3. Additionally, we update the priority language referring to
adult learning strategies to ``adult learning principles'' to align
with the language used in the program and application requirements.
Changes: We have revised Priorities 2 and 3 to include reference to
adult learning principles and implementation, improvement, and systems
change frameworks.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the focus on
continuous improvement throughout the Comprehensive Centers program,
and particularly in the definition of ``capacity building,'' as used in
Program Requirement 3 and Application Requirement 4. The commenter also
[[Page 41499]]
recommended that, throughout the priorities, requirements, and
selection criteria, wherever we reference the selection,
implementation, and scaling up of evidence-based practices or
approaches, we add reference to ``continuous improvement.''
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback and support for
the program's focus on continuous improvement and its inclusion in our
definition of ``capacity-building services''. We believe that
continuous improvement is inherently part of implementing evidence-
based practices or approaches. Comprehensive Centers build the capacity
of their clients to implement evidence-based practices through planning
and implementing interventions, and in collaboration with Regional
Educational Laboratories (RELs), studying or evaluating their efficacy,
and acting on that information to continuously improve practices or
approaches. In particular, as we note above, we are adding language to
Priority 2 and Priority 3 on the need for Centers' work to be driven by
implementation science, improvement science, and systems change
frameworks, which all include elements of continuous improvement as
central to successful implementation, improvement, or systems change.
Accordingly, we believe that, both as proposed and with the additions
to Priority 2 and Priority 3, the priorities for each Center encompass
the work of continuous improvement within how we define capacity-
building services, how Centers design capacity-building services, and
how we prioritize support for implementation of evidence-based
practices or approaches and, therefore, no further changes are
necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters expressed support for the inclusion of
Tribal education in the Comprehensive Centers program. One commenter
expressed general support for a deeper inclusion of Tribal communities
and governments, and another provided specific support of the inclusion
of Tribal Education Agencies (TEAs) as eligible beneficiaries of
Comprehensive Center services.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the inclusion of Tribal
communities and governments overall and of TEAs as clients and
recipients of Comprehensive Center program services specifically.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted the importance of serving the needs of
immigrant students through the Comprehensive Centers program, including
in the areas of digital literacy and access.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the importance of
serving the needs of immigrant students and note that this priority was
also identified by the Regional Advisory Committees. The Department
believes that this focus is captured within the scope of the
priorities. Specifically, Priority 2 requires each Regional Center to
provide capacity-building services to assist clients and recipients in
addressing the unique educational obstacles faced by underserved
populations, including immigrant children and youth. Priority 3
provides for operation of Content Centers, including a Center in the
area of English Learners and Multilingualism, which are also likely to
further serve the needs of immigrant students. Priority 1 also includes
support for emerging education topics of national importance not being
met by other federally funded technical assistance (TA) providers,
which could include emerging topics such as digital literacy and
access. The Department has added to the examples listed in this
priority to include support strategies for promoting digital literacy
and access.
Changes: The Department has added language to Priority 1 to include
examples of emerging needs related to digital literacy and access.
Comments: One commenter noted the importance of non-teacher faculty
in supporting underserved students, particularly students who are
migratory children. The commenter suggested that the Department more
explicitly address how the needs of underserved students, particularly
those who are migratory children, will be met on an individual level.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback and
recommendations. Priority 2 requires services to be provided to address
the unique educational obstacles faced by underserved populations,
including migratory children. The Program Requirements for all Centers
require Centers to plan and deliver services in response to educational
challenges facing students, practitioners, and education system
leaders, and in developing their annual service plans to ensure
services are provided to support students and communities with the
highest needs, including recipients serving student populations with
demonstrated needs unmet or under-met through other Federal, State, or
local interventions. We believe these provisions enable Centers to
provide needed support for specific student populations, including
students who are migratory.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter emphasized the importance of those working
within the field of Indian Education to be aware of the treaties
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes regarding education.
Discussion: The Department agrees that Comprehensive Centers must
have appropriate experience and expertise to adequately support their
clients, including awareness of educational laws, regulations, and
policies that impact their clients. We note that Priorities 1 and 2,
for the National and Regional Centers, respectively, include language
related to the role of the Centers in addressing the unique educational
obstacles faced by Tribal students. The priorities, requirements, and
definitions outline several ways in which the Comprehensive Centers
program grantees may work with TEAs as clients. Additionally, Priority
2 establishes a Regional Center focusing on serving the Bureau of
Indian Education. Program Requirement 2 for all Centers further
requires Centers to develop and implement capacity-building services to
reflect and address specific client needs and contexts. Application
Requirement 3 for all Centers requires Centers to demonstrate
appropriate subject matter expertise, which includes expert knowledge
of statutory requirements, regulations, and policies related to ESEA
programs, current education issues, and policy initiatives, as well as
demonstrated experience in content areas for which they are engaged as
experts. Finally, the selection criteria evaluate the extent to which
Regional Centers applicants demonstrate that the proposed approach to
capacity building would address key areas of identified client need,
which may include the needs of TEA clients and other clients serving
Tribal students. In responding to the criteria, applicants are asked to
demonstrate in-depth knowledge and understanding of the specific
educational goals and priorities of the Center's clients, including the
client's demographics and policy contexts. The criterion focused on
subject matter expertise will also allow the Department to evaluate the
degree to which applicants have the appropriate subject matter
expertise and experience to serve their intended clients. The
Department believes that these combined elements will ensure that
Comprehensive Centers program grantees have the appropriate experience
and expertise to support clients in addressing the needs of Tribal
students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the current work of
the
[[Page 41500]]
National Center and Regional Center partners related to afterschool and
summer programming. The commenter also expressed support for the
emphasis in Priority 2 on supporting clients in implementing, scaling-
up, and sustaining evidence-based practices and interventions to
improve core instruction. The commenter requested that the Centers work
to build on current research in the science of learning and development
to support high-quality afterschool and summer programs.
Discussion: We share the commenters' interest in assisting SEAs and
LEAs in supporting afterschool and summer programming. The Department
supports using current research and successful models in the field to
ensure all students have access to quality afterschool and summer
learning opportunities. We believe that work proposed under Priority 2
and Priority 1 will promote the use of evidence-based practices in key
initiatives to accelerate academic recovery in math and literacy that
may include high-impact tutoring, high-quality summer and after-school
programming, and effective interventions to reduce chronic absenteeism.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter made suggestions for how Comprehensive
Centers could better support SEAs in implementing ESEA programs. The
commenter noted that an important need of the SEAs is improving data
reporting, including improving capacity for data validation,
streamlining data systems, planning data collection, communicating
these requirements to LEAs and schools, and overall data quality. The
commenter also requested assistance for SEAs in implementing resource
allocation reviews and in communicating with the Department regarding
data reporting requirements.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestions
regarding how the Comprehensive Centers can improve SEA capacity to
collect and report data, which will improve the SEAs' implementation
and evaluation of ESEA programs. The Department agrees that the
Comprehensive Centers, and particularly the Regional Centers, should
support SEAs with improving their data collection practices and support
to LEAs. The Department has added language to Priority 2 to include
support for data collection and reporting activities. The Department
notes the existing requirements related to consultation with SEA
leaders in determining the greatest client needs. This would include
addressing issues identified by the Department and its data reporting
contractors. The Department additionally supports the suggestion that
Centers should support resource allocation reviews. As discussed
elsewhere in this document, the Department has added language to
Priority 1 and Priority 2 to underscore the importance of supporting
resource allocation reviews.
Changes: The Department has added language to Priority 2 to include
capacity-building services that assist clients and recipients in
collecting and reporting data on ESEA programs.
Comment: One commenter noted the important role of the National
Center and Regional Centers in supporting school support and
improvement activities, including resource allocation reviews, as
outlined in section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA. Additionally, the
commenter suggested that the Center on Fiscal Equity should also play a
role in identifying best practices regarding fiscal equity components
of school improvement support to SEAs and LEAs. The commenter noted a
report from the Government Accountabilty Office that indicated the need
for greater support from the Department to assist SEAs and LEAs in
complying with the school improvement and resource equity requirements
specified in the section 1111(d) of the ESEA. The commenter noted
specifically the need for support regarding the inclusion of needs
assessments, evidence-based interventions, and identifying resource
inequities in improvement plans and ensuring adequate and equitable
funding is available to identified schools to carry over improvement
activities.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's support for
the important role of the National Center, Regional Centers, and Center
on Fiscal Equity in supporting SEAs and LEAs in meeting school
improvement requirements under section 1111(d) of the ESEA. The
Department also appreciates the commenter's support of the Department's
emphasis on serving (1) recipients with high percentages students from
low-income families and (2) students attending schools implementing
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted or additional
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of
the ESEA. The Department agrees that the Center on Fiscal Equity has an
important role to support all Comprehensive Centers in understanding
and designing services related to the adequate and equitable funding
for schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement or
targeted or additional targeted support and improvement activities
under section 1111(d) of the ESEA. The Department also notes the
inclusion and importance of support for resource allocation reviews
described in section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA in Priority 1 and
Priority 2. In response to the commenter's general feedback, as
discussed elsewhere in this document, the Department added language to
emphasize supporting resource allocation reviews in Priority 1 and
Priority 2, and added language to Priority 3 to signify the important
role of the Center on Fiscal Equity in supporting resource equity
requirements.
Changes: The Department has added language to Priority 1 and
Priority 2 to include a focus on support for implementing resource
allocation reviews required in section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA.
Additionally, the Department has added language to Priority 3 for the
Center on Fiscal Equity to include schools implementing comprehensive
support and improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and
improvement activities under section 1111(d) of the ESEA.
Priority 1--National Comprehensive Center
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department reconsider the
National Center's role in providing targeted supports and suggested
instead that the National Center would be more effectively positioned
to focus on providing universal supports, disseminating the work done
by other Centers and as a primary coordination point.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback from the commenter and agree
with their emphasis on the importance of the National Center as a point
of coordination and dissemination for the Comprehensive Centers program
as a whole. However, we disagree that the National Center should focus
solely on universal supports and not on providing targeted support.
Under Priority 1 the National Center will provide subject matter
expertise on and capacity-building services related to several topics
of national importance including addressing unique educational
obstacles faced by rural and Tribal students; implementing and scaling
up evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that improve
instruction and outcomes in core subjects including math and literacy
instruction; implementing school improvement and State accountability
and assessment
[[Page 41501]]
systems; and other emerging needs. While States will work first with
their Regional Center, it is critical that the National Center, as a
locus of expertise in these topics, is available to work with other
Centers when there is a need for cross-regional coordination to provide
targeted support in the areas in which the National Center has
significant subject matter expertise. As defined, ``targeted capacity-
building services'' can include, for example, strategic planning
events, national and regional conferences, learning series, and
communities of practice. We believe that this type of support is
critical to the role of the National Center and the goals of the
program and therefore decline to focus the National Center solely on
the provision of universal supports.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter provided broad support for the work of the
existing National Center and noted that creating a centralized hub has
improved efficiency and coordination in the TA system of the
Comprehensive Centers Programs.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for the National
Center and note that through Priority 1 the Department will continue to
establish and operate a National Center that will coordinate work
across the network, among other responsibilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we specify in Priority 1
that the National Center will support SEAs to conduct resource
allocation reviews required by section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the importance of providing
services to support SEAs in implementing resource allocation reviews
and has added language to emphasize this activity in Priority 1 as an
example of how the National Center may provide services to support SEAs
to implement State accountability and assessment systems consistent
with title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA section 1111(b)-(d)).
Additionally, we note that the Center on Fiscal Equity will provide
targeted and universal capacity building services for strengthening
equitable and adequate resource allocation strategies, including for
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement or targeted
or additional targeted support and improvement activities under section
1111(d) of the ESEA, which may relate to services the National Center
provides to States implementing this requirement under section
1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA. We have updated Priority 3 to reflect
necessary collaboration with the National Center to support
coordination of these services.
Changes: We have revised Priority 1 to highlight activities related
to resource allocation reviews that an applicant may conduct under this
priority and have revised Priority 3 to include collaborating with the
National Center to provide services to meet this requirement.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the focus in Priority
1 on addressing the unique educational challenges, and improving the
outcomes, of schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement
activities or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement
activities under title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)) and
their students. This commenter recommended that the Department include
additional examples of how the National Center may help address these
needs, including through needs assessments to diagnose challenges and
resource inequities, identifying and implementing evidence-based
interventions, and monitoring progress and taking corrective action.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the
inclusion of activities to support school improvement in Priority 1 for
the National Center and agrees that the specified activities would be
acceptable and appropriate strategies to address the unique educational
challenges and improve outcomes of schools implementing comprehensive
support and improvement activities, or targeted or additional targeted
support and improvement activities. Because these activities are
already allowable under the priority as written, the Department does
not believe it necessary to revise Priority 1 to include the specified
examples.
Changes: None.
Priority 2--Regional Centers
Comments: Several commenters provided feedback on the allocation of
funding to Centers, particularly Regional Centers. Specifically, two
commenters requested information on the Department's approach to
funding levels for each Center. One commenter emphasized the importance
of funding each Center commensurate to its project scope and requested
that the Department provide estimated funding levels for each of the
proposed Centers. Another commenter requested information on the method
of allocating funding across each Center and encouraged the Department
to request additional funding for the program in the future. Another
commenter generally noted the importance of ensuring sufficient funds
for each Regional Center to deliver intensive and impactful capacity-
building services. Three commenters suggested specific factors that the
Department should consider when allocating funds, with two recommending
that the Department consider the number of States and the geography of
a region in determining allocations, and one recommending that the
Department consider the cost of travel.
Discussion: We appreciate the interest in funding levels from the
commenters. However, we do not include specific funding estimates in
the priority for each type of Center. For any fiscal year in which we
use one of these final priorities, the Notice Inviting Applications
(NIA) will specify the funding available and estimated for each Center.
We note that under section 203 of the ETAA, the Department is required,
when awarding grants to Regional Centers, to establish one Center in
each of the 10 geographic regions served by the RELs. In addition, the
Department considers additional factors named in the ETAA when awarding
grants such as school-age population, proportion of economically
disadvantaged students, the cost burdens of service delivery in areas
of sparse population, and the number of schools implementing
comprehensive support and improvement activities and targeted support
and improvement activities. Finally, the Department appreciates the
commenter's recommendation to request additional funding and will
consider the needs of the program in its requests for funding in future
years.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter shared suggestions for alternative
configurations of Regional Centers, including aligning regions with the
10 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions, returning to a
previous Comprehensive Centers model that included Regional Centers and
``Single State'' Centers, or grouping States with similar priorities
into regions.
Discussion: Although we appreciate the commenter's recommendations,
the ETAA requires the Department to establish at least one Center in
each of the 10 geographic regions served by the Department's RELs and
to consider other factors indicated in the ETAA including the school-
age population, the proportion of economically disadvantaged students,
the increased cost burdens of service delivery in areas of sparse
population, and the number of schools implementing comprehensive
support and improvement activities and
[[Page 41502]]
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of
the ESEA when establishing regions under this program. We believe the
proposed regional configuration best meets the statutory intent of this
program. Additionally, we note that under Priority 1, the National
Center may conduct targeted capacity-building services, including
strategic planning events, national and regional conferences, learning
series, and communities of practice, that convene States not in the
same region around a topic of shared importance.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed support for including a Regional
Center for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the Department's
inclusion of a Regional Center serving the BIE.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed support for the larger regions
proposed in Priority 2 compared to the existing regional configuration
under the Comprehensive Centers program, noting the potential for these
regions to increase efficiency. One commenter also highlighted the
closer alignment to the REL regions and the potential for this
alignment to support coordination and alignment of services and needs
sensing across both programs.
Discussion: We appreciate the support from the commenters and
feedback on the potential benefits of the revised regional
configuration in Priority 2.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters expressed support for the focus on
evidence-based projects and programs. One commenter expressed general
support for the emphasis on evidence-based learning throughout the
document. Another commenter noted the importance of selecting,
implementing, and sustaining evidence-based programs in rural and
smaller, less resourced organizations and school districts.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for promoting
evidence-based practices in the Comprehensive Centers program,
including in support of rural and small organizations and districts.
Additionally, the Department would like to clarify examples of key
initiatives Centers may focus on in implementing evidence-based
practices.
Changes: We have revised Priority 2 to include clarifying changes
of evidence-based programs, practices, or interventions that focus on
key initiatives that lead to LEAs and schools improving student
outcomes.
Comment: One commenter asked the Department to clarify how Regional
Centers should develop cost-effective strategies to make their services
available to as many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools in need of
support as possible.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment and note that, to maximize
the impact of public funds, all Regional Centers are expected to
develop cost-effective strategies to ensure services reach as many
SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools within the region in need of
support as possible. Applicants may propose strategies for how they
might accomplish this objective within their regions through their
approach to capacity building in their response to this priority as
well as to the Program Requirements 4 and 6 for all Centers.
Additionally, Regional Centers will partner with the National Center to
share and disseminate information about Comprehensive Center Network
(CCNetwork) services, tools, and resources to maximize the reach of the
CCNetwork across clients and education stakeholders. Although the
Department believes that applicants are best positioned to identify and
develop these strategies given their knowledge of the critical needs of
regional clients, the Department will further describe any plans to
work with grantees on how to maximize the reach of Comprehensive Center
services in its Cooperative Agreements with grantees.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department revise
Priority 2 to ensure that Regional Centers provide support to SEAs
implementing resource allocation reviews under section
1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter's recommendation.
Supporting SEAs in implementing resource allocation reviews is one
important way that Regional Centers can support schools implementing
comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted or
additional targeted support and improvement activities under section
1111(d) of the ESEA.
Changes: We have revised Priority 2 to include a focus on support
for implementing resource allocation reviews under section
1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA.
Comment: One commenter supported the Priority 2 requirement to
ensure Regional Centers support SEAs and LEAs to address corrective
actions from ESEA program monitoring and recommended that the
Department specify that services may be provided in this regard at the
request of the Department, or based on recommendation by the Regional
Center, in addition to the request of the State.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and
acknowledge that grantees may benefit from the Department or the
client's Regional Center recommending or requesting that they receive
support in addressing corrective actions or results from audit findings
and ESEA program monitoring conducted by the Department. We believe
paragraph (4) of Priority 2 permits the Department or a Regional Center
to make such recommendations and therefore do not believe it is
necessary to revise the priority to address this specific need.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for Priority 2 and noted
that the requirement for Regional Centers to design services in
conjunction with State leadership has benefitted the work of Regional
Centers in the current grant cycle.
Discussion: We appreciate the support from the commenter and
feedback on the benefits of the proposed Comprehensive Center service
delivery model and requirement to develop and implement capacity-
building services in partnership with State and local clients and
recipients.
Changes: None.
Priority 3--Content Centers
Comment: One commenter provided overall support for the priorities,
including Priority 3, and encouraged the Department to explicitly
consider ways the field of communication sciences and disorders,
specifically audiology and speech-language pathology, can support the
goals of the Comprehensive Centers program. Additionally, the commenter
provided specific feedback on the importance of audiologists and speech
language pathologists (SLPs) in relation to the work of the Center for
English Learners and Multilingualism and the Center for Early School
Success. Specifically, related to the work of the Center for English
Learners and Multilingualism, the commenter recommended that the
Department consider the role of audiologists and SLPs to ensure access
to interpreting services and engagement. Related to the work of the
Center for Early School Success, the commenter recommended enhancing
the focus of services provided by the Center to address caseload
management for practitioners, such as audiologists and SLPs; rural
capacity building for accessing school-based services for students who
already
[[Page 41503]]
qualify under Medicaid; and school-based telepractice.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for the
priorities and and as to Priority 3, the feedback related to the
importance of the field of communication sciences both broadly and
specifically related to the work of the Center for English Learners and
Multilingualism and the Center for Early School Success. Through the
Comprehensive Centers program, we aim to improve educational outcomes,
close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction for all
students, particularly those with the greatest need. Based on the
Department's experience administering the program and the feedback from
the Regional Advisory Committees and others, we believe it is important
for all Centers, including Content Centers, to consider a broad
universe of resources, practices, and policies that may support these
goals. Further, we believe that how Centers focus and deliver capacity-
building services must be driven by their needs-sensing activities with
clients and recipients and the review of available evidence, and
therefore, we decline to explicitly add references to the specific
field of communication sciences and disorders in the priorities.
Specific to the recommendations related to the Center for Early School
Success, we believe it is important to maintain the focus on preschool-
third grade learning systems and experiences more broadly to support
academic, social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development. We
also note that it is not within the scope of the Comprehensive Centers
to provide assistance in implementing programs outside of the ESEA;
however we do require Centers to partner with each other and other
federally funded technical assistance centers to address client needs
and note opportunities for the Center for Early School Success to
coordinate with the Center on Fiscal Equity to support clients and
recipients in considering how ESEA funds may interact with and
complement other Federal programs, including Medicaid, to improve
student opportunities and outcomes and reduce duplication of services.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters provided broad feedback on the
introduction of Content Centers as a priority (Priority 3) and the
impact on the overall structure and focus of the Comprehensive Centers
program. Feedback from these commenters was mixed, with some expressing
support for the inclusion of Content Centers in the Comprehensive
Centers program and others expressing concern. For those commenters
that supported Priority 3, some noted that the four identified focus
areas are important areas of national need, while another expressed
that the Content Centers promised to bring critical support responsive
to the needs of States and districts. The commenters who disagreed with
the inclusion of Content Centers cited concerns related to the impact
on Comprehensive Center branding, flexibility, and responsiveness.
Specifically, one such commenter expressed concern that identifying
focus areas for a five-year cycle was not the best way to respond to
emerging needs and instead recommended an approach similar to the
current configuration allowing the National Center and Regional Centers
flexibility to respond to emerging needs. This same commenter also
cited a concern with duplication of efforts in previous Comprehensive
Center cohorts that included Content Centers. Another commenter also
noted that the Comprehensive Centers program has built familiarity and
recognition among SEAs and LEAs and shared concerns that changing the
configuration would harm this brand recognition.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback from commenters on the
inclusion of Priority 3. We agree with the comments supporting the four
proposed focus areas and on the importance of flexibility, efficiency,
and responsiveness to the success of the Comprehensive Centers program.
We also appreciate the commenters' concerns about the proposed impacts
on the program's brand recognition, service to clients, and ability to
maximize flexibility and responsiveness to emerging needs or to provide
efficient, high-quality, relevant, and useful services responsive to
the needs of clients and recipients. We believe, however, that Priority
3's approach minimizes these concerns. First, the establishment of the
Content Centers supports the Comprehensive Center program's ability to
provide high-quality capacity-building services in identified areas of
high national need. The four focus areas reflect the recommendations of
the Regional Advisory Committees and are areas of national need that
are likely to retain importance to Comprehensive Center clients and
recipients over the entire five-year project period. Regarding the
potential impact to the branding of the CCNetwork, we note that the
National Center has an explicit requirement in Priority 1 to support
consistent branding, communication, and dissemination of products,
information, and resources from the CCNetwork and we expect the
progress made under the current model to continue with this support.
Additionally, throughout these priorities, requirements, definitions
and selection criteria, we emphasize the need for the Comprehensive
Centers to be nimble to adjust to new or emerging areas of need and
note features of this structure that retain the program's ability to
address emerging needs, including Priority 1 which requires the
National Center to address emerging national needs, and Program
Requirement 8 for all Centers that requires each Center to include an
annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support
emerging needs. This is designed to ensure each Center is able to
remain flexible and responsive to needs that arise throughout the
project period. We believe that with these elements combined, the
CCNetwork will be able to provide high-quality, relevant, and useful
capacity-building services to clients and recipients across the country
in areas of high national need as well as emerging needs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters who disagreed with the inclusion of
Content Centers cited concerns related to potential confusion of
clients on how to access services from Centers within the CCnetwork.
One commenter cited a concern with confusion among clients in previous
Comprehensive Center cohorts that included Content Centers. Another
commenter raised concerns that the introduction of these Centers would
make the process of accessing services more complex for clients.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns about the
proposed impacts of including Content Centers on client access to
services. Regarding potential client confusion, we note that Regional
Centers will continue to serve as the entry point for States to engage
with the CCNetwork, and that it will be through the Regional Centers
that the Content Centers will address specific requests for assistance
from States within the regions and strengthen Regional Center staff
knowledge and expertise on the evidence base and effective practices
within its specific content area. Content Centers are also required to
consult with and integrate feedback from the Department, the National
and Regional Centers in developing their annual service plan to ensure
targeted and universal services reflect regional and national needs and
to avoid duplication of services. We also note that the National Center
has an explicit requirement in Priority 1 to support coordination
across the
[[Page 41504]]
Regional and Content Centers. We believe these requirements focused on
consultation, coordination, and collaboration of services, negotiated
and coordinated with and through Regional Centers, will minimize client
confusion and provide clear opportunities for Center coordination to
minimize client burden.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters who disagreed with the inclusion of
Content Centers cited concerns related to the impact on Comprehensive
Center efficiency and funding. Specifically, one commenter who did not
support Priority 3, recommended that if the Department proceeds with
it, it should further clarify how the Content Centers will interact
with the Regional Centers and the National Center. Another commenter
raised concerns that the introduction of these Centers would divert
funds from the Regional Centers and National Center, which could limit
their services and ability to respond to emerging needs across the
network.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns about the
proposed impacts on the efficiencies of service delivery to clients,
namely through the Regional Center and National Center, and concerns
around our ability to maximize flexibility and responsiveness to
emerging needs and prevent any diversion of funding from the Regional
and National Centers. We believe, however, that the approach to
coordination required of all Centers minimizes these concerns. As
described above, all Centers are expected to coordinate services, and
the National and Content Centers must consult with Regional Centers in
providing services to clients. Priority 1 and Priority 3 further
provide efficiencies to the CCNetwork, for example the National Center
will support consistent communication, and dissemination of products,
information, and resources from the CCNetwork and will facilitate
collaboration across Centers, creating efficiencies for Regional and
Content Centers. Additionally, Content Centers will provide subject
matter expertise in areas of high national need identified by the
Regional Advisory Committees that all Regional Centers can access and
benefit from, allowing them to focus their resources on other areas of
need. The Department acknowledges that the addition of Content Centers
will result in the reduction of the total amount of program funds
available to Regional Centers; however, we believe value of services
aligned to areas of high national need, coupled with the efficiencies
gained through the resources and support provided by the Content
Centers and the National Center to the Regional Centers and their
clients should lessen the impact of these reductions.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters that expressed support for the inclusion
of Content Centers also made recommendations for additional Centers:
one expressed concern about not having a Center focused on systems
change and sustainability, though also noted that this topic area could
be addressed by the National Center; the other commenter recommended
that the Department add a Center for Rural Schools and Communities.
Discussion: We agree with the two commenters on the importance of
systems change and sustainability and on serving rural communities, but
disagree with the recommendation to create additional Content Centers.
The Content Center priorities were determined based on careful
consideration of input from the Regional Advisory Committees on areas
of national need, as well as other factors including whether the
Department currently has existing technical assistance investments for
an identified ESEA program or area of need. Additionally, the
Department chooses to limit the number of Content Centers to prioritize
use of program funds for the Regional Centers. The work of supporting
systems change and sustainability is a core tenet of the Comprehensive
Centers program and one that we believe is a part of the work of all
Centers, and should be embedded in the approach to capacity-building
services. Additionally, as the commenter noted, we believe the National
Center is well-positioned to provide coordinating support across the
CCNetwork to support broader systems change, and we believe that the
current requirements in Priority 1 related to coordination are
sufficient to carry out this work. We also appreciate and agree with
the second commenter's feedback on the importance of serving rural
communities but disagree that creating an additional Content Center is
needed. Both Priorities 1 and 2 explicitly direct these types of
Centers to address the unique educational obstacles faced by rural
students, and Program Requirement 3 for Regional Centers further
requires that Regional Centers, in developing the annual service plan,
ensure services are provided to support students and communities with
the highest needs, including recipients in rural areas. We believe that
serving rural students is included in the core work of the National and
all Regional Centers. For these reasons, we believe the existing
priorities and the requirements combined will allow the Comprehensive
Center program to fulfill this goal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed appreciation for the inclusion of
early learning programs in Priority 3.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support and made
recommendations regarding the focus of the proposed Center on
Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce. Specifically,
several commenters suggested including various specific educator roles
within the focus of the Center; one commenter recommended the inclusion
of school counselors, another recommended the inclusion of all
educators responsible for instruction, including substitute teachers
and other uncertificated teachers, and a third commenter recommended
the inclusion of principals and other school leaders as well as
educators involved in out-of-school time programs, such as 21st Century
Community Learning Centers.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments related to the
Center on Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce and
agrees with many of the suggestions provided. The Department did not
provide a definition of the term ``educator'' in the NPP. We appreciate
and agree with the feedback of the commenters suggesting that this
Center should support educators beyond classroom teachers and clarify
that the Department's intent is for the services of this Center to
include many types of educators. In response to the feedback, the
Department has added a definition of ``educator'' that includes
principals or other school leaders, specialized instructional support
personnel, (which includes school counselors, SLPs, and other related
service providers), paraprofessionals, faculty, and others. We believe
the definition includes substitute teachers, other uncertificated
teachers, as well as those in out-of-school-time programs. With this
change, the Department does not believe it is necessary to add more
specific language to the priority as the definition clarifies that
these educators are included in the focus of the Center.
Changes: The Department added a definition of ``educator'' to the
Definitions section of this NFP.
Comment: Several commenters provided feedback on the scope and
focus areas of the Center on Strengthening and Supporting the Educator
Workforce. One commenter encouraged the Department to support building
Grow Your Own Programs and
[[Page 41505]]
registered apprenticeship programs that include audiologists and SLPs.
Another commenter made several recommendations relating to support for
Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs), including that the Center should
support EPPs and their district partners, identifying specific
potential partners, to design, launch, and continually improve pathways
from recruitment through retention and build the capacity of EPPs and
district leaders to facilitate programs grounded in more equitable
outcomes for teachers and P-12 students. Another commenter recommended
that the Center support preparation, integration, and ongoing
development of substitute teachers.
Discussion: The Department strongly supports a focus for this
Center on supporting high-quality EPPs. The primary clients for
Comprehensive Centers are defined as SEAs, LEAs, REAs, TEAs and
schools; most operators of EPPs would not be among the direct clients
of Comprehensive Center program services. However, the Department does
envision that the Center may support SEAs, LEAs, and their partners in
addressing educator shortages, and that this collaboration with clients
and their partners could include EPPs or other partners critical to the
focus on strengthening and supporting the educator workforce. The
Department believes this could include programs that focus on all types
of educators, including audiologists and SLPs, based on demonstrated
needs. Additionally, the Department appreciates the critical importance
of substitute teachers in discussions of the educator workforce and
agrees that the work of the Center to support State and local clients
could include a focus on ensuring adequate pipelines of and support for
substitute teachers, as appropriate to the needs of the client.
Changes: The Department is adding language to Priority 3 to clarify
that the Center may work with SEAs, LEAs, and their partners, such as
EPPs, regional workforce boards, labor unions, etc. in addressing
educator shortages and providing all students with highly qualified
educators across the P-12 continuum.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Center on Strengthening
and Supporting the Educator Workforce should provide tools and
resources, professional development, and technical assistance that
brings the science of learning into teaching practice, with an equity-
centered focus on early literacy, mathematics, and the identification
and use of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM). Additionally,
this commenter indicated that the Center should work on strengthening
and supporting the educator workforce in ways that also accelerate
progress on national priorities such as literacy and math attainment,
the use of HQIM, the diversification of the teacher pipeline, and
support for multilingual learners.
Discussion: The Department notes the importance of assisting Center
clients obtain resources and professional development that will enhance
instructional techniques, and the identification and use of HQIMs;
however, we note that supporting instruction generally falls within the
Priority 1 focus on evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions that improve instruction and outcomes in core subjects,
including math and literacy instruction, and decline the recommendation
for inclusion in Priority 3. The Department believes that this Center
may support diversifying teacher pipelines within the priority as
written. Additionally, we note the Center on English Learners and
Multilingualism will provide support related to meeting the needs of
multilingual learners.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted recent data that show lower per pupil
expenditures for students attending schools identified for improvement
and recommended that the Department updated Priority 3 to ensure
adequate and equitable school funding strategies for schools identified
for support and improvement. The commenter recommended to add language
to Priority 3 for the Center on Fiscal Equity to ensure that in
prioritizing supports for students and communities with the greatest
need, the Department include a focus on schools implementing
comprehensive, targeted, and additional targeted support and
improvement plans under section 1111(d) of the ESEA.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenter on the
importance of ensuring adequate and equitable school funding strategies
for schools identified for support and improvement. The Department
accepts the recommendation to include specific language emphasizing
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement or targeted
or additional targeted support and improvement activities under section
1111(d) of the ESEA in defining how the Center on Fiscal Equity should
prioritize supports for students and communities with the greatest
need.
Changes: The Department added language to Priority 3 for the Center
on Fiscal Equity to include schools implementing comprehensive support
and improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and
improvement activities under section 1111(d) of the ESEA.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Although we did not receive related comments, in
reviewing the final priorities, the Department identified a need to
further clarify the focus of the Center on Early School Success to help
ensure high-quality applications. The Department clarifies that the
work of this Center should focus on supporting success in early
elementary grades, which includes successful preschool to kindergarten
transitions, success of students in early elementary grades in core
subjects in order to meet challenging State academic standards, and
engaging with parents and families in supporting student attendance in
the early grades.
Changes: The Department has revised the priority for the Center on
Early School Success to further clarify how it defines experiencing
success in early learning and achievement.
Comment: None.
Discussion: In reviewing the final priorities, the Department
identified a need to further clarify the focus of the English Learners
and Multilingualism to help ensure high-quality applications. The
Department clarifies that in meeting the needs of English Learners, the
work of this Center should include support beginning with early
language acquisition and development to ensure the needs of all
students who are English Learners are met.
Changes: The Department has revised the priority for the The Center
on English Learners and Multilingualism to further clarify how this
Center might meet the needs of English Learners.
Program Requirements
Program Requirements for All Centers
Comments: One commenter requested that we clarify the discussion in
the background of the Program Requirements section regarding the
requirements on full-time equivalency for Directors, Co-Directors, and
key personnel. The commenter asked whether having two co-directors with
a .5 FTE each, totaling 1.0 FTE across both Co-Directors, would meet
the program requirements.
Discussion: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify these
requirements. Under Requirement 9 for the National Center, the Center
must have a minimum of 1 FTE for the Director or two Co-Directors at a
minimum of 0.75 FTE each. Under Program Requirement 8 for Regional
[[Page 41506]]
Centers, each Center must have one Director at a minimum of 0.75 FTE or
two Co-Directors of 0.5 FTE each. Additionally, we are adding an
equivalent Program Requirement 7 for Content Centers to require one
Director at a minimum of 0.75 FTE or two Co-Project Directors at a
minimum of 0.5 FTE each. This new provision will help ensure that the
FTE requirements align with the scope of work for the Content Centers
and ensure sufficient leadership capacity for operation and effective
coordination and collaboration of the Centers.
Changes: We have revised the Program Requirement for Content
Centers to include the FTE requirement for Directors and Co-Directors.
Comments: One commenter provided broad feedback on the program
requirements related to full-time equivalency of Directors or Co-
Directors for the National and Regional Centers. The commenter
recommended the requirements not prescribe specific FTE expectations
for Center leadership given budget restrictions and the need for
flexibility in the staffing model, particularly for smaller centers.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback from the commenter related
to the FTE requirements. However, we disagree with the recommendation
to forgo designating specific FTE requirements. Based on our experience
administering the Comprehensive Centers program, we believe that the
FTE requirements currently outlined in Requirement 9 for the National
Center and Requirement 8 for Regional Centers align with the scope of
work for the Comprehensive Centers program and ensure sufficient
leadership capacity for operation and effective coordination and
collaboration of the Centers. We encourage Centers to maximize
flexibility within these requirements to ensure Center leadership is
staffed at a level sufficient for achieving the goals of its assigned
projects and responsibilities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter provided feedback on the discussion in the
background of the Program Requirements section regarding the
requirement that all personnel in key leadership and service delivery
roles be staffed as close to full-time equivalency as practical. The
commenter expressed concern with the focus on full-time equivalency,
particularly for staff in service delivery roles, given the challenges
that single-project staffing can raise for long-term staff stability
and recommended removing a requirement for reaching close to full-time
equivalency for staff in service delivery roles.
Discussion: We appreciate the interest in clarifying these
requirements. Program Requirement 9 for the National Center, Program
Requirement 8 for Regional Centers, and Program Requirement 7 for
Content Centers only discuss full-time equivalency minimums for
Directors and Co-Directors and do not establish specific requirements
for other staff in service delivery roles. The requirements do state
that key personnel must be able to provide services at the intensity,
duration, and modality appropriate to achieving agreed-upon milestones,
outputs, and outcomes described in annual service plans. Additionally,
Program Requirement 5 for all Centers requires Centers to ensure that
personnel are staffed at a level sufficient for achieving the goals of
assigned projects and responsibilities. Although we do not specify a
required staffing level for general project personnel, to help ensure
that applicants have carefully considered the staffing level needed for
the success of their proposed project, we are revising the relevant
selection criterion under Quality of Project Design so that applicants
have the opportunity to describe, and the Department has the
opportunity to assess, their approach to addressing these requirements.
Changes: We have revised the selection criterion under Quality of
Project Design for the personnel management system to include the
extent to which the project is staffed at a level sufficient for
achieving the goals of its proposed projects and responsibilities.
Comments: One commenter expressed the importance of considering how
physical resources are distributed among students and how access to
digital resources may be an effective means of providing enriching
materials to underserved students through the Comprehensive Centers
Program.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation to ensure
services focus on promoting student access to educational resources.
Under Program Requirement 3 for the Regional Centers, Centers must
ensure services are provided to support students and communities with
the highest needs. Needs are determined through consulting with a broad
range of stakeholders, outlined in Program Requirement 2 for Regional
Centers. We believe these requirements permit Centers to focus services
on promoting access to educational resources for students with the
highest needs within their regions, as determined by and with the
communities they serve. In addition, Priority 1 emphasizes the
implementation and scaling up of evidence-based programs, practices,
and interventions that address other emerging education topics of
national importance that are not being met by another federally funded
provider (e.g., evidence-based practices in the use of education
technology), thus providing support across Regions for services that
may address such needs identified by multiple States across regions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested information related to the
program performance measures referenced in the proposed Program
Requirements for all Centers.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment requesting information about
the program performance measures. The final program performance
measures were established in the 2019 NFP. The final performance
measures will additionally be included in the NIA.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested that the Department strengthen
the requirements and selection criteria for the Comprehensive Centers
program by specifying an evaluation requirement for each Center in line
with 34 CFR 75.210 General selection criteria, as well as participation
in a national evaluation. The commenter shared that a clear evaluation
requirement would provide distinction among similar terms related to
the required performance management systems and processes as written in
the Program Requirements for all Centers and the Selection Criteria
under Quality of Project Design.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation and
request for clarification of the proposed program and application
requirements related to performance management and evaluation. The
Department believes that proposed program requirements are aligned to
34 CFR 75.210 as evidenced by the requirement for Centers to develop
and implement an effective performance management system that
integrates continuous improvement and summative evaluation methods to
monitor progress towards agreed upon outcomes, outputs, and milestones
to measure the reach, use, and impact of the services being delivered.
This integrated approach will help ensure capacity-building services
are implemented as intended and desired results are achieved. The
performance management system must also include strategies to report on
defined program performance measures. Additionally, as the commenter
notes, Centers are required to participate in a national
[[Page 41507]]
evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers Program as described in section
204 of the ETAA. To clarify the intent that Centers integrate best
practices in continuous improvement to manage and evaluate project
performance to provide performance feedback and permit periodic
assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes, we have
added language to explicitly include evaluation in the proposed
performance management system as defined.
Changes: We have revised the program requirement and application
requirements for all Centers and aligned selection criteria language,
under Quality of Project Design, to reference evaluation as part of a
performance management and evaluation system.
Requirements for National Comprehensive Center
Comments: Two commenters provided feedback on Program Requirement 9
for the National Center related to the requirement that the National
Center is staffed with one Director at a minimum 1.0 FTE or two Co-
Directors at .75 FTE. One commenter recommended decreasing the FTE
requirements for the National Center to a minimum .75 Director or 1.0
FTE split across two Co-Directors, in alignment to the requirement for
Regional Centers. The other commenter agreed that the FTE requirements
should be higher for the National Center leadership and recommended
that the FTE requirements be increased to a minimum of 1.5 FTE total
for Center leadership but that this could be achieved through various
leadership roles such as Director and Co-Director, two Co-Directors, or
a Director and a Deputy Director.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback from the commenters related
to the FTE requirements for the National Center. However, we disagree
with the recommendations to revise the FTE requirements. Based on our
experience administering the Comprehensive Center program, we believe
that the FTE requirements currently outlined in Requirement 9 for the
National Center align with the significant scope of work assigned to
the National Comprehensive Center and that a reduction as recommended
by the first commenter would not provide sufficient leadership capacity
for effective coordination and collaboration of the CCNetwork. Related
to the comment on increasing the minimum FTE to 1.5 to be shared across
leadership roles, we appreciate the emphasis on ensuring adequate
leadership capacity for the National Center, especially considering its
multifaceted responsibilities, and agree with the spirit of the
recommendation. However, we believe that the requirement as written
already provides applicants the flexibility to propose a 1.5 FTE across
two Co-Directors if desired, or the option of one full-time Director
and a Deputy Director at less than .75 FTE. We believe that providing
this flexibility will allow applicants to design a staffing model
aligned to their budget while still ensuring sufficient leadership
capacity commensurate with the complexity of the work scope of the
National Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted support for the role of the National
Center to coordinate and support the Regional Comprehensive Centers.
The commenter recommended requiring the National Center to set aside a
percentage of annual funding to support dissemination of Regional
Center strategies, tools, and resources.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's support for
the important function of the National Center to support Regional
Centers, as well as its responsibility to disseminate information and
resources from all Centers within the CCNetwork. Accordingly, Program
Requirements 5, 6, 7, and 8 for the National Center require the
National Center to implement such support and dissemination activities,
and Program Requirement 10 for the National Center requires it to
reserve a portion of its budget to address these requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked how the Department defines ``fidelity
measures'' in the annual service plan as referenced in Program
Requirement 1 for all Centers.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request to clarify how
the Department defines the term fidelity measures referenced in Program
Requirement 1. The Comprehensive Centers program has established
performance measures for the purposes of reporting under 34 CFR 75.110.
Measure 3 evaluates the extent to which Comprehensive Centers
demonstrate that capacity-building services were implemented as
intended, which serves as a fidelity measure. This term is derived from
implementation science and should help Centers understand whether
services implemented as designed produce the desired capacity-building
outcomes. While the Department will provide guidelines to grantees on
reporting performance measures, we believe applicants are best
positioned to propose their own measures of implementation fidelity,
for example, in responding to Application Requirement 5 to present a
logic model for the project.
Changes: None.
Requirements for Regional Centers
Comments: Four commenters provided feedback on Program Requirement
8 for Regional Centers. Under this requirement, the grantee must be
located in the region the Center serves and the Director(s) and key
personnel must be able to provide on-site services. Two commenters
expressed support for requiring locally based staff, with one commenter
recommending that the Director or Co-Directors be located in the region
the Center serves, and another noting the importance of local personnel
to ensure the needs of underserved students are met by the program. Two
other commenters did not support the location requirements, noting the
evolution of and ability to maximize remote work. One of these
commenters noted that they did not think it was important for a
Director to be physically located in the region; the other recommended
that the requirement that grantees be located in the region the Center
serves be eliminated.
Discussion: We appreciate the support and feedback from the
commenters regarding the requirement that Regional Centers be located
in the region they serve. We also appreciate the commenters raising the
flexibilities enabled through virtual and remote work and agree that
Regional Centers may benefit from employing personnel outside of a
specific geographic region. Based on the Department's experience
administering the program, we believe it is important for each Regional
Center to establish a presence in the region served, which includes
having a physical presence in the region and ensuring staff are able to
provide on-site services to recipients and clients. This approach
supports Regional Center leadership and teams to have experiential
awareness and context of the regions they serve and minimizes, to the
extent practicable, costs and resources related to travel to support
clients geographically distant from their locations when serving States
in a region. Having personnel available to provide on-site services in
the region is instrumental in building connections, understanding local
contexts, and ensuring that the Center's efforts are responsive and
aligned to the needs of the region served. However, we note that
Requirement 8 does not require that all Center staff are physically
based in the geographic region. We believe that the requirement as
written provides Centers with appropriate flexibility
[[Page 41508]]
regarding geographic residency of staff while still ensuring adequate
presence within the region served to support regional service delivery.
As such, we decline to make changes in response to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested clarification on language in the
background of the Program Requirements section discussing requirements
for Regional Centers to share information and disseminate effective
practices outside their respective regions.
Discussion: We appreciate the interest in clarifying requirements
of Regional Centers to share information outside their regions. We note
that we do not include a background section in the NFP. Therefore, we
are not making any changes in response to these comments. However, we
wish to clarify that we believe the Centers will benefit by learning
from each other and that program requirements established in this
document for the National Center to develop, and for all Centers to
participate in, peer learning opportunities will meet this aim.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested further clarification on how
cross-region efforts would be carried out.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment and need for clarification.
We note several elements of Priority 1 that establish responsibility
with the National Center to implement effective strategies for
coordinating with the Regional Centers and Content Centers to assess
educational needs; coordinate common areas of support across Centers;
share and disseminate information about CCNetwork services, tools, and
resources to maximize the reach of the CCNetwork across clients and
education stakeholders, among other responsibilities. Program
Requirements for the National Center further describe the National
Center's responsibilities, including to design and implement
communications and dissemination vehicles for the CCNetwork, develop
peer learning opportunities for Center staff, and to collect and share
information about services provided through the CCNetwork for the
purpose of coordination, collaboration, and communication across
Centers and other providers. Additionally, the National Center must
design and implement robust needs-sensing activities and processes to
consult with and integrate feedback from the Department, Regional and
Content Centers, to explore areas of national need that may be
addressed through targeted and universal capacity-building services in
its own service plan, or to inform the work of other Centers.
Additionally, requirements for the Regional and Content Centers support
their dedication of resources to collaboration and coordination with
the National Center and their participation in peer learning
opportunities to support cross-regional continuous improvement and
evidence building within the CCNetwork. We believe the priorities and
requirements provide sufficient guidance on the Department's
expectations regarding cross-regional collaboration and the
responsibilities of each Center within the CCNetwork to support and
participate in those efforts to achieve the stated goals of the
program. The Cooperative Agreement will further outline specific
requirements for grantees regarding cross-regional collaboration.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that due to the reorganization of
some State agencies, there may be more than one center of education
leadership in States, resulting in the need to identify additional
members of State leadership to consult on Center needs-sensing
activities.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback regarding the
variety of educational leadership models across States. We believe the
program requirements as written support flexible engagement with
multiple State leadership models. Program Requirement 2 for Regional
Centers requires Centers to consult with a broad range of stakeholders,
including chief State school officers (CSSOs) and other SEA leaders,
and integrate their feedback in developing the annual service plan. We
also note that Program Requirement 4 for all Centers requires Centers
to develop and implement a stakeholder engagement system to regularly
communicate, engage, and coordinate across organizational levels
(Federal, State, and local) and facilitate regular engagement of
stakeholders involved in or affected by proposed services, which would
include education leaders in each State. Finally, we note that the ETAA
requires Centers to have an advisory board that is composed of the
CSSOs, or such officers' designees or other State officials, in each
State served by the Center who have primary responsibility under State
law for elementary and secondary education in the State, and that in
the case of a State in which the chief executive officer has the
primary responsibility under State law for elementary and secondary
education in the State, the chief executive officer shall consult, to
the extent permitted by State law, with the SEA in selecting additional
members of the board. We believe these provisions provide adequate
flexibility for Comprehensive Centers to consult with and include State
education leaders in determining the needs and priorities for each
Regional Center.
Changes: None.
Application Requirements
Application Requirements for All Centers
Comments: Two commenters discussed the overall number of and
breadth of the requirements, priorities, definitions, and selection
criteria. Both commenters suggested that the Department provide
applicants with guidance on how to organize their applications.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' feedback. The Department
will provide pre-application technical assistance to applicants that
includes suggestions for organizing applications and overviews how
selection criteria will be used to evaluate responses to the program
priorities and application requirements. Additionally, the Department
notes several changes to the selection criteria, described in the next
section, to more clearly align them to specific priority elements and
requirements. For example, the Department is revising the application
requirements regarding the applicant's approach to capacity-building to
more clearly align the requirement to the relevant priorities and
selection criteria by clarifying how applicants may organize their
application narratives in response to these criteria.
Changes: We have revised the application requirements and selection
criteria to more clearly align with each other, the priorities, and the
program requirements.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department establish a
firm page limit for the application narrative and provide the level of
detail expected in five-year plans and other elements of the
application.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback regarding the
establishment of a page limit and detailed guidelines for the proposed
application narrative. The Department agrees that it is important to
assist applicants in understanding expectations for detail in and
length of its proposal. It is not the Department's practice to
establish page limits for discretionary grant applications, however a
recommended page limit will be provided in the NIA to assist
[[Page 41509]]
applicants in their response. Pre-application technical assistance will
be provided to review the requirements and provide guidance to
applicants. For applicant resources for Department grants generally,
please visit: <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/training-management.html">https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/training-management.html</a>.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested clarification on Application
Requirement 5 for all Centers, which requires applicants to present a
logic model explaining how the project is likely to improve or achieve
relevant and expected outcomes. The commenter requested clarification
on the scope of the logic model and whether it should be focused
broadly on the Comprehensive Center program or if applicants should
provide a logic model for each project within their specific proposal.
Discussion: We clarify that Application Requirement 5 requires each
applicant to provide one logic model relevant to their proposed project
as a part of their application for funding to demonstrate their
approach to responding to the relevant priority of the Comprehensive
Centers program. The application requirement does not include a
separate logic model for each activity within the project proposal.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters expressed concern that potential
applicants could use data from the current national evaluation of the
Comprehensive Centers program to their advantage in the upcoming
competition.
Discussion: The Institute of Education Science is overseeing the
current national evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers, which will be
completed later in 2024. The data from this evaluation were primarily
self-reported perceptions of how the work was organized and the
challenges faced during what was a very unusual period, 2020-2022, with
the objective of providing systemwide insights for program improvement.
Even though data were collected from and about each Center, none of
these data present a conflict of interest or could give an applicant an
advantage in the new competition. Furthermore, all contractors
conducting work for IES are legally bound to uphold federal privacy and
confidentiality laws and requirements.
Changes: None.
Application Requirements for Regional Centers
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether
applicants for Regional Centers were required to submit five-year
service plans or 1-year service plans and whether a plan must be
submitted for each State within a region.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request to clarify how
annual service plans should be included in applications to this
program. Applicants should detail an approach to capacity building for
the five-year project period that includes a description of the
applicant's approach to addressing the priority to which they are
applying, as indicated in the application requirements, including, for
example, the educational challenges proposed to be addressed, the scope
of services proposed by the project, potential partners, and the
specific State and local outcomes that would represent significant
achievement toward the program's desired outcomes. In the case of
applicants for Regional Centers, the approach should also include the
proposed approach to intensive capacity-building services, including
identification of intended recipients, as specified in the Application
Requirements for Regional Centers. These aspects of the applicant's
proposed approach will be reviewed and scored under the selection
criteria for the Approach to Capacity Building. The Department notes
that annual service plans referenced under the Program Requirements for
all Centers will be established post-award, and details and
requirements for such service plans will be further detailed in
Cooperative Agreements with grantees.
Changes: We have revised the Application Requirements 1 and 2 for
all Centers to clarify that a proposal should detail the applicant's
approach to capacity building under the priority for which they are
applying.
Definitions
Comment: One commenter expressed general support for the proposed
definition for the term capacity building and in particular the four
proposed dimensions of capacity building: human, organizational,
policy, and resource capacity building. The commenter elaborated with
specific examples of the importance of human and organizational
capacity building, particularly in their work in rural communities.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the
definition of capacity building as well as the commenter's discussion
of their experience related to this work in rural communities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter raised questions and concerns regarding the
definitions of the terms client and recipient. The commenter expressed
concern that under these definitions, organizations that may
potentially qualify as clients or recipients would expand the scope of
work of the Comprehensive Centers beyond that described in the ETAA.
The commenter specifically questioned whether, based on these
definitions, Centers could work with public and/or private colleges and
universities as clients or recipients.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern and
recommendations to clarify the types of organizations that may be
clients or recipients of services under the Comprehensive Center
program. We emphasize that the ETAA authorizes Centers to provide
services to SEAs, LEAs, REAs, and schools in the region where such
center is located, and that the Department has clarified in prior
competitions that it considers REAs to include TEAs, as is further
clarified in the proposed definitions. The Department further clarifies
that private or public colleges and universities, to the extent that
they are not eligible to enter into agreement for negotiated capacity-
building services, would not be direct clients of capacity-building
services provided by the Centers, though they may be recipients of
services if, for example, they are included as partners of the primary
clients being served (e.g., a university partnering with an SEA, LEA,
or other client on establishing educator preparation pathways to
address identified needs related to educator shortages) or if they
choose to participate in universal technical assistance that is open to
broader public participation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of how the
Department defines the term performance management and suggested
narrowing of the term as it appears to be used inconsistently in the
NPP.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request for clarification
of the term performance management. We consider performance management
to include activities that provide performance feedback and permit
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes to
contiuously improve the quality and efficacy of service delivery. We
have aligned Program Requirement 3 for all Centers requiring a
performance management and evaluation system with Application
Requirement 7 and the aligned selection criteria under Quality of
Project Design to clarify our intent and allow applicants to describe
how
[[Page 41510]]
they would establish and implement a performance and evaluation system.
As evidenced in the proposed program requirement, we believe that
effective performance management and evaluation integrates ongoing,
continuous improvement and summative evaluation methods to monitor
progress towards agreed upon outcomes, outputs, and milestones to
measure the reach, use, and impact of the services being delivered.
Changes: We have revised Program Requirement 3 for all Centers,
Application Requirement 7, and aligned selection criteria under Quality
of Project Design to describe the performance management and evaluation
system.
Comments: One commenter expressed general support for the
Department's definition of the term outcomes particularly to include
short-term, medium-term, and long-term outcomes.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for and feedback
on the definition of the term outcomes.
Changes: None.
Selection Criteria
Comment: One commenter asked for point values assigned to the
selection criteria.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback and note that we
will assign specific point values for selection criteria in the NIA.
Additionally, we will provide pre-application technical assistance that
addresses the selection criteria, and their point values, by which
proposals will be evaluated.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters provided feedback on the overall breadth
and complexity of the selection criteria. One commenter recommended the
Department streamline the selection criteria to focus on the most
critical priorities. Another commenter noted the complexity of the
criteria and potential confusion regarding which criteria apply to each
priority (National, Regional, or Content Centers). One commenter shared
concern about the overall complexity of priorities and requirements,
and made recommendations for areas to clarify, including streamlining
selection criteria to focus on the most critical priorities and
requirements, providing more clear organization to the criteria, and
offering a clear template to guide applicants' response in their
applications.
Discussion: In response to the commenters' feedback, we are
revising the selection criteria to more clearly align them with the
priorities and requirements. Specifically, the Department revises the
criterion on Approach to Capacity Building for all Centers and
specifically for the National, Regional, and Content Centers, to align
the criterion with individual elements of each priority. Additionally,
the Department is revising the Quality of Project Design criterion for
the National Center to focus on the requirements related to
coordinating and overseeing the work of the CCNetwork. Further, the
Department will clearly indicate in the NIA which selection criteria
apply to applications for a Regional, Content, or National Center and
assigns point values to each criterion. Additionally, we will offer
pre-application technical assistance that includes guidance on how
applicants can organize their applications to align with the selection
criteria.
Changes: We have revised the selection criteria for Approach to
Capacity Building and Quality of Project Design to more clearly align
them with the priorities and requirements.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on how the selection
criteria would apply to annual service plans required under the Program
Requirements for all Centers.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request for clarification
on how selection criteria will be applied to annual service plans and
agree that language under the program requirements, application
requirements, and selection criteria should be clarified as it relates
to how annual plans should be included in applications to this program.
We clarify above that applicants to this program should detail an
approach to capacity building for the five-year project period as
indicated in the application requirements. The applicant's proposed
approach will be reviewed and scored under the selection criteria for
the Approach to Capacity Building. Additionally, we will provide pre-
application technical assistance that explains how the selection
criteria align to the priorities and requirements.
Changes: We revised the selection criteria under the Approach to
Capacity Building to further clarify how they will be used to evaluate
the extent to which applicants meet certain aspects of the priority for
each Center through their proposed approach to capacity building
detailed in their application.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on how the term
capacity-building plan referenced in the selection criteria for
Regional Centers and the National Center aligned to other terms and
requirements in the NPP, specifically noting references elsewhere in
the selection criteria to ``technical assistance plans'' and whether
these terms are interchangeable.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter raising the question
regarding how the term capacity-building plan is used in the NPP in
relation to other similar terms and agree that clarification is needed.
To simplify the language, and more clearly link the program and
application requirements to the selection criteria, we have replaced
references to capacity-building and technical assistance plans with
reference to the applicant's approach to capacity building.
Changes: We have revised the Approach to Capacity Building
selection criteria for the National Center, Regional Centers, and
Content Centers to streamline the language.
Comments: One commenter requested clarification between subject
matter, content, and technical expertise.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request for
clarification. In the selection criteria under Subject Matter and
Technical Assistance Expertise, the Department differentiates subject
matter expertise and technical assistance expertise as aligned to the
relevant Application Requirements for all Centers. The Subject Matter
and Technical Assistance Expertise selection criteria acknowledge the
importance of these two areas of expertise, and we agree that the
criteria should further clarify the distinction between the two types
of expertise. As defined in this document, ``subject matter expertise''
may include expert knowledge of statutory requirements, regulations,
and policies related to ESEA programs, current education issues, and
policy initiatives, as well as demonstrated experience in content areas
for which an individual is engaged as an expert including, for example,
publishing in peer-reviewed journals, presenting at conferences, and
relevant experience in operating and administering ESEA programs in
State and local educational systems. Expertise in providing technical
assistance may include expertise in the current research on adult
learning principles, coaching, and implementation science.
Changes: We have revised the selection criteria under Subject
Matter and Technical Assistance Expertise to clarify the alignment of
these terms to the application requirements.
Final Priorities
Priority 1--National Comprehensive Center.
Projects that propose to establish a National Center to (1) provide
high-quality, high-impact technical assistance and capacity-building
[[Page 41511]]
services to the Nation that are designed to improve educational
opportunities, educator practice, and student outcomes and (2)
coordinate the work of the CCNetwork to effectively use program
resources to support evidence use and the implementation of evidence-
based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices to close opportunity gaps
and improve educational outcomes, particularly accelerating academic
achievement in math and literacy for all students, and particularly for
groups of students with the greatest need, including students from low-
income families and students attending schools implementing
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted or additional
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of
the ESEA, in a manner that reaches and supports as many SEAs, REAs,
TEAs, LEAs, and schools in need of services as possible.
The National Center must design and implement an effective approach
to providing high-quality, useful, and relevant universal, targeted,
and, as appropriate and in partnership with Regional Centers, intensive
capacity-building services that are likely to achieve desired recipient
outcomes. The approach must be driven by adult learning principles and
incorporate implementation, improvement, and systems change frameworks,
and must promote alignment across interconnected areas of need,
programs, and agency systems.
The National Center must implement effective strategies for
coordinating and collaborating with the Regional Centers and Content
Centers to assess educational needs; coordinate common areas of support
across Centers; communicate about the work of the CCNetwork, including
sharing and disseminating information about CCNetwork services, tools,
and resources to maximize the reach of the CCNetwork across clients and
education stakeholders; coordinate with other federally funded
providers regarding the work of the CCNetwork and help clients navigate
available support; and support the selection, implementation, scale-up,
and dissemination of evidence-based practices that will improve
educational opportunities and outcomes, particularly academic
achievement in math and literacy, and close achievement gaps for all
students, particularly for groups of students with the greatest need,
including students from low-income families and students attending
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement or targeted
or additional targeted support and improvement activities under section
1111(d) of the ESEA.
Services must address: common high-leverage problems identified in
Regional Center service plans (as outlined in the Program Requirements
for the National Center); findings from finalized Department monitoring
reports or audit findings; implementation challenges faced by States
and LEAs related to teaching, learning, and development; needs of
schools designated for improvement; needs related to closing
opportunity and achievement gaps; needs to improve core academic
instruction; and emerging education topics of national importance.
The National Center must provide universal and targeted capacity-
building services that demonstrably assist SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and
Regional Center clients and recipients to--
(1) Implement approved ESEA Consolidated State Plans, with
preference given to implementing and scaling evidence-based programs,
practices, and interventions that directly benefit entities that have
high percentages or numbers of students from low-income families as
referenced in title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5));
(2) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions that lead to the increased capacity of SEAs and LEAs to
address the unique educational challenges and improve outcomes of
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities
or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement activities
as referenced in title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)) and
their students;
(3) Implement State accountability and assessment systems
consistent with title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA section 1111(b)-(d)),
including the requirement for States to conduct resource allocation
reviews under ESEA section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii);
(4) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions that improve instruction and outcomes in core academic
subjects, including math and literacy instruction;
(5) Address the unique educational obstacles faced by rural and
Tribal students; and
(6) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions that address other emerging education topics of national
importance that are not being met by another federally funded technical
assistance provider (e.g., best practices in the use of education
technology, student support strategies promoting digital literacy and
access, etc.).
An applicant under this priority must demonstrate how it will
cultivate a network of national subject matter experts from a diverse
set of perspectives or organizations to provide capacity-building
support to Regional Centers and clients regarding the ESEA topical
areas listed above and other emerging education issues of national
importance.
Priority 2--Regional Centers.
Projects that propose to establish Regional Centers to provide
high-quality, useful, and relevant intensive capacity-building services
to State and local clients and recipients to assist them in selecting,
implementing, and sustaining evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions that will result in improved educator practice and
student outcomes, especially in math and literacy. The approach must be
driven by adult learning principles and incorporate implementation,
improvement, and systems change frameworks.
Each Regional Center must provide high-quality, useful, and
relevant capacity-building services that demonstrably assist clients
and recipients in--
(1) Carrying out Consolidated State Plans approved under the ESEA,
with preference given to the implementation and scaling up of evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions that directly benefit
recipients that have high percentages or numbers of students from low-
income families as referenced in title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec.
1113(a)(5)) and recipients that are implementing comprehensive support
and improvement activities or targeted or additional targeted support
and improvement activities as referenced in title I, part A of the ESEA
(ESEA sec. 1111(d)), including the requirement for States to conduct
resource allocation reviews required under ESEA section
1111(d)(3)(A)(ii);
(2) Implementing, scaling up, and sustaining evidence-based
programs, practices, or interventions that focus on key initiatives
that lead to LEAs and schools improving student outcomes. Key
initiatives may include implementing evidence-based practices to help
accelerate academic achievement in math and literacy (including high-
impact tutoring, high-quality summer and after-school learning and
enrichment, and effective interventions to reduce chronic absenteeism
and increase student engagement), improving core academic instruction,
implementing innovative and promising approaches to systems of high-
quality assessment (including diagnostic, formative and interim
[[Page 41512]]
assessments to inform instructional design), addressing educator
shortages (including recruitment, preparation, and retention), or
developing aligned and integrated agency systems;
(3) Addressing the unique educational obstacles faced by
underserved populations, including students from low-income families,
students of color, students living in rural areas, Tribal students,
English learners, students in foster care, migratory children,
immigrant children and youth, and other student populations with
specific needs defined in the ESEA, which may include neglected,
delinquent, and at-risk children and youth, and homeless children and
youths; and
(4) Improving implementation of ESEA programs including collecting
and reporting program data and addressing corrective actions or results
from audit findings and ESEA program monitoring, conducted by the
Department, that are programmatic in nature, at the request of the
client.
Regional Centers must effectively work with the National Center and
Content Centers, as needed, to assist clients in selecting,
implementing, and sustaining evidence-based programs, policies,
practices, and interventions; and must develop cost-effective
strategies to make their services available to as many SEAs, REAs,
TEAs, LEAs, and schools within the region in need of support as
possible.
Applicants must propose to operate a Regional Center in one of the
following regions:
Region 1 (Northeast): Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire,
New York, Rhode Island, Vermont
Region 2 (Islands): Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic): Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania
Region 4 (Appalachia): Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia
Region 5 (Southeast): Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Region 6 (Gulf): Alabama, Florida, Mississippi
Region 7 (Midwest): Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Wisconsin
Region 8 (Central): Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Wyoming
Region 9 (Southwest): Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Region 10 (West): Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah
Region 11 (Northwest): Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana
Region 12 (Pacific 1): American Samoa, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall
Islands
Region 13 (Pacific 2): Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau
Region 14: Bureau of Indian Education
Priority 3--Content Centers.
Projects that propose to establish Content Centers to provide high-
quality, useful, and relevant targeted and universal capacity-building
services in a designated content area of expertise to SEA, REA, TEA,
and LEA clients designed to improve educational opportunities, educator
practice, and student outcomes.
Content Centers must be designed to build the capacity of
practitioners, education system leaders, public schools serving
preschool through 12th grades (P-12) (which may include Head Start and
community-based preschool), LEAs, and SEAs to use evidence in the
designated content area. Capacity-building services may include, for
example, developing evidence-based products and tools, and providing
services that directly inform the use of evidence in a State or local
policy or program or improved program implementation to achieve desired
educational outcomes. The approach must be driven by adult learning
principles and incorporate implementation, improvement, and systems
change frameworks. Services must promote the use of the latest
evidence, including research and data; be effectively delivered using
best practices in technical assistance and training; and demonstrate a
rationale for how they will result in improved recipient outcomes.
Content Centers must support Regional Centers, as needed, with
subject matter expertise to enhance the intensive capacity-building
services provided by the Regional Centers or to design universal or
targeted capacity-building services to meet identified SEA, REA, TEA,
or LEA needs.
Content Centers must effectively coordinate and align targeted and
universal capacity-building services with the National Center, Regional
Centers, and other federally funded providers, as appropriate, to
address high-leverage problems and provide access to urgently needed
services to build Centers' capacity to support SEAs and local clients.
Content Centers must effectively coordinate with the National Center,
Regional Centers, and other federally funded providers to assess
potential client needs, avoid duplication of services, and widely
disseminate products or tools to practitioners, education system
leaders, and policymakers in formats that are high quality, easily
accessible, understandable, and actionable to ensure the use of
services by as many SEA, REA, TEA, and LEA recipients as possible.
Applicants must propose to operate a Content Center in one of the
following areas:
(1) English Learners and Multilingualism: The Center on English
Learners and Multilingualism must provide universal, targeted, and, as
appropriate and in partnership with Regional Centers, intensive
capacity-building services designed to support SEAs and LEAs to meet
the needs of English learners beginning with early language acquisition
and development, meet the needs of English learners with disabilities,
and increase access to high-quality language programs so that they,
along with all students, have the opportunity to become multilingual.
The Center must also support the selection, implementation, and scale-
up of evidence-based practices, in coordination with the National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, related to meeting the
needs of English learners.
(2) Early School Success: The Center for Early School Success must
provide universal, targeted, and, as appropriate, and in partnership
with Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to
support SEAs and LEAs to implement comprehensive and aligned preschool
to third-grade (PK-3) early learning systems in order to increase the
number of children who experience success in early learning and
achievement, including by increasing the number of children who meet
challenging State academic standards; supporting effective transitions
to kindergarten; partnerships with parents and families on everyday
school attendance; and developmentally informed and evidence-based
instructional practices in social and emotional development, early
literacy, and math. The Center must support the selection,
implementation, and scale-up of programs, policies, and practices,
informed by research on child development, that can strengthen the
quality of PK-3 learning experiences and support social, emotional,
cognitive, and physical development.
(3) Fiscal Equity: The Center on Fiscal Equity must provide
universal, targeted, and, as appropriate, and in partnership with
Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to
support SEAs and LEAs in strengthening equitable and adequate
[[Page 41513]]
resource allocation strategies, including the allocation of State and
local resources; improving the quality and transparency of fiscal data
at the school level; and prioritizing supports for students and
communities with the greatest need, including schools implementing
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted or additional
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of
the ESEA in collaboration with the National Center. The Center must
support the selection, implementation, and scale-up of evidence-based
programs, policies, and practices that promote responsible fiscal
planning and management, and effective and permissible uses of ESEA
formula funds, including through combining those funds with other
available and allowable Federal, State, and local funds (``blending and
braiding'') and considering how ESEA funds may interact with and
complement other Federal programs, such as IDEA, Medicaid, and Head
Start to improve student opportunities and outcomes.
(4) Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce: The Center
on Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce must provide
universal, targeted, and, as appropriate and in partnership with
Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to
support SEAs to support their LEAs, schools, and their partners (e.g.,
educator preparation programs, workforce boards, labor unions) in
designing and scaling practices that establish and enhance high-
quality, comprehensive, evidence-based, and affordable educator
pathways, including educator residency and Grow Your Own programs, as
well as emerging pathways into the profession such as registered
apprenticeship programs for teachers; and in improving educator
diversity, recruitment, and retention. The Center must support the
selection, implementation, and scale-up of evidence-based programs,
policies, and practices that will support States, LEAs, and their
partners in addressing educator shortages and providing all students
with highly qualified educators across the P-12 continuum, including
through increased compensation and improved working conditions; high-
quality, comprehensive, evidence-based, and affordable educator
preparation, including educator residency and Grow Your Own programs,
as well as emerging pathways into the profession such as registered
apprenticeship programs for teachers; providing opportunities for
teacher leadership and career advancement; ongoing professional
learning throughout educators' careers, including implementing
evidence-based strategies for effective teaching and learning;
strengthening novice teacher induction; and supporting and diversifying
the educator workforce, as well as other actions to improve learning
conditions and educator well-being.
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
Program Requirements:
The Department establishes the following program requirements for
this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any
year in which this program is in effect.
Program Requirements for All Centers: National, Regional, and
Content Center grantees under this program must:
(1) Develop service plans annually for carrying out the technical
assistance and capacity-building activities to be delivered by the
Center in response to educational challenges facing students,
practitioners, and education system leaders. Plans must include: High-
leverage problems to be addressed, including identified client needs,
capacity-building services to be delivered, time-based outcomes (i.e.,
short-term, mid-term, long-term), responsible personnel, key technical
assistance partners, milestones, outputs, dissemination plans, fidelity
measures, if appropriate, and any other elements specified by the
Department. The annual service plans must be an update to the Center's
five-year plan submitted as part of the initial grant application and
account for changes in client needs.
(2) Develop and implement capacity-building services, including
tools and resources, in partnership with State and local clients and
recipients to reflect and address specific client needs and contexts
and promote sustainable evidence utilization to address identified
educational challenges.
(3) Develop and implement an effective performance management and
evaluation system that integrates continuous improvement to promote
effective achievement of client outcomes. The system must include
methods to measure and monitor progress towards agreed upon outcomes,
outputs, and milestones and to measure the reach, use, and impact of
the services being delivered to ensure capacity-building services are
implemented as intended, reaching intended clients and recipients, and
achieving desired results. Progress monitoring must include periodic
assessment of client satisfaction and timely identification of changes
in State contexts that may impact the project's success. The
performance management system must include strategies to report on
defined program performance measures.
(4) Develop and implement a stakeholder engagement system to
regularly communicate, engage, and coordinate, using feedback to inform
improvement, across organizational levels (Federal, State, and local),
and facilitate regular engagement of stakeholders involved in or
affected by proposed services. This system must provide regular and
ongoing opportunities for outreach activities (e.g., ongoing promotion
of services and products to potential and current recipients,
particularly at the local level) and regular opportunities for
engagement with potential beneficiaries or participants involved in or
impacted by proposed school improvement activities (e.g., students,
parents, educators, administrators, Tribal leaders) to ensure services
reflect their needs.
(5) Develop and implement a high-quality personnel management
system to efficiently obtain and retain the services of nationally
recognized technical and content experts and other consultants with
direct experience working with SEAs, REAs, and LEAs. The Center must
ensure that personnel have the appropriate expertise to deliver high-
quality capacity-building services that meet client and recipient need
and be staffed at a level sufficient for
[[Page 41514]]
achieving the goals of its assigned projects and responsibilities.
(6) Develop and implement a comprehensive communication and
dissemination plan that includes strategies to disseminate information
in multiple formats and mediums (e.g., evidence-based practice tool
kits, briefs, informational webinars) including through CCNetwork
websites, social media, and other methods as appropriate, and
strategies to measure and monitor the use of the information it
disseminates. The plan must include approaches to determine, at the
outset of each project, in consultation with clients, the most
effective modality and methodology for capturing evidence-based
practices and lessons learned, dissemination strategies customized and
based on needs of the targeted audience(s), and strategies to monitor
and measure audience engagement and use of information and products of
the Center. Centers must work with partners to disseminate products
through networks in which the targeted audiences are most likely to
seek or receive information, with the goal of expanding the reach of
Centers to the largest number of recipients possible.
(7) Identify and enter into partnership agreements with federally
funded providers, State and national organizations, businesses, and
industry experts, as applicable, to support States in the
implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based programs, practices,
and interventions, as well as reduce duplication of services and
engagement burden to States. Where appropriate, the agreements should
document how the partnerships might advance along a continuum to
effectively meet program and client goals.
(8) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, demonstrate
to the Department that it has secured client and partner commitments to
carry out proposed annual service plans.
(9) Participate in a national evaluation of the Comprehensive
Centers Program.
Program Requirements for National Comprehensive Center: In addition
to the requirements for all Centers, National Center grantees under
this program must:
(1) Design and implement robust needs-sensing activities and
processes to consult with and integrate feedback from the Department,
Regional and Content Centers, and advisory boards that surface high-
leverage problems that could be effectively addressed in developing the
national annual service plan.
(2) Collaborate with Regional and Content Centers to implement
universal and targeted services for recipients to address high-leverage
problems identified in the annual service plan. In providing targeted
services (e.g., multi-State and cross-regional peer-to-peer exchanges
or communities of practice on problems), the National Center must
provide opportunities for recipients to learn from their peers and
subject matter experts and apply evidence-based practices and must
define tangible, achievable capacity-building outcomes for recipient
participation. Universal services must be grounded in evidence-based
practices, be produced in a manner that recipients are most likely to
use, be shared via multiple digital platforms, such as the CCNetwork
website, social media, and other channels as appropriate, and be
relevant for a variety of education stakeholders, including the general
public.
(3) Develop and implement a strategy to recruit and retain a
comprehensive cadre of national subject matter experts that includes
qualified education practitioners, researchers, policy professionals,
and other consultants with (1) direct experience working in or with
SEAs, REAs, TEAs and LEAs and (2) in-depth expertise in specific
subject areas with an understanding of State contexts available to
support universal and targeted services of the National Center and
intensive capacity-building services of Regional Centers. Cadre experts
must have a proven record of designing and implementing effective
capacity-building services, using evidence effectively, and delivering
quality adult learning experiences or professional development
experiences that meet client and recipient needs and must have
recognized subject matter expertise including publishing in peer-
reviewed journals and presenting at national conferences on the ESEA
programs or content areas for which they are engaged as experts to
provide universal, targeted, or intensive capacity building.
(4) Reserve not less than one half of the annual budget to provide
universal, targeted, and, as needed, intensive services to address
topics 1-5 enumerated in the priority for this Center and as approved
by the Department in the annual service plan.
(5) Include in the communications and dissemination plan, and
implement processes for outreach activities (e.g., regular promotion of
services and products to clients and potential and current recipients),
use of feedback loops across organizational levels (Federal, State, and
local), regular engagement and coordination with the Department,
Regional Centers, and partner organizations (e.g., federally funded
providers), and engagement of stakeholders involved in or impacted by
proposed school improvement activities.
(6) Design and implement communications and dissemination vehicles
for the CCNetwork, including maintaining the CCNetwork website with an
easy-to-navigate design that meets government or industry recognized
standards for accessibility, including compliance with Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and maintain a consistent media
presence, in collaboration with Regional and Content Centers and the
Department Communications office, that promotes increased engagement.
(7) Develop peer learning opportunities for Regional and Content
Center staff (and other partners, as appropriate) to address
implementation challenges and scale effective practices to improve
service delivery across the CCNetwork.
(8) Collect and share information about services provided through
the CCNetwork for the purpose of coordination, collaboration, and
communication across Centers and other providers, including an annual
analysis of service plans to identify and disseminate information about
services rendered across the CCNetwork.
(9) Ensure that the Project Director is capable of managing all
aspects of the Center and is either staffed at 1 FTE or there are two
Co-Project Directors each at a minimum of 0.75 FTE. The Project
Director or Co-Project Directors and all key personnel must be able to
provide services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate
to achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in
annual service plans.
(10) Reserve not less than one third of the budget to address the
program requirements for CCNetwork coordination (requirements 5 through
8).
Program Requirements for Regional Centers: In addition to the
requirements for all Centers, Regional Center grantees under this
program must:
(1) Actively coordinate and collaborate with the REL serving their
region. Coordination must include annual joint need sensing in a manner
designed to comprehensively inform service delivery across both
programs while reducing burden on State agencies. The goals of this
coordination and collaboration are to share, synthesize, and apply
information, ideas, and lessons learned; to enable each type of
provider to focus on its designated role; to ensure that work is non-
duplicative; to streamline and simplify service provision to States and
[[Page 41515]]
LEAs; and to collaborate on projects to better support regional
stakeholders.
(2) Consult with a broad range of stakeholders, including chief
State school officers and other SEA leaders, TEAs, LEAs, educators,
students, and parents, and integrate their feedback in developing the
annual service plan to reflect the needs of all States (and to the
extent practicable, of LEAs) within the region to be served.
(3) In developing the annual service plan, ensure services are
provided to support students and communities with the highest needs,
including recipients: (i) that have high percentages or numbers of
students from low-income families as referenced in title I, part A of
the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5)); (ii) that are implementing
comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted or
additional targeted support and improvement activities as referenced in
title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)); (iii) in rural areas;
and (iv) serving student populations with demonstrated needs unmet or
under-met through other Federal, State, or local interventions.
(4) Explore and provide opportunities to connect peers within and
across regions.
(5) Collaborate with the National Center and Content Centers, as
appropriate, including to support client and recipient participation in
targeted capacity-building services, and obtain and retain the services
of nationally recognized content experts through partnership with the
National Center, Content Centers, or other federally funded providers.
(6) Support the participation of Regional Center staff in CCNetwork
peer learning opportunities, including sharing information about
effective practices in the region, to extend the Center's reach to as
many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools in need of services as
possible while also learning about effective capacity-building
approaches to enhance the Center's ability to provide high-quality
services.
(7) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, provide to
the Department copies of partnership agreements with the REL(s) in the
region that the Center serves and, as appropriate, other Department-
funded technical assistance providers that are charged with supporting
comprehensive, systemic changes in States or Department-funded
technical assistance providers with particular expertise (e.g., early
learning or instruction for English language learners) relevant to the
region's service plan. Partnership agreements must define processes for
coordination and support collaboration to meet relevant program
requirements.
(8) Be located in the region the Center serves. The Project
Director must be capable of managing all aspects of the Center and be
either at a minimum of 0.75 FTE or there must be two Co-Project
Directors each at a minimum of 0.5 FTE. The Project Director or Co-
Project Directors and key personnel must also be able to provide on-
site services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate to
achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in
annual service plans.
Program Requirements for Content Centers: In addition to the
requirements for all Centers, Content Center grantees under this
program must:
(1) Consult and integrate feedback from the Department and the
National and Regional Centers in developing the annual service plan to
inform high-quality tools, resources, and overall technical assistance
in priority areas.
(2) Collaborate with Regional Centers to address specific requests
for assistance from States within the regions and strengthen Regional
Center staff knowledge and expertise on the evidence base and effective
practices within its specific content area.
(3) Produce high-quality, universal capacity-building services, and
identify, organize, select, and translate existing key research
knowledge and Department guidance related to the Center's content area
and examples of workable strategies and systems for implementing
provisions and programs that have produced positive outcomes for
schools and students, and communicate the information in ways that are
highly relevant and useful to State- and local-level policymakers,
practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.
(4) Collaborate with the National Center and Regional Centers to
convene States and LEAs, researchers, and other experts, including
other Federal entities and providers of technical assistance as
identified by the Department, to learn from each other about practical
strategies for implementing ESEA provisions and programs related to the
Center's area of focus.
(5) Support the participation of Content Center staff in CCNetwork
peer learning opportunities with the goal of providing high-quality
services while reaching as many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools in
need of services as possible.
(6) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, provide
copies to the Department of partnership agreements with Department-
funded technical assistance providers that are charged with supporting
comprehensive, systemic changes in States or Department-funded
technical assistance providers with particular expertise relevant to
the Center's content area. Partnership agreements must define processes
for coordination and support collaboration to meet relevant program
requirements.
(7) The Project Director must be capable of managing all aspects of
the Center and be either at a minimum of 0.75 FTE or there must be two
Co-Project Directors each at a minimum of 0.5 FTE. The Project Director
or Co-Project Directors and all key personnel must be able to provide
services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate to
achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in
annual service plans.
Application Requirements:
Application Requirements for All Centers:
(1) Present an approach to the proposed project for operating the
Comprehensive Center that clearly establishes the critical educational
challenges proposed to be addressed by the Center, the impact the
Center plans to achieve, including the proposed scope of services in
relation to the number of SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and, as appropriate,
schools served, with respect to specific State and local outcomes that
would represent significant achievement in advancing the efforts of
State and local systems to improve educational opportunities and
student outcomes, and proposes how the Center will efficiently and
effectively provide appropriate capacity-building services to achieve
the desired outcomes.
(2) Present applicable regional, State, and local educational
needs, including relevant data demonstrating the identified needs, and
including the perspectives of underrepresented groups, that could be
addressed through the proposed capacity-building approach to implement
and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions.
(3) Demonstrate how key personnel possess subject matter expert
knowledge of statutory requirements, regulations, and policies related
to ESEA programs, current education issues, and policy initiatives for
supporting the implementation and scaling up of evidence-based
programs, practices, and interventions.
(4) Demonstrate expertise in providing highly relevant and highly
effective technical assistance (e.g., that is co-designed with clients;
demonstrably addresses authentic needs based on needs-sensing
activities; is
[[Page 41516]]
timely, relevant, useful, clear and measurable; and results in
demonstrable improvements or outcomes), including by demonstrating
expertise in the current research on adult learning principles,
coaching, and implementation science that will drive the applicant's
capacity-building services; how the applicant has successfully
supported clients to achieve desired outcomes; and how the applicant
will promote self-sufficiency and sustainability of State- and local-
led school improvement activities.
(5) Present a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) informed by
research or evaluation findings that demonstrates a rationale (as
defined in 34 CFR 77.1) explaining how the project is likely to improve
or achieve relevant and expected outcomes. The logic model must
communicate how the proposed project would achieve its expected
outcomes (short-term, mid-term, and long-term), and provide a framework
for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project
consistent with the applicant's performance management plan. Include a
description of underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs,
and theories, as well as the relationships and linkages among these
variables, and any empirical support for this framework.
(6) Present a management plan that describes the applicant's
proposed approach to managing the project to meet all program
requirements related to needs assessment, stakeholder engagement,
communications and dissemination, personnel management, and
partnerships.
(7) Present a performance management and evaluation plan that
describes the applicant's proposed approach to meeting the program
requirements related to performance management, including the
applicant's proposed strategy to report on defined program performance
measures, and describes the criteria for determining the extent to
which capacity-building services proposed in annual service plans were
implemented as intended; recipient outcomes were met (short-term,
midterm, and long-term); recipient capacity was developed; and services
reached and were used by intended recipients.
(8) Include in the budget a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OESE
program officer. With approval from the program officer, the project
must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later
than the end of the third quarter of each budget period.
Application Requirements for the National Center: In addition to
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a National Center
applicant must:
(1) Describe the proposed approach to leading coordination and
collaboration of the CCNetwork, and demonstrate expertise and
experience in leading communication and digital engagement strategies
to attract and sustain the involvement of education stakeholders,
including, but not limited to: implementing a robust web and social
media presence, overseeing customer relations management, providing
editorial support to Regional and Content Centers, and utilizing web
analytics to improve content engagement.
(2) Describe the proposed approach to providing targeted capacity-
building services, including how the applicant intends to collaborate
with Regional Centers to identify potential recipients and estimate how
many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, and LEAs it has the capacity to reach; how it
will measure the readiness and capacity of potential recipients; and
how it will measure the extent to which targeted capacity-building
services achieve intended recipient outcomes and result in increased
recipient capacity (and specifically, increase capacity in one or more
of the four dimensions of capacity-building).
(3) Describe the proposed approach to universal capacity-building
services, including how many and which recipients it plans to reach and
how the applicant intends to: measure the extent to which products and
services developed address common problems; support recipients in the
selection, implementation, and monitoring of evidence-based practices;
improve the use of evidence with regard to emerging national education
trends; and build recipient capacity in at least one of the four
dimensions of capacity-building.
Application Requirements for Regional Centers:
In addition to meeting the application requirements for all
Centers, a Regional Center applicant must--
(1) Describe the proposed approach to intensive capacity-building
services, including identification of intended recipients based on
available data in each of the content areas identified, alignment of
proposed capacity-building services to client needs, and engagement of
clients who may not initiate contact to request services. The applicant
must also describe how it intends to measure the readiness of clients
and recipients to work with the Center; co-design projects and define
outcomes; measure and monitor client and recipient capacity across the
four dimensions of capacity-building; and measure the outcomes achieved
throughout and at the conclusion of a project.
(2) Demonstrate that proposed key personnel have the appropriate
subject matter and technical assistance expertise to deliver high-
quality, intensive services that meet client and recipient needs
similar to those in the region to be served.
Application Requirements for Content Centers: In addition to
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a Content Center
applicant must--
(1) Describe the proposed approach to carry out targeted capacity-
building services that increase the use of evidence-based products or
tools regarding the designated content area amongst practitioners,
education system leaders, elementary schools and secondary schools,
LEAs, REAs and TEAs, and SEAs.
(2) Describe the proposed approach to providing universal capacity-
building services, including how it will develop evidence-based
products or tools regarding the designated content area; widely
disseminate such products or tools to practitioners, education system
leaders, and policymakers in formats that are high quality, easily
accessible, understandable, and actionable; identify intended
recipients; and align proposed capacity-building services to client
needs.
(3) Demonstrate that key personnel have appropriate subject matter
and technical assistance expertise to translate evidence into high-
quality technical assistance services and products for State and local
clients, including expertise applying adult-learning principles and
implementation science to the delivery of technical assistance services
and products.
Final Definitions
The Department establishes definitions of ``client,''
``collaboration,'' ``coordination,'' ``educator,'' ``English learner,''
``key personnel,'' and ``recipient,'' for use in this program in any
year in which this program is in effect.
We also replace certain terms established in the 2019 NFP.
Specifically, although the 2019 NFP is not generally intended to be
superseded by this action, we are establishing new definitions for the
terms ``high-leverage problem,'' ``outcomes,'' and ``regional
educational agency'' to better reflect how they are used in the
program, including these final priorities,
[[Page 41517]]
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Additionally, as
established in the 2019 NFP, the term ``capacity-building services''
includes within it definitions for the ``four dimensions of capacity-
building services'' and the ``three tiers of capacity-building
services.'' In this NFP, we define these terms separately. Other than
separating these terms, we have not made changes to the general term
``capacity-building services'' or the ``four dimensions of capacity-
building services'' as established in the 2019 NFP; however, to reflect
how they apply to the priorities in this document, we revised
definitions for the three tiers of capacity-building services:
``intensive capacity-building services,'' ``targeted capacity-building
services,'' and ``universal capacity-building services.''
We also use in the priorities, requirements, and selection
criteria, the following terms, which are defined in the ESEA:
``immigrant children and youth,'' ``migratory child,'' and ``tribal
educational agency'' for use in this program in any year in which this
program is in effect.
The priorities, requirements, and selection criteria also
incorporate the following terms established for use in this program by
the 2019 NFP: ``milestone'' and ``outputs.'' We have included the
definitions of those terms in Appendix 1 to this document.
Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous
improvement and achieve expected outcomes.
Client means the organization with which the Center enters into
agreement for negotiated capacity-building services. The client is
engaged in defining the high-leverage problems, capacity-building
services, and time-based outcomes for each project noted in the
Center's annual service plan. Representatives of clients include but
are not limited to Chief State School Officers or their designees, LEA
leaders, and other system leaders.
Collaboration means exchanging information, altering activities,
and sharing in the creation of ideas and resources to enhance the
capacity of one another for mutual benefit to accomplish a common goal.
Coordination means exchanging information, altering activities, and
synchronizing efforts to make unique contributions to shared goals.
Educator means an individual who is a teacher (including an early
education teacher), principal or other school leader, administrator,
specialized instructional support personnel (e.g., school psychologist,
counselor, school social worker, librarian, early intervention service
personnel), paraprofessional, faculty, and others.
English learner means an individual who is an English learner as
defined in section 8101(20) of the ESEA, or an individual who is an
English language learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act.
Four dimensions of capacity-building services are:
(1) Human capacity means development or improvement of individual
knowledge, skills, technical expertise, and ability to adapt and be
resilient to policy and leadership changes.
(2) Organizational capacity means structures that support clear
communication and a shared understanding of an organization's visions
and goals, and delineated individual roles and responsibilities in
functional areas.
(3) Policy capacity means structures that support alignment,
differentiation, or enactment of local, State, and Federal policies and
initiatives.
(4) Resource capacity means tangible materials and assets that
support alignment and use of Federal, State, private, and local funds.
High-leverage problems means problems that (1) if addressed could
result in substantial improvements for groups of students with the
greatest need, including for students from low-income families and for
students attending schools implementing comprehensive support and
improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement
activities under ESEA section 1111(d)); (2) are priorities for
education policymakers, particularly at the State level; and (3)
require intensive capacity-building services to achieve outcomes that
address the problem.
Immigrant children and youth have the meaning ascribed in section
3201(5) of the ESEA.
Intensive capacity-building services means assistance often
provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between
the Comprehensive Center and its clients and recipients, as well as
periodic reflection, continuous feedback, and use of evidence-based
improvement strategies. This category of capacity-building services
should support increased recipient capacity in more than one dimension
of capacity-building services and result in medium-term and long-term
outcomes at one or more system levels.
Key personnel means any personnel considered to be essential to the
work being performed on the project.
Migratory child has the meaning ascribed it in section 1309(3) of
the ESEA.
Outcomes means demonstrable effects of receiving capacity-building
services and must reflect the result of capacity built in at least one
of the four dimensions of capacity building. ``Outcomes'' includes
short-term outcomes, medium-term outcomes, and long-term outcomes:
(1) Short-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 1 year.
(2) Medium-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 2 to 3 years.
(3) Long-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-building
services after 4 or more years.
Recipient means organizations including, but not limited to, SEAs,
LEAs, REAs, TEAs, and schools that have received ``intensive'' and
``targeted'' capacity-building services and products from Regional
Centers, or that received ``targeted'' or ``universal'' capacity-
building services and products from the National Center or Content
Centers.
Regional educational agency means educational agencies that serve
regional areas within a State.
Targeted capacity-building services means assistance based on needs
common to multiple clients and recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the recipient(s),
the National Center or Content Center, and Regional Center(s), as
appropriate. This category of capacity-building services includes one-
time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning
or hosting national or regional conferences. It can also include
services that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a
series of conference calls, virtual or in-person meetings, or learning
communities on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also
be considered targeted capacity-building services.
Tribal educational agency has the meaning ascribed in section
6132(b)(3) of the ESEA.
Universal capacity-building services means assistance and
information provided to independent users through their own initiative,
involving minimal interaction with National or Content Center staff.
This category of capacity-building services includes information or
products, such as newsletters,
[[Page 41518]]
guidebooks, policy briefs, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
Center's website by independent users, and may include one-time,
invited or offered webinar or conference presentations by National or
Content Center staff. Brief communications or consultations by National
or Content Center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email,
are also considered universal services.
Final Selection Criteria
The Secretary establishes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more
of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. In
the NIA we will announce the maximum possible points available under
each criterion.
Approach to Capacity Building. In determining the overall quality
of the approach to capacity building of the proposed project, the
Secretary may consider one or more of the following factors.
(1) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to responding to the priority or priorities
established for the competition that will likely result in building SEA
capacity to implement State-level initiatives and support local- and
school-level initiatives that improve educational opportunities and
outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of
instruction for all students.
(2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates an exceptional
approach to developing and delivering high-quality, useful, and
relevant capacity-building services that are likely to achieve desired
recipient outcomes, including--
(a) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, targeted
and universal capacity-building services that would be expected to
assist SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and Regional Center clients and
recipients, including those who do not proactively request assistance,
to address the activities described in the priority;
(b) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, intensive
capacity-building services that would be expected to assist clients and
recipients to address the activities described in the priority; and
(c) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, targeted and
universal capacity-building services that would be expected to assist
clients and recipients, including those who do not proactively request
assistance, to address activities described in the priority related to
the designated content area.
(3) The extent to which the proposed approach to capacity building
provides strategies that address the technical assistance needs of
State and local educational systems in key areas of identified need, as
evidenced by in-depth knowledge and understanding of--
(a) In the case of an applicant for the National Center,
implementation challenges faced by States; evidence-based practices
related to teaching, learning, and development; needs of schools
designated for improvement; needs to improve core instruction; and
emerging education topics of national importance;
(b) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the specific
educational goals and priorities of the States to be served by the
applicant, including emerging priorities based on State-led reform
efforts, and the applicable State and regional demographics, policy
contexts, and other factors and their relevance to improving
educational opportunities and outcomes, closing achievement gaps, and
improving instruction; and
(c) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, State
technical assistance needs and evidence-based practices related to the
Content Center priority for which the applicant is applying.
(4) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent
to which the approach to capacity building and management plans propose
an exceptional approach to meeting the application requirements for the
National Center.
(5) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the extent
to which the applicant's approach to capacity building proposes an
exceptional approach to meeting the application requirements for all
Regional Centers.
(6) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, the extent to
which the applicant's approach to capacity building proposes an
exceptional approach to meeting the application requirements for all
Content Centers.
Quality of Project Design. In determining the quality of the
project design of the proposed Center for which the applicant is
applying, the Secretary may consider one or more of the following
factors.
(1) The extent to which the proposed performance management and
evaluation system and processes demonstrate an exceptional approach to
integrating continuous improvement processes and evaluation that will
result in regular and ongoing improvement in the quality of the
services provided and increase the likelihood that recipient outcomes
are achieved.
(2) The extent to which the proposed stakeholder engagement system
is likely to result in a high level of engagement with multiple
potential beneficiaries or participants involved in or impacted by the
proposed capacity-building activities to ensure that the proposed
services reflect their needs, are delivered in a manner that is
relevant and useful, and reach the largest number of recipients
possible.
(3) The extent to which the proposed personnel management system
includes effective processes to enable hiring, developing, supervising,
and retaining a team of subject matter and technical assistance
experts, consultants and professional staff, and ensure availability of
appropriate expertise and staffing at a level sufficient to effectively
execute the responsibilities of key personnel to achieve the goals of
the project.
(4) The extent to which the proposed partnerships represent an
intentional approach to collaboration that is likely to reduce client
burden and to ensure that Federal resources are being used most
efficiently and effectively to meet a variety of needs across federally
funded providers.
(5) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent
to which the proposed project represents an exceptional management
approach to coordination, collaboration, and communication of the
complex work of the CCNetwork.
Subject Matter and Technical Assistance Expertise. In determining
the subject matter and technical assistance expertise of key project
personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant
encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of
groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race,
color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
In addition, the Secretary may consider one or more of the
following factors.
(1) The extent to which key project personnel demonstrate the
required subject matter expertise and relevant knowledge,
understanding, and experience in operating and administering State and
local educational systems to effectively support recipients.
(2) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated exceptional
technical assistance expertise in providing high-quality, timely,
relevant, and useful technical assistance and capacity-building
services to State and local educational systems.
[[Page 41519]]
(3) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated the ability
to develop new and ongoing partnerships with leading experts and
organizations nationwide or regionally, as appropriate, that enhance
its ability to provide high-quality technical assistance and subject
matter expertise.
(4) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent
to which the applicant has demonstrated ability in operating a project
of such scope.
This document does not preclude the Department 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,
selection criteria, and 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
(as of 2023 but adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of OMB 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;
(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
stated in the 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 review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
as amended by Executive Order 14094.
We have also reviewed this final 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, definitions,
and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those approaches that 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 costs are those resulting
from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary
for administering the Department's programs and activities. The
Department believes that this regulatory action would not impose
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in the
Comprehensive Centers Program is voluntary, and whose costs can
generally be covered with grant funds. As a result, the regulatory
action will not impose any particular burden, except when an entity
voluntarily elects to apply for a grant. The priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria help ensure that the grant program
selects a high-quality applicant to implement activities that meet the
goals of the program for each Center. We believe these benefits
outweigh any associated costs.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible
format.
[[Page 41520]]
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 Adobe 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.
Adam Schott,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Delegated the Authority to Perform
the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education.
Appendix I
The final priorities, requirements, and selection criteria
incorporate the following terms established for use in this program
by the 2019 NFP:
Milestone means an activity that must be completed. Examples
include: Identifying key district administrators responsible for
professional development, sharing key observations from needs
assessment with district administrators and identified stakeholders,
preparing a logic model, planning for State-wide professional
development, identifying subject matter experts, and conducting
train-the-trainer sessions.
Outputs means products and services that must be completed.
Examples include: Needs assessment, logic model, training modules,
evaluation plan, and 12 workshop presentations.
Note: A product output under this program would be considered a
deliverable under the open licensing regulations at 2 CFR 3474.20.
[FR Doc. 2024-09877 Filed 5-10-24; 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 May 13, 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.