Proposed Rule2024-16206
Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional Development Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 29, 2024
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Secretary proposes to revise the regulations that govern the Professional Development program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) number 84.299B, authorized under title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), to establish priorities, requirements, and a definition for the program, including a priority for teacher retention projects.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 145 (Monday, July 29, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60844-60853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16206]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 263
[Docket ID ED-2024-OESE-0008]
RIN 1810-AB70
Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional
Development Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to revise the regulations that govern
the Professional Development program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN)
number 84.299B, authorized under title VI of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), to establish
priorities, requirements, and a definition for the program, including a
priority for teacher retention projects.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 28, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>. However, if you require an accommodation or
cannot otherwise submit your comments via <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, please
contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or
those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not
receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In
addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
<a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``Help.''
<bullet> Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: The
Department strongly encourages commenters to submit their comments
electronically. However, if you mail or deliver your comments about
these proposed regulations, address them to Donna Sabis-Burns, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4B-213,
Washington, DC 20202-6335. Telephone: (202) 213-9014.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>.
Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments
only information that they wish to make publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Sabis-Burns, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4B-213, Washington, DC 20202-
6335. Telephone: (202) 213-9014. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1d5dedfdfd09fc2d0d3d8c29cd3c4c3dfc2f1d4d59fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a0e0504040b44190b08031947081f1804192a0f0e440d051c">[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:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations
that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in
the same order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result
from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways
we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the
Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>.
To inspect comments in person, please contact the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Background
Every student deserves access to well-prepared, qualified, and
supported educators who reflect the rich diversity of our nation. To
support student success, the Department is committed to recruiting,
preparing, and retaining a well-prepared educator workforce that is
culturally and linguistically diverse. Well before the COVID-19
pandemic, low wages in the education profession, the cost of high
quality educator preparation, inequitable funding practices, poor
working conditions, and other factors contributed to a decline in new
educators entering the field and high rates of educator attrition.\1\
The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the shortage of education
professionals in many communities.\2\ The impact of these factors may
be especially challenging in schools that serve a high proportion of
Indian students, and they are all key challenges that Tribal leaders
have reported during Tribal Consultation. In response, as part of its
Raise the Bar: Lead the World initiative (<a href="https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar/">https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar/</a>), the Department is working with State educational
agencies (SEAs), Tribal education agencies (TEAs), local
[[Page 60845]]
educational agencies (LEAs), and others to help them recruit and retain
highly qualified and diverse educators by expanding access to high-
quality and affordable educator preparation, improving compensation and
working conditions, providing high-quality new teacher induction,
offering ongoing professional learning, providing opportunities for
teacher leadership and career advancement, and increasing educator
diversity. For additional information on Raise the Bar: Eliminate the
Educator Shortage, please see <a href="https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar/educators">https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar/educators</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J., & Darling-Hammond, L.
(2016). Solving the Teacher Shortage: How to Attract and Retain
Excellent Educators. Learning Policy Institute. <a href="https://doi.org/10.54300/262.960">https://doi.org/10.54300/262.960</a>.; Prince, C.D. (2022). Attracting Well-Qualified
Teachers to Struggling Schools. American Federation of Teachers.
<a href="https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/winter-2002/attracting-well-qualified-teachers-struggling">https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/winter-2002/attracting-well-qualified-teachers-struggling</a>.; Walker, T. (2019).
Educators and Parents Reset the Class Size `Debate'. National
Education Association. <a href="https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/educators-and-parents-reset-class-size-debate">https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/educators-and-parents-reset-class-size-debate</a>.
\2\ U.S. Department of Education. (2023). Raise the Bar Policy
Brief: Eliminating Educator Shortages through Increased
Compensation, High-Quality and Affordable Educator Preparation and
Teacher Leadership. <a href="https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar/eliminating-educator-shortages-compensation-preparation-leadership">https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar/eliminating-educator-shortages-compensation-preparation-leadership</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Professional Development program can help address the unique
needs of Indian students by expanding the proportion of educators who
share their cultural and linguistic background. Research indicates that
Indian teachers have a significant impact on Indian students. Students
who have exposure to teachers who represent their background
demonstrate improved academic achievement.\3\ While approximately one
percent of students were Indian or Alaska Native in school year 2020-
2021, 0.5 percent of educators shared this background (for additional
information, see <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr">https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Olson, L. (2023). Teachers Like Us: Strategies for
Increasing Educator Diversity in Public Schools. FutureEd.
Washington, DC: McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown
University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian teacher education and retention is an investment in Tribal
Nations that strengthens their capacity to address community needs.\4\
When Indian students in the fourth and eighth grade were asked who
taught them most of what they know about their Indian history,
language, and traditions, they ranked teachers second only to their
families. Yet 60 percent of those students had teachers who reported
never attending professional development programs aimed at developing
culturally responsive instructional practices for Indian students over
the past two years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Anthony-Stevens, V., Moss, I., Como Jacobson, A., Boysen-
Taylor, R., & Campbell-Daniels, S. (2022). Grounded in relationships
of support: Indigenous teacher mentorship in the Rural West. The
Rural Educator, 43(1), 88-104. <a href="https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v43i1.1209">https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v43i1.1209</a>.
\5\ Rampey, B.D., Faircloth, S.C., Whorton, R.P., and Deaton, J.
(2021). National Indian Education Study 2019 (NCES 2021-018). U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary proposes to revise the regulations in 34 CFR part 263
that govern the Professional Development program to better enable the
Department and grantees to meet the objectives of the program,
including supporting educator retention efforts. As described in the
Tribal Consultation section of this document, Tribes favored expanding
and increasing efforts to retain high-quality Indian educators. This
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) also reflects recent congressional
interest in promoting retention of effective educators through
Department programs. Accordingly, the Department proposes two new
priorities and accompanying requirements for applicants proposing to
retain highly effective Indian educators. The Secretary also proposes
to revise the payback requirements to be responsive to comments
received during Tribal Consultation.
We propose adding two new priorities that respond to the need to
retain effective Indian educators. The first is a priority for projects
focused on the retention of Indian educators. The second priority is
for applications submitted by an SEA, LEA, or Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) school as the lead applicant, in consortium with an
institution of higher education (IHE). This priority would support the
applicants that are directly responsible for retaining teachers. Note,
there is already a priority in Sec. 263.6(a)(1) for applications
submitted by an Indian Tribe, Indian organization (including a TEA that
meets the definition of ``Indian organization'' in Sec. 263.3), or
TCU.
For use in the priority on the retention of Indian educators, we
also propose a new definition of ``educator'' that is broad and
informed by ESEA sections 6122(a)(2), 8101(42)(A), and 8101(35). The
proposed definition includes teachers, principals, administrators, and
other school leaders, as well as specialized instructional support
personnel (e.g., school psychologists, school counselors, school social
workers, librarians, early intervention service personnel),
paraprofessionals, and other faculty. A broad definition creates the
opportunity for the Department to support communities in addressing a
variety of needs facing their schools and classrooms, such as utilizing
early intervention service personnel to provide targeted instruction to
students and additional support to teachers. At the same time, the
definition is structured to allow the Department to focus on particular
groups of educators, such as teachers, in a given grant competition.
Applicants addressing the priority on Indian educator retention
would propose an educator retention initiative to help address the
shortage of Indian educators and expand their impact on Indian
students' education. For example, applicants could propose an educator
retention initiative providing Indian educators the opportunity to
facilitate, lead, or engage in sustained, intensive, job-embedded,
data-driven, classroom-focused professional learning that is
collaborative and evidence based. Applicants could also propose a
retention initiative to support compensated educator leadership models
designed to increase the retention of effective, experienced Indian
educators who take on leadership responsibilities to help ensure that
Indian students gain knowledge and understanding of their communities,
languages, histories, traditions, and cultures and support their peers.
Applicants addressing the proposed priority for applications from an
SEA, LEA, or BIE school would propose an initiative as the lead
applicant in consortium with an IHE. This may be especially relevant in
circumstances where the SEA, LEA, or BIE school is likely to be the
employer, but must still work in partnership with an IHE to meet the
statutory eligibility requirements.
In addition, we propose updates to the payback requirements to
ensure that more programmatic models are feasible, including by
clarifying that payback requirements only apply to pre-service
training, distinguishing between the payback requirements for
individuals who receive training as full-time or part-time students,
and explicitly clarifying that payback may continue after the end of a
grant.
We invite comment specifically on the effects of the proposed
regulations on small entities, and on whether there may be further
opportunities to reduce any potential adverse impacts, or increase
potential benefits, resulting from these proposed regulations without
impeding the effective and efficient administration of the Indian
Education Discretionary Grant programs.
Tribal Consultation
Due to the Federal Government's unique political and legal
relationship with Tribes, as set forth in the Constitution of the
United States, treaties, Federal law, and Executive orders, the
Department held three virtual Tribal consultations relevant to these
proposed regulations on June 30, 2022, January 24, 2023, and May 23,
2023. The Department announced the opportunities through various
external listservs and social media.
In the sessions on June 30, 2022, and May 23, 2023, the Department
sought feedback from elected Tribal leaders on three topics: future
priority areas, the
[[Page 60846]]
needs of Indian students, and future budget development. In these
sessions, the Department posed 10 specific questions to Tribal leaders
or their proxies to inform the design of future competitions. Tribal
Consultation with elected Tribal leaders or their officially designated
proxies informed the proposed priorities, requirements, and definition.
To begin, the Department requested input on future priority areas
and funding levels for programs with Tribal implications. The majority
of Tribal leaders expressed the need for educator, principal, school
leader, and administrator retention and recruitment support, including
professional development, housing, and access to mental and emotional
health resources for both educators and students. Particularly in rural
areas, Tribal leaders emphasized retention and ``grow your own''
programs to increase the number of effective educators who enter, and
stay in, the profession. Several leaders also expressed the need for
Native American language and culture revitalization and resources.
Additionally, one participant requested reprioritizing doctoral program
assistance for Indian students.
The FY 2023 Demonstration Grants for Indian Children competition
invited applications to support Native American teacher retention. The
priorities proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking would allow
the Department to run future Indian teacher retention competitions
under the Professional Development program. Adding these priorities
under the Professional Development program would provide more
flexibility and agency to SEAs, LEAs, BIE schools, and Tribal
applicants to address the variety of factors impacting Indian teacher
retention.
During the June 30, 2022, and May 23, 2023, Tribal consultations,
the Department also requested input on the fiscal year (FY) 2024 and
2025 budget proposals, data sources to inform the budget, budget
presentation, and future budget development. The majority of Tribal
leaders highlighted a need to support Native American language
programs, technology, and housing in rural areas, and they stressed the
difficulty of recruiting and retaining educators without adequate
housing.
The majority of written comments submitted for the May 23, 2023,
Tribal Consultation echoed the need for language and cultural
revitalization, resources for language teaching and training programs,
and social supports such as mental health services. Half of the written
comments emphasized educator shortages and the need for additional
postsecondary education funding. In response to these comments, the
Department proposes a priority for projects focused on the retention of
Indian educators and proposes the definition of ``educators'' to
include specialized instructional support personnel, providing
flexibility for SEAs, LEAs, BIE schools, and Tribal applicants to meet
the mental and emotional needs of students and educators.
In the development of the FY 2023 Native American Teacher Retention
Initiative, the Department held an additional virtual Tribal
Consultation on January 24, 2023. The Department requested specific
input from Tribal Nations on which of three priority options from the
Secretary's Supplemental Priority 3 would best support the initiative.
The majority of Tribal leaders expressed that educator preparation
and retention should be prioritized to ensure that teaching is seen as
a viable profession for Indian students to pursue. Tribal leaders
supported raising salaries and providing other benefits to keep
teachers from leaving the profession or finding better opportunities in
higher-paying areas. Additionally, Tribal leaders said that exposing
Indian students to more Indian educators would help students see
teaching as a viable career path. In response to this feedback, the
Department proposes a priority for projects focused on the retention of
Indian educators and a priority for SEAs, LEAs, or BIE schools applying
as lead applicants.
The Department also requested input from Tribal Nations on
identifying challenges that impact Indian educator retention, ways to
overcome these challenges, and any known innovative educator leadership
models to increase retention of effective, experienced Indian
educators. The Tribal leaders also described additional barriers to
educator retention, such as salaries and housing availability or
housing costs that still need to be addressed.
Tribal leaders in all three Tribal consultations stressed the
importance of retaining Indian educators as well as ways that strong
retention initiatives can improve student achievement, increase school
leadership, and create culturally responsive instructional and
curricular resources to meet students' needs. In response to these
comments, the Department proposes priorities to support SEA, LEA, BIE
school, and Tribal applicants in addressing these needs.
Proposed Regulations
We group major proposals according to section of the regulations.
What definitions apply to the Professional Development program? (Sec.
263.3)
Statute: The program statute addresses the training, development,
and retention of school staff who serve Indian students, variously
referring to teachers, education professionals, educators,
administrators, principals, other school leaders, paraprofessionals,
counselors, social workers, and specialized instructional support
personnel.
Current Regulations: The program regulations in part 263 restate
the program purpose and list school staff including teachers,
educators, principals, other school leaders, administrators, teacher
aides, paraprofessionals, counselors, social workers, and specialized
instructional support personnel.
Proposed Regulations: For use in the Indian educator retention
priority, we propose to create an umbrella term for such school staff
by establishing a defined term ``educator.''
Reasons: We propose to establish the broad defined term
``educator'' for the purpose of the retention priority, to capture all
of the educational professionals currently referenced in the program
statute and regulations who serve Indian students and have a hand in
their outcomes, using terminology consistent with that used in ESEA
section 6122(a). As proposed, the Department would have the flexibility
to choose from among these education professionals, in a given
competition, which would allow the Department, where appropriate, to
target specific kinds of educators in response to local needs or
changing priorities.
What are the application requirements for these grants? (Sec. 263.5)
Statute: ESEA section 6122(e) specifies three application
requirements.
Current Regulations: Section 263.5 includes the statutory
application requirements and regulatory clarifications.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to revise Sec. 263.5 to
distinguish between the application requirements that are required for
every competition under the Professional Development program and those
that may be applied in any year at the Secretary's discretion and as
appropriate to the competition.
Reasons: The proposed changes would allow the Department to tailor
[[Page 60847]]
the application requirements to the type of priority used in a
particular competition. For example, if the Department were to use only
the priority for a retention program in a particular competition, we
would not require one or more letters of support from LEAs that serve a
high proportion of Indian students indicating their plans to consider
graduates of the Professional Development program for employment, as
that is an application requirement related to the priorities for pre-
service training.
What priority is given to certain projects and applicants? (Sec.
263.6)
Statute: ESEA section 6122(a)(4) provides that one purpose of the
Professional Development program is to develop and implement
initiatives to promote the retention of effective educators,
principals, and school leaders who have a record of success in helping
low-achieving Indian students improve their academic achievement,
outcomes, and preparation for postsecondary education or employment.
Current Regulations: Section 263.6 contains two competitive
preference priorities in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), and four optional
priorities in paragraph (b) that the Secretary may use in any year in
which there is a new competition.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to add a priority for projects
focused on Indian educator retention to Sec. 263.6(b). We also propose
to add a priority for applications submitted by SEA, LEA, or BIE school
applicants as lead applicants in consortia with IHEs to Sec. 263.6(b).
Reasons: We propose the new Indian educator retention priority to
address the need, heard through Tribal consultation, to support Indian
Tribes and Indian organizations (including TEAs), SEAs, LEAs, and BIE
schools in addressing the shortage of Indian educators and increasing
educators' impact on Indian students' education. The proposed priority
for SEA, LEA, and BIE school applicants would provide these applicants
more control and flexibility in implementing educator retention
initiatives. Because SEAs, LEAs, and BIE school applicants are more
likely to be the employers of elementary and secondary educators than
are IHEs, their role as the lead applicant can promote strong program
implementation, particularly for retention initiatives, that will
benefit Indian students in accordance with the purposes described in
ESEA section 6122(a). This priority would be in addition to the
priority for Tribal lead applicants in Sec. 263.6(a)(1), which applies
to TEA applicants that meet the definition of an ``Indian
organization'' in Sec. 263.3.
We are not proposing to remove any of the existing priorities from
the regulations. The proposed priorities would provide additional
options from which the Department may choose for any competition under
the Professional Development program. Two of the purposes of the
Professional Development program described in ESEA section 6122(a) are
to increase the number of qualified Indian teachers and administrators
that serve Indian students and to develop and implement initiatives to
promote the retention of effective teachers, principals, and school
leaders. Adding these proposed priorities would encourage new projects
to increase the retention of Indian educators and encourage
partnerships between SEAs, LEAs, BIE schools, Tribal applicants, and
IHEs to improve the achievement of Indian students by increasing their
engagement with highly effective Indian educators.
What are the payback requirements? (Sec. 263.9)
Statute: Under ESEA section 6122(h), the Secretary must require
through regulations a service obligation for individuals who receive
training under the Professional Development program. Such work must
relate to the training received under the program and benefit Indian
students in an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students. An
individual not performing such work must repay all or a prorated part
of the assistance received.
Current Regulations: Section 263.9 establishes payback
requirements. The current regulations set the work-related payback
requirement equal to the total period of time for which pre-service or
in-service training was actually received on a month-for-month basis.
The current regulations also describe requirements for a payback
agreement, cash payback, and opportunities for payback deferral based
on continued education or military service. The current regulations do
not specify that payback is only required for pre-service training or
distinguish between individuals who receive full-time training through
the Professional Development program and those who receive part-time
training.
Proposed Regulations: We propose clarifying that pre-service
training requires payback and retention activities do not require
payback. We also propose to change the required payback time period so
that individuals who participate in training under the Professional
Development program on a part-time basis incur a payback period
equivalent to the accumulated academic years of training the
participant received. For example, if a participant completed part-time
pre-service training over the course of two years that is equivalent to
one academic year, they must complete work-related payback for the
number of months that are equivalent to one full academic year at the
institution where they received the training (e.g., ten months).
Reasons: These changes would allow the Professional Development
program to more fully meet its mission of recruiting qualified Indian
individuals to become educators and offer part-time students a service
payback option that is equivalent to the accumulated academic-year
equivalent of the credit they received through training.
In addition, these updates clarify that individuals who receive
services as part of an educator retention program would be
beneficiaries of services related to their current roles as educators
and not participants in a pre-service training program that requires
work payback.
What are the requirements for payback deferral? (Sec. 263.10)
Statute: Under ESEA section 6122(h)(2), the Secretary must require
periodic work-related payback reporting for individuals receiving
training under the Professional Development program. An individual not
performing such work must repay all or a prorated part of the
assistance received.
Current Regulations: Section 263.10 establishes payback deferral
requirements. The current regulations permit deferral for military
service or continued education and describe the requirements for
obtaining deferral under these circumstances.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to expand the circumstances under
which the Secretary may grant exceptions to and deferral of the payback
requirement for pre-service training. Specifically, we propose to add
exceptions for participants who experience permanent disability and
deferrals for participants who experience temporary disability, or are
serving as a full-time volunteer for an Indian Tribe. We also propose
regulations that would establish the process for requesting an
exception or deferral based on the underlying reason for the request.
Reasons: Consistent with the Department's administration of other
programs with payback or similar requirements, the Department proposes
to add an exemption for participants who are unable to meet their
obligations due to death or permanent disability. Similarly, we propose
to allow participants to defer their payback
[[Page 60848]]
obligations in the event of temporary disability. We propose to allow
deferral for temporary disabilities for up to 36 months to help ensure
that participants have adequate time for recovery and to reacclimate
into the workforce, before resuming their statutory payback obligation.
An individual experiencing a disability that was initially thought to
be temporary but became permanent could request an exception on the
basis of a permanent disability any time during the maximum allowable
deferral of 36 months. We propose these grounds for exemption and
deferral in recognition that many participants face changing life
circumstances and to make the payback requirement less daunting and
more flexible so grantees can recruit a robust pool of qualified
participants.
We propose to allow payback deferral for participants who are full-
time volunteers for Indian Tribes for several reasons. First, we
believe that encouraging such volunteer experience, while ensuring that
payback requirements are still met, will help serve the purpose of the
program by providing participants with experience and knowledge that
will enhance their ability to effectively serve Indian students. In
addition to benefiting the participants and their Indian students, such
volunteer work would help to build capacity of Indian Tribes, which has
been identified by Tribal leaders as a critical need. Again, we propose
to allow this flexibility in recognition that many participants face
changing life circumstances and to improve program recruitment. We note
that, in recent years, participants and grantees have requested that we
provide more flexibility in programs that support Indian Self-
Determination, to expand their impact. Together with the current
exemption and deferral options, this and the other proposed changes
would promote such flexibility, while balancing the need to ensure that
the program purpose is served and payback obligations are met.
To ensure that the process for requesting and obtaining such
exceptions and deferrals is clear and accessible, we have proposed
simple procedures that would ensure the Department has the relevant
supporting information without imposing unnecessary burden on
applicants.
What are the post-award requirements for grantees providing pre-service
training? (Sec. 263.12)
Statute: Section 6122 and the related portions of title VI of the
ESEA require a service payback obligation for individuals who receive
training.
Current Regulations: Under Sec. 263.12, prior to providing funds
to a participant, a grantee must conduct a payback meeting with the
participant to explain related costs and the participant's
responsibilities after receiving pre-service training. The grantee must
report to the Secretary all participant training and payback
information in a manner specified by the Department or its designee.
Proposed Regulations: Under the proposed regulations, prior to
providing funds or services to a participant, and for each subsequent
year that training funds are disbursed, each grantee would be required
to meet with the participant and enter into a written agreement to
ensure all parties are informed about the purposes of the participant's
compliance with payback requirements; estimated length of the training;
total training costs; the total amount of assistance accrued year-to-
date; contact information for the Office of Indian Education; and a
statement explaining that work must be in an ``LEA that serves a high
proportion of Indian students.'' In addition, we propose to include a
requirement for exit certification. At the time a participant exits
from the training program, the grantee must provide certain information
to the participant, including: the name of the institution and the
number of the Federal grant that provided the scholarship; the number
of months the participant needs to work to satisfy the payment
requirements; the total amount of scholarship assistance received; the
participant's field of study; and the obligation of the participant to
perform the service obligation. Upon receipt from the grantee, the
participant must provide written certification that the information
provided is correct. The proposed regulations would also require the
grantee to develop and publish standards for measuring a participant's
progress in their training program and require the grantee to report
all participant training and payback information to the Secretary.
Reasons: We propose these changes for several reasons. The proposed
changes would increase accountability for both grantees and
participants, and give participants more information about their
responsibilities under the professional development program. In recent
years, an increasing number of participants have requested information
about their payback requirements, indicating the need for a more
informative approach. Making these changes would provide more
capability for the Department to ensure grantee and participant
compliance with all requirements of this program.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) determines 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 to be adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of
OIRA for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094).
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits
[[Page 60849]]
(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 proposed regulations only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that these proposed regulations are
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We have also determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated
with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have determined as necessary for
administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits: There would be greater potential
benefits while the potential costs associated with the proposed
regulatory changes would be minimal.
For Professional Development grants, there will be no additional
time or cost for applicants developing an application under the
proposed priorities and application requirements. The benefits include
allowing the program to more fully meet its mission of recruiting and
retaining qualified Indian individuals to become educators. We
anticipate no additional time spent reporting full-time participant
payback information in the Professional Development Program Data
Collection System (PDPDCS). The costs of carrying out these activities
would continue to be paid for with program funds.
The benefits include enhancing project design and quality of
services to better meet the objectives of the program and the needs of
potential grantees with the result being more educators remaining in
their current positions and expanding their impact on Indian students
and communities and more accurately calculating the length of payback
for participants in part-time training. We added deferral payback
options for participants who serve as full-time volunteers with Indian
Tribes because it will provide them with opportunities to better
understand the educational needs of Indian students, while helping to
build the capacity of Tribes. These deferral pathways would provide
participants more flexibility and help them obtain experience that
fulfills their service obligation and provides relief to Tribal
communities.
Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following:
<bullet> Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
stated?
<bullet> Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
<bullet> Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce
their clarity?
<bullet> Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example,
Sec. 263.3 What definitions apply to the Professional Development
program?)
<bullet> Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
<bullet> What else could we do to make the proposed regulations
easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions
in the ADDRESSES section.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a substantial economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government
overseeing a population below 50,000.
The small entities that would be affected by these proposed
regulations are LEAs, IHEs, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Tribes,
and Tribally operated schools receiving Federal funds under this
program. The proposed regulations would not have a significant economic
impact on the small entities affected because the regulations do not
impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
supervision.
However, the Secretary specifically invites comments on the effects
of the proposed regulations on small entities, and on whether there may
be further opportunities to reduce any potential adverse impact or
increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed regulations
without impeding the effective and efficient administration of Indian
Education Discretionary Grant programs. Commenters are requested to
describe the nature of any effect and provide empirical data and other
factual support for their views to the extent possible.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed regulations do not create any new information
collection requirements under OMB Control number 1810-0722 and
therefore do not change the related information collection.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for
[[Page 60850]]
coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local elected officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. These proposed regulations may have federalism
implications. We encourage State and local elected officials to review
and provide comments on these proposed regulations.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on
whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of
information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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. (Assistance Listing Number: 84.299B Professional
Development Program.)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 263
Business and industry, College and universities, Elementary and
secondary education, Grant programs--education, Grant programs--
Indians, Indians--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Scholarships and fellowships.
Adam Schott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, For Policy and Programs, Delegated the
Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant
Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
Education proposes to amend part 263 of title 34 of the Code of the
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 263--INDIAN EDUCATION DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 263.3 by adding a definition for ``educator'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 263.3 What definitions apply to the Professional Development
program?
* * * * *
Educator means an individual who is one or more of--
(1) A teacher (including an early education teacher);
(2) A principal or other school leader;
(3) An administrator;
(4) Specialized instructional personnel (e.g., school psychologist,
school counselor, school social worker, school nurse, librarian, early
intervention service personnel);
(5) A paraprofessional; or
(6) Faculty.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 263.5 to read as follows:
Sec. 263.5 What are the application requirements?
An applicant must--
(a) Describe how it will--
(1) Recruit qualified Indian individuals, such as students who may
not be of traditional college age, to become teachers, principals, or
school leaders, if applicable;
(2) Use funds made available under the grant to support the
recruitment, preparation, retention, and professional development of
Indian teachers or principals in LEAs that serve a high proportion of
Indian students; and
(3) Assist participants who receive pre-service training in meeting
the payback requirements under Sec. 263.9(b), if applicable;
(b) If required by the Secretary through a notice inviting
applications published in the Federal Register, submit one or more
letters of support from LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian
students. Each letter must include--
(1) A statement that the LEA agrees to consider program graduates
for employment;
(2) Evidence that the LEA meets the definition of ``LEA that serves
a high proportion of Indian students''; and
(3) The signature of an authorized representative of the LEA;
(c) If applying as an Indian organization, demonstrate that the
entity meets the definition of ``Indian organization'';
(d) If it is an affected LEA that is subject to the requirements of
section 8358 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA), consult with appropriate officials from Tribe(s) or
Tribal organizations approved by the Tribes located in the area served
by the LEA prior to its submission of an application, as required under
ESEA section 8538; and
(e) Comply with any other requirements in the application package.
0
4. Amend Sec. 263.6 by adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 263.6 What priority is given to certain projects and applicants?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Indian educator retention. The Secretary establishes a priority
for projects that--
(i) Propose an educator retention initiative to help address the
shortage of fully certified Indian educators to help ensure that Indian
students gain knowledge and understanding of Native communities,
languages, histories, traditions, and cultures and expand their impact
on Indian students' education; or
(ii) Support compensated educator leadership models designed to
increase the retention of effective, experienced Indian educators who
take on additional leadership and peer support responsibilities such
that Indian teachers have the opportunity to advance in their careers
and earn additional compensation.
(6) State or local educational agencies or Bureau of Indian
Education school lead applicants. The Secretary establishes a priority
for applications that are submitted by one or more of the below types
of applicants, in consortium with an institution of higher education,
which could include a Tribal college or university:
[[Page 60851]]
(i) State educational agency.
(ii) Local educational agency.
(iii) Bureau of Indian Education school.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 263.9 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (b)(2).
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(5).
0
c. Removing paragraph (c)(4) and redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as
paragraph (c)(4).
0
d. Revising the newly redesignated paragraph (c)(4) and the note to
Sec. 263.9.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 263.9 What are the payback requirements?
(a) General. All participants who receive pre-service training
must--
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The period of time required for a work-related payback is
determined as follows:
(i) If a participant was a full-time student in a pre-service
training program, the work-related payback period is equivalent to the
total period of time for which pre-service training under the
Professional Development program was actually received on a month-for-
month basis.
(ii) If a participant was a part-time student in a pre-service
training program, the work-related payback period is proportional to
the accumulated academic years for which pre-service training under the
Professional Development program was actually received on a month-for-
month basis, taking into consideration the typical academic calendar of
the institution where the training was received.
(iii) If a participant received pre-service training as a full-time
student for a portion of the program and as a part-time student for
another portion of the program, the period of work-related payback is
prorated accordingly.
* * * * *
(5) The work-related payback period for an individual supported
under the Professional Development program may extend beyond the end of
the performance period of the Professional Development grant.
(c) * * *
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, participants
who exited or completed a grant-funded pre-service training program in
Federal fiscal year 2020 (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) who did
not submit employment verification within 24 months of program exit or
completion, and participants with qualifying employment during Federal
fiscal year 2020 who did not submit employment verification for a 24-
month period, will automatically be referred for a cash payback unless
the participant qualifies for a deferral as described in Sec. 263.10.
Note to Sec. 263.9: For grants that provide pre-service
administrator training, a participant who has received administrator
training and subsequently works for a Tribal education agency that
provides administrative control or direction of public schools (e.g.,
BIE-funded schools or charter schools) satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
0
6. Revise Sec. 263.10 to read as follows:
Sec. 263.10 What are the exceptions to payback requirements and
requirements for payback deferral?
(a) Exceptions to payback. Based upon sufficient evidence to
substantiate the grounds, the Secretary may grant, in whole or in part,
an exception to the repayment requirement in Sec. 263.9 as follows:
(1) Repayment is not required if the participant--
(i) Is unable to continue the course of study or perform the
service obligation because of a permanent disability that--
(A) Had not been diagnosed at the time the participant executed the
initial agreement; or
(B) Did not originally prevent the participant from performing the
requirements of the course of study or the service obligation at the
time the participant signed the agreement but subsequently the
participant's condition has worsened; or
(ii) Has died.
(2) To request an exception to payback under paragraph (a)(1) of
this section for oneself or on behalf of another individual, a
requestor must submit an explanation of the reason for the exception
along with substantiating evidence to the Secretary through the program
officer.
(b) Deferral of payback. Subject to meeting the requirements of
this section, the Secretary may defer payback requirements during the
time the participant is--
(1) Continuing education after completing or exiting the
Professional Development program, in a full- or part-time course of
study without interruption, in a program leading to a degree at an
accredited institution of higher education;
(2) Serving on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States;
(3) Serving as a full-time volunteer for an Indian Tribe;
(4) Experiencing a temporary disability that affects the
participant's ability to continue the course of study or perform the
work obligation, for a period not to exceed thirty-six months.
(c) Secretarial exceptions. Under limited circumstances as
determined by the Secretary and based upon evidence submitted by the
participant, the Secretary may grant an exception to, or deferral of,
the payback requirement under circumstances not specified in this
section. These circumstances may include, but are not limited to, the
need to care for a disabled spouse, partner, or child, or to accompany
a spouse or partner on active duty in the Armed Forces or Bureau of
Indian Affairs law enforcement.
(d) Requesting payback deferral for continuing education.
(1) To receive a payback deferral under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, a participant must submit a request to the Secretary through
the program officer that includes--
(i) The name of the accredited institution the student will be
attending;
(ii) A copy of the letter of admission from the institution;
(iii) The degree being sought; and
(iv) The projected date of completion.
(2) If the Secretary approves the deferral of the payback
requirement under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the participant
must submit to the Secretary through the program officer a status
report from an academic advisor or other authorized representative of
the institution of higher education, showing verification of enrollment
and status, after every grading period.
(e) Requesting payback deferral for active duty in the Armed
Forces. If a participant exits the Professional Development program
because the participant is called or ordered to active duty status in
connection with a war, military operation, or national emergency for
more than 30 days as a member of a reserve component of the Armed
Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or as a member of the National Guard
on full-time National Guard duty, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5),
the Secretary may defer the payback requirement until the participant
has completed the military service. Requests for deferral must be
submitted to the Secretary through the program officer within 30 days
of the earlier of receiving the call to military service or completing
or exiting the Professional Development program, and must include--
(1) A written statement from the participant's commanding or
personnel officer certifying--
[[Page 60852]]
(i) That the participant is on active duty in the Armed Forces of
the United States;
(ii) The date on which the participant's service began; and
(iii) The date on which the participant's service is expected to
end; or
(2) (i) A true certified copy of the participant's official
military orders; and
(ii) A copy of the participant's military identification.
(f) Requesting payback deferral for volunteer work.
(1) To receive a payback deferral related to qualifying volunteer
work under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the participant must
submit a request to the Secretary through the program officer that
includes--
(i) The name of the Indian Tribe at which the participant will be
volunteering;
(ii) A copy of the letter appointing the participant as a full-time
volunteer at the Indian Tribe;
(iii) A statement of volunteer work to be performed; and
(iv) The projected date of completion.
(2) If the Secretary approves payback deferral under this paragraph
(f), the participant must submit to the Secretary through the program
officer a status report from an authorized representative from the
entity with which the participant is volunteering, showing verification
of continued engagement every 12 months. The Secretary may defer the
payback requirement until the participant has completed his or her
qualifying volunteer work, for a period not to exceed 36 months.
(g) To receive a payback deferral under paragraph (b)(4) of this
section, the participant must submit a request to the Secretary through
the program officer that includes--
(1) An explanation of the reason for the deferral;
(2) An indication of the length of time for which they are
requesting deferral; and
(3) Substantiating evidence.
0
7. Revise Sec. 263.12 to read as follows:
263.12 What are the post-award requirements for grantees providing
pre-service training?
(a) Requirement for payback meeting. Prior to providing funds or
services to a participant, the grantee must conduct a payback meeting
with the participant to explain the costs of training and payback
responsibilities following training.
(b) Requirement for payback agreement. (1) Prior to providing funds
or services to a participant, and for each subsequent year that
training funds are disbursed, the grantee must enter into a written
agreement with each participant in which the participant agrees to the
terms and conditions required by this section.
(2) The payback agreement must explain the Secretary's authority to
grant deferrals and exceptions to the service obligation pursuant to
Sec. 263.10 and include--
(i) The current Department address for purposes of the
participant's compliance with Sec. 263.11, or any other purpose under
this part, and other Office of Indian Education contact information;
(ii) The estimated length of training;
(iii) The total training costs;
(iii) The total amount of assistance accrued year-to-date;
(iv) The total number of months in the service obligation year-to-
date;
(v) A statement explaining that work must be in an ``LEA that
serves a high proportion of Indian students,'' and the regulatory
definition of that phrase; and
(vi) Information documenting that the grantee held a payback
meeting with the participant that meets the requirements of this
section.
(3) A grantee must submit a signed payback agreement to the
Department within 30 days of the date on which the payback agreement is
fully executed by the grantee and participant. The grantee must provide
a copy of the payback agreement to the participant upon execution.
(c) Exit certification. At the time of exit from the program, the
grantee must provide the below information to the participant. Upon
receipt of this information from the grantee, the participant must
provide written certification to the grantee that the information is
correct:
(1) The name of the institution where the participant received pre-
service training and the number of the Federal grant that provided the
scholarship.
(2) The number of months the participant needs to work in an LEA
that serves a high proportion of Indian students to satisfy the payback
requirements in Sec. 263.9.
(3) The total amount of financial assistance received.
(4) The participant's field of study and the obligation of the
participant to perform the service obligation with employment that
meets the requirements in Sec. 263.9(b).
(d) Career preparation. During the grant period, a grantee must
conduct activities to assist participants in identifying qualified
employment opportunities following completion of the program.
(e) Information and annual reporting. The grantee must report to
the Secretary all participant training and payback information in a
manner specified by the Secretary as well as any other information that
is necessary to carry out the Secretary's functions under section 6122
of the ESEA and this part. Each grantee will make annual reports to the
Secretary, unless more frequent reporting is required by the Secretary,
that are necessary to carry out the Secretary's functions under this
part.
(f) Standards for satisfactory progress. The grantee must
establish, publish, notify participants of, and apply reasonable
standards for measuring whether a participant is making satisfactory
progress in the training program. The Secretary considers an
institution's standards to be reasonable if the standards--
(1) Are the same as the institution's standards for a student
enrolled in the same academic program who is not receiving assistance
under this program; and
(2) Include the following elements:
(i) Grades, work projects completed, including performance tasks,
or comparable factors that are measurable against a norm and are
aligned with demonstrating effective practice.
(ii) A maximum timeframe in which the participant must complete the
participant's educational objective, degree, or certificate.
(iii) Consistent application of standards to all participants
within categories of students, (e.g., full-time, part-time,
undergraduate students, and graduate students).
(iv) Specific policies defining the effect of course incompletes,
withdrawals, repetitions, and noncredit remedial courses on
satisfactory progress.
(v) Specific procedures for appeal of a determination that a
participant is not making satisfactory progress and for reinstatement
of aid.
(g) Requirement for Indian Preference. (1) Under section 7(b) of
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-
638), to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee must--
(i) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and
employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and
(ii) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic
enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of
1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in
connection with the administration of the grant.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph (g), an Indian is a member
of any federally recognized Indian Tribe.
[[Page 60853]]
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442, 25 U.S.C. 5304, 5307)
[FR Doc. 2024-16206 Filed 7-26-24; 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 July 29, 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.