Rule2025-17310
Final Priorities and Definitions-Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions on Evidence-Based Literacy, Education Choice, and Returning Education to the States
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
September 9, 2025
Effective
October 9, 2025
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces three priorities and related definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. These priorities and definitions replace the Secretary's supplemental priorities published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) and all other agency-wide supplemental priorities published prior to January 20, 2025.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 172 (Tuesday, September 9, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 9, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43514-43532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-17310]
[[Page 43513]]
Vol. 90
Tuesday,
No. 172
September 9, 2025
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Part 75
Final Priorities and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental Priorities
and Definitions on Evidence-Based Literacy, Education Choice, and
Returning Education to the States; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 9, 2025 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 43514]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 75
[Docket ID ED-2025-OS-0020]
Final Priorities and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental
Priorities and Definitions on Evidence-Based Literacy, Education
Choice, and Returning Education to the States
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces three
priorities and related definitions for use in currently authorized
discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the
future. The Secretary may choose to use an entire priority for a grant
program or a particular competition or use one or more of the
priority's component parts. These priorities and definitions replace
the Secretary's supplemental priorities published in the Federal
Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) and all other agency-wide
supplemental priorities published prior to January 20, 2025.
DATES: The priorities and definitions are effective October 9, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zachary Rogers, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-6450.
Telephone: (202) 260-1144. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a79797a6a4f4e044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="144747445471703a737b62">[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 This Regulatory Action: On May 21, 2025, the Department
published a notice of proposed supplemental priorities and definitions
(NPP) in the Federal Register (90 FR 21710). These final priorities and
definitions may be used across the Department's discretionary grant
programs.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: Through
this regulatory action, we establish three supplemental priorities and
associated definitions. Each major provision is discussed in the Public
Comment section of this document.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, 6301 et seq., 5 U.S.C.
311 et seq.
The NPP in the Federal Register published on May 21, 2025, (90 FR
21710) contained background information and our reasons for proposing
the priorities and definitions. There are differences between the
proposed priorities and definitions and the final priorities and
definitions established in this notice of final priorities and
definitions (NFP), as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
section in this document.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, more than
1,500 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities and
definitions.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general
comments regarding concerns not directly related to the proposed
priorities or definitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities and definitions since publication of
the NPP follows.
General Comments
Comments: Many commenters appreciated the Department's focus on
core issues such as evidence-based literacy, education choice, and
State flexibility, noting their importance. Additionally, commenters
provided feedback noting their appreciation for the clarity of the
priorities and their agreement that Federal involvement often led to
burdensome compliance requirements and limited local flexibility.
Discussion: Thank you to all the commenters who expressed support
for the priorities. The Department appreciates the support for the
prioritization of evidence-based literacy, education choice, and
returning education to the States.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters expressed general opposition to the
Department's proposed priorities. In so expressing their general
opposition, some of these commenters advocated for the priorities
issued by the Department under the Biden Administration in 2021 or
expressed support for specific themes from those priorities, such as
social and emotional learning (SEL); diversity, equity, and inclusion
(DEI) programs; teacher diversity; and equity in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Two commenters noted that they
believed that the 2021 priorities were a tool to incentivize equal
educational opportunities and welcoming school environments, which the
commenters thought were important.
Regarding SEL and DEI programs under the Biden Administration,
commenters advocated for the continuation and expansion of these
programs. Commenters cited research on SEL as it relates to students'
self-management and regulation, interpersonal relationships, mental
health, and academic achievement. Commenters also emphasized their
belief that DEI initiatives are crucial to fostering inclusive
environments and ensuring civil rights for all students, regardless of
their background. Some commenters suggested that by removing the 2021
priorities, which had a focus on DEI, the Department runs the risk of
grantees violating Federal civil rights law.
Several commenters advocated for including SEL approaches,
including trauma-informed practices, in Priority 1 with regard to how
literacy is taught. Other commenters suggested that Priority 1 provides
for additional services to support student well-being, such as health
care and mental health, with one commenter naming a Full-Service
Community Schools project that helps to provide these types of
supports.
Additional commenters expressed opposition to SEL. One commenter
stated that teachers are already overwhelmed with instructional
responsibilities, that knowledgeable and compassionate teachers can
nurture students, and that other institutions outside of school can
provide social and emotional learning opportunities. Another commenter,
while appreciating the intent behind SEL, noted that a focus on SEL may
divert time away from academic instruction, lead to higher
administrative costs due to additional staff and resources, and may
reflect political or ideologic biases that do not align with all
families' views. The commenter also stated that SEL programs are
difficult to assess.
Discussion: While the Department appreciates the comments regarding
the 2021 Secretary's Supplemental Priorities, this Administration is
focused on addressing the urgent challenges highlighted by the abysmal
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores in literacy,
expanding learning options, and making sure decisions in education are
made closest to the child.
These priorities do not change the enforcement of Federal civil
rights laws. Rather, it is necessary to repeal the 2021 priorities
because they encourage recipients to violate Federal civil rights law--
particularly Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--by using race-
based preferences and stereotypes, and racial exclusion in their
programs and to use Federal funds to promote or endorse gender ideology
and political activism. Additionally, the 2021 priorities are not
consistent with this Administration's focus on merit, fairness, and
excellence,
[[Page 43515]]
nor did they center educational decisions with parents and States who
understand their children and communities best. The Department has long
had the discretionary authority to focus grant funds through
supplemental priorities, which it has done across several
administrations.
With regard to Priority 1, the priority rightly avoids references
to social and emotional learning. It is essential that literacy
instruction is grounded in explicit, systematic, and intentional
instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, oral and sign
language, vocabulary, language structure, reading fluency, reading
comprehension, and writing supported by strong and moderate evidence-
based research. Comments promoting ideological or activist frameworks
are misplaced and detract from the proven methods that truly support
student achievement.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters expressed concerns about the availability
of Federal funds. Some commenters were concerned about appropriated
funds that the Department had not yet awarded, while others were
concerned that incentivizing or re-directing funds to State-level
entities to advance Priority 3 or to continue efforts to close the
Department of Education would result in reduced funding and support in
the future. Commenters questioned the potential impacts of reduced
funding, noting for example, the impacts on personnel, academic
programming and services, protections, and the identification of and
services to specific populations or students (e.g., students with
disabilities, homeless students, students in the juvenile justice or
foster care systems, English learners, young learners with
disabilities, Black students, and other underserved students). Others
noted the difficulties that decreases in funding will have on rural
districts and communities.
Many of these commenters called for the Department to continue
education funding, with some requesting that the Department maintain
funding under specific statutes, programs, or content areas.
Several commenters suggested maintaining funding for the TRIO
programs. Some are concerned that the Department's emphasis on
``education choice'' and shifting control of education to States may
result in less funding or support for these programs and the students
they serve. One commenter requested that the Department engage with
TRIO stakeholders to better understand the programs and their impact.
Another commenter is concerned about the lack of alternatives to TRIO.
Discussion: Comments about funding levels for specific programs are
outside the scope of this notice. To clarify, the final priorities are
for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or
programs that may be authorized in the future where Congress has
appropriated funds and where the authorizing statutes permit doing so.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters support continued Federal funding for
research. Several commenters objected to the Department's cancellation
of research grants under the National Center for Special Education
Research given their importance related to understanding evidence-based
solutions in special education and many suggested continuing these
grants.
Discussion: As stated above, comments about funding for specific
programs, including research grants, are outside the scope of this
notice. For awareness, if it is within the authority of the program
authorization where priorities are used, applicants may propose
activities related to research.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters supported a balanced relationship
between Federal and State governments. One of the commenters suggested
maintaining and expanding Federal programs that partner with States to
achieve Statewide goals, citing the Statewide family engagement centers
as an example. The commenter explained that the Federal government's
funds are important to focus State efforts on topics of national
concern and that States need the funds to pilot initiatives and
determine what works before deciding to adopt approaches/strategies
Statewide. Another suggested the Federal government continue to provide
strong leadership, while State governments focus on evidence-based
practices for all students.
Discussion: The 10th Amendment wisely reserved constitutional
authority for education to the States in order to limit Federal
overreach. Educational decisions should be made at the State level,
where local needs, priorities, and circumstances can be better
understood and addressed. The Federal government should look to the
States to lead in crafting innovative and effective education policies,
not impose top-down mandates. This approach is crucial for achieving
the broader goal of educational excellence for all students. States
must be empowered to create opportunities through policies that are
more responsive, effective, and aligned with the unique needs of their
communities.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters suggested focusing investments on
addressing, for example, teacher pay, teacher shortages, smaller class
sizes, free meals, STEM, and mental health.
Discussion: The Department appreciates these suggestions and does
not choose to add other priorities through this notice. We have issued
separate notices related to artificial intelligence (AI), computer
science, and mental health programs, and will issue notices on other
priority areas as appropriate.
The Federal budget process, which involves the Administration
setting its priorities through proposed funding levels, is separate
from the process for establishing supplemental priorities. We continue
to emphasize that many educational decisions, including those related
to teacher pay, teacher shortages, and class size, should be made at
the State level, where local needs, priorities, and circumstances can
be better understood and addressed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested incorporating evidence into all
Department grant programs including any new programs, and prioritizing
evidence-based programs where appropriate.
Discussion: The Department appreciates this comment and notes that
it has authority to incorporate evidence into competitive grant
programs under the authority in the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.210. Additional
comments on this topic are discussed later in this notice.
Changes: None.
Comments: None.
Discussion: After further review, the Department has made technical
clarifying changes to the definition of ``evidence framework'' to
ensure all paragraphs align in their structure and to clarify how study
ratings would be used.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (a)(i) of the ``evidence
framework'' definition to align with paragraphs (a)(ii)-(v), and have
revised paragraphs (b)(iii) and (b)(iii)(3) to clarify how study
ratings are used to assess strong evidence or moderate evidence.
Comments: Two commenters suggested adding a new priority that
focuses on promoting local initiatives. One of the commenters felt that
locally driven cross-sector solutions would be more effective in
supporting local communities. The other commenter suggested
reconsidering Priority 6 from
[[Page 43516]]
the 2021 SSPs as the commenter felt it was better aligned with the
Department's intention to empower State and local decision-making.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' interest in
local projects. However, we do not believe a separate priority focused
on local initiatives is necessary at this time, especially considering
that Priority 3 would help empower states to consider or promote local
initiatives. As noted elsewhere, we are interested in empowering States
to implement what is best for students, families, and educators in
their communities. We encourage States to work with local
organizations, to the extent appropriate, to carry out projects that
meet State goals and priorities. Additionally, many of the authorizing
statutes for Department grant programs include local organizations as
eligible entities and we would still have the authority to grant funds
to local organizations in those programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters recommended the addition of a
priority for community partnerships that emphasizes collaboration among
local entities to support education and economic outcomes. Relatedly,
several commenters emphasized the importance of the Full-Service
Community Schools program and efforts of that program to positively
impact communities, schools, and academic outcomes. Two of the
commenters encouraged the Department to continue support for this
program.
Discussion: The Department appreciates commenters sharing their
recommendations. While we agree that community partnerships may be
valuable in local education efforts, we do not believe a priority
specific to community partnerships is necessary. We note that, if it is
within the authority of the program authorization where the priority is
used, applicants may propose to include community partnerships as part
of their projects. We note that comments about continued support for
programs are outside the scope of this notice.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters suggested proposing additional
priorities. Some commenters recommended the addition of a priority for
rural areas to ensure the unique needs of rural communities are
addressed and recommended using National Center for Education
Statistics locale codes to denote rural areas.
One commenter proposed a new priority that would focus the
Department's SSPs more broadly than education on efforts that would
support economic mobility, with the priority including subparts related
to wraparound services, post-secondary success, family engagement, and
workforce development, with the intent of leveraging community
resources to impact outcomes. Another commenter suggested a priority
for family engagement.
One commenter had recommendations for multiple additional
priorities to address other educational needs, including high school
redesign, redesign of assessments and accountability systems, the use
of AI, and teacher satisfaction and retention. Another commenter
encouraged the Department to address gaps in job-training partnerships,
including subsidized employment for on-the-job training as a means of
addressing teacher shortages.
One commenter suggested maintaining existing strategies that
promote cradle to career opportunities for all students. Another
commenter emphasized considering the needs of young children with
disabilities and their families in any future investments.
Several commenters had suggestions for other ways that the
Department could focus its funds. Commenters suggested, for example,
prioritizing resources for projects that build equity, expand
opportunities for students with disabilities to participate in early
childhood education programs in community-based settings, serve
historically disadvantaged communities, support the most vulnerable
students, strengthen public schools, and advance academic achievement.
Discussion: We appreciate the thoughtful engagement of commenters
and recognize the great importance of many of these topics. Educational
needs differ significantly across the nation, and States are best
positioned to determine and implement the solutions that best serve the
unique needs of the students, families, and educators in their
communities, rather than the Federal government imposing top-down
mandates. As such, we are focusing these Federal priorities on
addressing the urgent challenges highlighted by the abysmal NAEP scores
in literacy, empowering parents and families, and returning education
to the States. Specifically, we aim to prioritize evidence-based
literacy programs, expand educational choice, and direct discretionary
grant funds toward State-level entities to ensure that decisions are
made closer to the communities they serve.
We will continue to consider these suggestions as we work to
implement the final mission of the Department.
We note that, the Department has a priority available in EDGAR to
prioritize rural areas using locale codes, if appropriate for a given
competition. As such, we decline to make a change.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested adding accessibility requirements
to all three proposed priorities or proposing a fourth priority that
would address accessibility requirements, for which the commenter
included suggestions.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to consider the needs of
students with disabilities as applicants respond to these grant
priorities. We note that projects funded through discretionary grants
using these priorities must already be consistent with the requirements
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, where
applicable. Therefore, the Department declines to add accessibility
requirements to these priorities because they would be duplicative of
existing law.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter, in expressing its overall support for the
priorities, suggested that the Department provide examples of policies
that explain why State governments are better equipped to implement the
policies.
Discussion: While we thank the commenter for their comment, we
decline in this document to specify examples or guidance to States
regarding policies in which State governments might be better equipped
to implement.
Change: None.
Comments: One commenter encouraged the Department to continue
engaging with stakeholders on important issues. Another commenter
suggested, more specifically, engaging with stakeholders on the
development and evaluation of programs.
Discussion: The Department thanks commenters for their suggestions.
We look forward to continued engagement with the American public on
these critical topics, including on the development and evaluation of
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters emphasized the need for the
Department and these priorities to recognize the sovereignty of Tribal
nations and well as Native communities, such as Native Hawaiians.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' request and note that in
these priorities, the Department identifies Indian Tribes (as defined
in
[[Page 43517]]
25 U.S.C. 5304(e)), Tribal organizations (as defined in 25 U.S.C.
5304(l)), or Tribal educational agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C.
7452(b)(3)), as eligible entities that may carry out projects or
proposals under Priority 3. These priorities do not alter the
Department's existing relationship with Tribal nations or other Native
communities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to continue equitable
services in any legislation that may be proposed regarding future
education programs and services and to ensure compliance with specific
legal rulings related to religious schools. The commenter is concerned
that State-level grantees may exclude private schools, and in turn
children who are eligible for Title program services, from available
funding.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter sharing their concerns.
These final priorities are for use in currently authorized
discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the
future where Congress has appropriated funds and the authorizing
statutes permit doing so. They do not apply to programs that have
equitable services requirements. Moreover, these priorities do not
change any existing legislation or requirements related to equitable
services.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that the notice's Regulatory Impact
Analysis failed to consider the economic costs/benefits of
accessibility compliance noting the economic benefits of relatively
short-term educational investments as compared to the costs of lifelong
dependence on social programs. Another commenter had concerns about
compliance with Executive Order 14192 and the need to identify and
repeal regulations and compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Discussion: The Regulatory Impact Analysis explains why a
regulation is needed, evaluates alternatives, and assesses the expected
costs, benefits and impacts of the rule. It does not, therefore,
address costs involved with meeting existing statutory requirements
related to accessibility. Additionally, these priorities were
determined by the Office of Management and Budget to be non-significant
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. These priorities are not
considered to be an ``Executive Order 14192 regulatory action''. These
priorities do not impact the National Environmental Policy Act.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern that the changes in the
priorities will lead to confusion and inconsistency across States. The
commenter believes the Department's role is necessary to provide
leadership and establish consistency for students who move across
States.
Discussion: States, rather than the Federal government, are best
positioned to lead in education. Because State and local governments
are closer to the students and families they serve, it is crucial that
the Department empower States to create opportunities through policies
that are more responsive, effective, and aligned with the unique needs
of their communities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter was concerned about the language of ``one
or more'' included in the priorities, which the commenter thought gives
too much authority to the Secretary in deciding policy implementation
and implementing policy that has not gone through the legislative
process.
Discussion: This language allows the Department to apply the
priorities in the different contexts of many programs. It is a
regularly used policy term that is available to the Secretary when
priorities go through notice and comment rulemaking.
Changes: None.
Priority 1: Promoting Evidence-Based Literacy
Comments: Many commenters who submitted feedback on Priority 1
expressed support for focusing on improving literacy through evidence-
based approaches. Numerous commenters shared concerns about student
performance on reading assessments, including the NAEP assessment,
noting literacy is critically important to being prepared for school
and for the workforce. Many commenters noted the importance of
grounding literacy instruction in evidence-based practices. Many
commenters noted the urgency of broadening access to evidence-based
literacy to as many students as possible. Some commenters shared
personal stories about themselves or their children and experiences
with dyslexia, and how evidence-based literacy gave them opportunities
in life. Other comments described their support for the priority
because of their experience with implementing evidence-based literacy
in schools and seeing significant improvements in outcomes. Several
commenters said that educator preparation programs should be providing
future teachers with the knowledge to be experts in teaching evidence-
based literacy, and that ongoing professional development should equip
teachers with the latest information about evidence-based literacy
strategies.
Discussion: Thank you to all the commenters who expressed support
for Priority 1 and its focus on improving literacy through evidence-
based approaches. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback and
shared commitment to advancing literacy outcomes. Your support
reinforces the importance of using proven strategies to ensure all
learners have the opportunity to succeed.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters made points related to assessments,
including a commenter who supported the priority and advocated for
comparing literacy results in the United States with other nations.
Another commenter opposed the priority, noting concerns about the
utility of standardized tests. Another commenter advocated for a new
national assessment other than NAEP to replace State assessments.
Discussion: The Department appreciates these comments and notes
that they are outside the scope of this notice.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters said it was not clear how the priority
was aligned with other decisions by the Administration, including
proposals to eliminate currently authorized and funded literacy
programs, grants that the Department has discontinued, the Reduction in
Force conducted at the Department, or the proposed elimination of the
Department of Education.
Discussion: As we work to realize the Department's final Mission
and return education to the States, it is crucial that Federal dollars
are directed toward addressing the most urgent needs of students and
families. This includes prioritizing evidence-based literacy programs
in response to the abysmal NAEP scores, ensuring that Federal resources
are spent on strategies that have proven effective in improving student
outcomes. Comments about issues such as the Reduction in Force are
outside of the scope of this notice.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters said that the Department must clarify how
the priority does not endorse or appear to endorse any specific
curriculum, literacy program, or pedagogical methods.
Discussion: This priority, along with the other priorities, does
not require nor endorse any particular curriculum, program, or
intervention. Furthermore, under the Department of Education
Organization Act, the Secretary is not
[[Page 43518]]
authorized to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the
curriculum, or program of instruction at any school or institution of
higher education (see 20 U.S.C. 3403). The program components in this
priority are grounded in evidence concerning what would help address
the significant learning needs of students as demonstrated by NAEP. If
the priority is used for a program, applicants could choose any
curriculum that meets the evidence standard indicated in the priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters recommended prioritizing learners of
different ages in the literacy priority. For example, some commenters
recommended that the Department dedicate funds to adult learners, with
several commenters noting that increased literacy proficiency can lead
to improved income levels. Several commenters recommended expanding the
priority beyond elementary and secondary school students and connecting
adult literacy with workforce preparation and training. Many commenters
suggested a new priority and definition for adult education, more
broadly, and provided text for consideration.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' points about the
connection between literacy and employment outcomes and agree that
literacy is an important aspect of being prepared for the workforce. To
this end, if it is within the authority of the program authorization
where the priority is used, applicants may propose to include adult
literacy instruction as part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters advocated for adding to the priority a
focus on early learning, with some advocating for starting at birth.
One commenter suggested that support should go beyond classroom
instruction to include early identification and support systems and
recommended a focus on birth to age eight due to the high return on
investment. The commenter also advocated for the Department to work
with the Department of Health and Human Services and States to increase
access to high-quality early learning. Another commenter suggested that
the Department should have a campaign for reading to children starting
at birth.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters who noted the connection
between literacy for early learning and school readiness. To this end,
if it is within the authority of the program authorization where the
priority is used, applicants may propose to design projects with a
focus on early learning and early identification and support systems.
While the Department agrees that coordination with other agencies and
reading campaigns can be beneficial, such suggestions are outside the
scope of these priorities.
Changes: None.
Comments: Numerous commenters recommended that the Department
revise the priority to require States, districts, and schools
prioritize literacy instruction for students with disabilities. Some
commenters recommended including funding for screeners that identify
children at risk or those with learning disorders, such as dyslexia.
One commenter said that literacy initiatives must be developmentally
appropriate and be individualized to align with an Individualized
Education Program or Individualized Family Service Plan.
Discussion: Thank you for your comments and recommendations
regarding the prioritization of literacy instruction for students with
disabilities. The Department appreciates the thoughtful input and the
emphasis on the importance of ensuring strong literacy outcomes for
this population.
While the student groups that are the focus of this priority would
be determined based on the underlying program authority, the language
of the priority is intentionally broad to provide a framework that can
inform and support ongoing and future efforts to improve literacy
instruction for all students, including those with disabilities. This
includes promoting evidence-based practices that can be aligned with
programs aimed at serving students with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter advocated for requiring policies and
interventions to address dyslexia.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the importance of identifying
dyslexia and providing high-quality learning opportunities to all
students, including students with dyslexia. Applicants may propose or
expand upon policies and interventions to address dyslexia if those
activities are authorized under a program statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters noted the importance of serving
American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students. One
commenter recommended a carve-out within the priority to support
community best practices for projects and proposals aimed at improving
literacy of American Indian and Alaska Native children through
culturally driven programs.
One commenter recommended that evidence-based methods should
include indigenous knowledge systems, oral traditions, and language
revitalization. Another commenter recommended revising the definition
of ``evidence-based literacy instruction'' to include dual-language and
Native American language programs that are supported by community-based
evidence or culturally responsive evaluation methods and recommended
ensuring that grantees working with Native American students are
encouraged to integrate Tribally grounded reading materials and
community knowledge systems in alignment with Tribal education codes
and language initiatives. A commenter advocated for the use of cultural
context and indigenous language evidence for literacy practices to be
effective for Native Hawaiian students.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' points about
the importance of serving American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native
Hawaiian students. The evidence-based literacy priority will promote
literacy instruction based on evidence to ensure that explicit,
systematic, and intentional instruction in phonological awareness,
phonic decoding, oral and sign language, vocabulary, language
structure, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and writing help all
students, including Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students, learn
to read. Note: A comment summary and discussion regarding the addition
of oral and sign language and writing is discussed later in this
notice.
The Department believes these components of evidence-based
literacy, as defined in the notice, are the best strategies to focus on
for improving student literacy for all students. These components were
identified by the National Reading Panel and codified in the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA).
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters advocated for ensuring that English
learners were served by the priority, with some commenters saying that
the moderate or strong evidence was not available for serving
multilingual students and could result in multilingual students being
left out if approaches are limited to moderate or strong evidence. Some
commenters expressed concern that limiting activities to moderate and
strong evidence could exclude ``innovative or promising approaches''
that serve English learners, and said that the Department should ensure
applicants serving specific populations are not
[[Page 43519]]
disadvantaged because of the existing research base. One commenter
noted that literacy instruction for English learners needs to be
connected to their home language and connections need to be made across
languages and noted the importance of serving multilingual students who
also have disabilities. Some commenters stated that it was essential
evidence-based literacy programs include culturally responsive
materials.
Discussion: The Department is committed to improving literacy after
the abysmal NAEP scores indicated that students are not meeting the
education achievement standards they need. As stated earlier in this
notice, the components of evidence-based literacy are based on the best
available evidence. In a grant competition where this priority is used,
activities would be reviewed for whether they meet the priority.
Applicants may propose additional activities, including related to
literacy, for which they would like to implement ``innovative or
promising approaches'' and build evidence, if those activities are
within the authority of the program authorization.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters advocated for tutoring as a strategy
for providing students support as part of an evidence-based literacy
intervention. Commenters noted that tutoring can help to catch up
students who are performing below grade level in literacy.
Discussion: The Department agrees that tutoring, particularly high-
dosage tutoring, may be a strategy that is part of implementing
evidence-based literacy. We note that the tutoring would need to be
evidence-based as defined in the notice to meet the priority. If it is
within the authority of the program authorization where the priority is
used, applicants may propose to include tutoring services as part of
their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters recommended highlighting approaches for
providing evidence-based literacy outside of regular school time, with
one commenter suggesting a new subpart focused on literacy-rich
environments beyond the school day, including local community-based and
faith-based afterschool and summer settings.
Discussion: The Department agrees that efforts to implement
evidence-based literacy may occur outside of the regular school day. If
it is within the authority of the program authorization where the
priority is used, applicants may propose services that are provided
outside of the regular school day as part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters suggested that the Department highlight
the importance of access to books and school libraries. Commenters
described how access to a variety of books fosters a love for reading,
and that school libraries are important for ensuring that all students
have access to books.
Discussion: The Department agrees that access to books is important
for literacy instruction and for fostering a love of reading. We note
that, if it is within the authority of the program authorization where
the priority is used, applicants may propose to include the purchase of
books and support of libraries as part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding language to the priority
that would explicitly allow for screen-free tools and devices as
instructional options. The commenter's suggested language is intended
to ensure that non-screen tools are not excluded due to the method of
delivery, while maintaining fidelity to rigorous evidence standards.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for this point.
Many states have undertaken programs or enacted policies which aim to
reduce the screen time of students in the classroom. The priority does
not dictate the medium of the tools and devices used in schools and
applicants may propose approaches that they consider the most
appropriate for their projects consistent with available evidence.
Changes: None.
Comments: Numerous commenters advocated for the role of parents and
families in literacy, including through family engagement in literacy
programs and family literacy programs, including approaches to focusing
on literacy at home.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' advocacy for
the central role of parents and families in learning. We agree that
families are their children's first teachers and that engaging with
families is very important for improving education. We also agree that
evidence-based approaches to literacy may include appropriate family
literacy programs. Finally, we note that family engagement is
explicitly addressed in Priority 2.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters suggested additions of approaches to
literacy instruction. For example, a commenter advocated for adding
``motivation'' and ``volume of reading'' to the literacy definition.
Another commenter suggested the definition be expanded to include world
languages. Other commenters recommended adding to the literacy
definition such areas as writing and written expression, mathematical
literacy and financial literacy, and digital, media, and news literacy.
Another commenter advocated the definition clarify how multitiered
systems of support can be used to improve literacy across subject
areas.
Discussion: The Department appreciates these suggestions. We agree
that writing and oral language are essential components of evidence-
based literacy instruction. We also think it is relevant to include
sign language for students who use American sign language. However, we
believe the other suggestions of commenters extend beyond the core
elements of literacy, as identified by the National Reading Panel and
codified in the ESEA, and may be better considered as supplementary
rather than foundational. We note that, if these topics or activities
are within the authority of the program authorization where the
priority is used, applicants may propose to include them as part of
their projects.
Changes: We revised the text of the definition of ``evidence-based
literacy instruction'' to include writing and oral language. We also
revised the text to include sign language for students who use American
Sign Language.
Comments: Numerous commenters emphasized the importance of educator
preparation and professional development, including coaching, to
support teachers as strong literacy and reading practitioners. Several
commenters expressed support for IDEA Part D personnel preparation
programs as part of this work. Two commenters specified the importance
of enhancing educators' use of data to inform literacy instruction.
Another commenter advocated for the role of educators as ``leading the
design and implementation of instructional strategies,'' while
``educational agencies may lead the identification of instructional
strategies.''
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' points about
the connection between literacy and educator preparation. We note that,
if it is within the authority of the program authorization where the
priority is used, applicants may propose to include activities related
to educator preparation as part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding speech-language
pathologists and audiologists in advancing evidence-based literacy.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' points
[[Page 43520]]
about the connection between literacy, speech-language pathologists,
and audiologists. We note that, if it is within the authority of the
program authorization where the priority is used, applicants may
propose to include speech-language pathologists and audiologists as
part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed an interest in working with the
Department to promote functional literacy through the development of
resources on the role of occupational therapy in improving academic
achievement, as well as participation in school, community, and
society.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's points about
the connection between literacy and occupational therapists. We note
that, if it is within the authority of the program authorization where
this priority is used, applicants may propose to include occupational
therapists as part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters expressed concerns that the priority
is too narrowly focused. One commenter felt that the role of background
knowledge, metalinguistic awareness, writing, English language
development, and developing literacy in multiple languages are key
elements of reading instruction that are not addressed in the evidence-
based literacy framework. One commenter urged the Department to focus
on the comprehensiveness of the definition, as the literacy pillars
cannot be taught in isolation. Several commenters recommended revising
the definition of evidence-based literacy instruction to add language
development and the building of background knowledge given the
different needs of learners to support comprehension. The commenters
suggested that writing development, assessment, and intervention are
other components of evidence-based literacy instruction that the
Secretary should consider. One commenter said that the Science of
Reading is outdated and needs to be updated.
Discussion: We agree with the importance of a comprehensive
approach to literacy instruction and note that the priority is drafted
to involve all of the pillars in combination to emphasize the ways they
are interconnected. We also agree that writing, and oral and sign
language, are essential components of evidence-based literacy
instruction. We note that, if it is within the authority of the program
authorization where the priority and definition are being used,
applicants may propose to include other elements related to literacy
that are supportive of the core definition.
Changes: As noted elsewhere, we revised the text of the definition
of ``evidence-based literacy instruction'' to include writing and oral
language. We also revised the text to include sign language for
students who use American Sign Language.
Comments: Several commenters advocated for funds used to invest in
high-quality instructional materials with one advocating specifically
for high-quality instructional materials adaptable for ``diverse
learners,'' including students with disabilities.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' points about
the connection between literacy and high-quality instructional
materials. If it is within the authority of the program authorization
where the priority and definitions are used, applicants may propose
utilizing high-quality instructional materials that can be adaptable to
the needs of the students as part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters supported adding an emphasis on
differentiated instruction, including offering specific language to
incorporate differentiating instruction. One commenter advocated for
the importance of annual testing to inform interventions for students
based on their needs. Another commenter suggested consideration of
whether to prioritize students who are at the bottom quartile of
literacy achievement results. A commenter advocated for supporting all
students, with a focus on those students farthest behind in literacy.
One commenter recommended rewriting the priority to focus on students
with the most need and accelerating learning, without contributing to
tracking or remedial courses, and using technology.
Discussion: This priority will allow applicants to utilize strong
or moderate evidence to provide literacy instruction to students and
training to teachers with the goal of improving literacy outcomes for
all students. If it is within the authority of the program
authorization where the priority is used, applicants may propose to
incorporate differentiated instruction or apply it to different
programs when serving different groups, as part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter made a general comment to ask the
Department to do more to have States require evidence-based literacy.
Another commenter advocated for standardized approaches to literacy
described in the priority, with the Department requiring all States to
follow the priority. Another commenter noted that the priority ``would
allow for States to have specific requirements around what is allowable
with Federal funds and the ability to reject activities districts
request to implement that might be literacy focused but not evidence
based,'' and did not express support or opposition.
Discussion: As the Department works to return education to the
States, it appreciates the comments regarding State implementation and
oversight of literacy initiatives. This priority is designed to support
the use of strong or moderate evidence in literacy instruction and
professional development. However, the Department does not intend to
impose new requirements on States or mandate a standardized approach.
Instead, it provides a framework to encourage evidence-based literacy
practices while preserving State flexibility to align implementation
with local policies, needs, and program goals.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter encouraged the Department to ensure a focus
on rural areas in Priority 1.
Discussion: Priority 1 is not focused on any specific type of
program, entity, or geographic area. However, we note that the
Department already has a priority available under EDGAR (34 CFR 75.227)
to prioritize rural areas, if appropriate for a given grant
competition. As such, the Department does not need to include a focus
on rural areas in this priority because the authority already exists.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed support for the definitions of
``evidence-based'' and ``evidence framework'' as proposed. Some
commenters expressed support for the inclusion of a definition of
evidence and advocated for using the definitions in the ESEA or the
What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). One comment representative of multiple
organizations argued that broad reliance on the WWC is troublesome due
to its lack of transparency in its policies and guidelines, stating
that conclusions in their reports can be misleading and potentially
damaging to program developers, and ultimately students.
One commenter noted the importance of certified, trustworthy
researchers and reviewers of studies, and said that due to limited WWC
capacity, evidence reviews must be done by third party organizations
doing WWC training. Another commenter expressed support for funding
evidence-based solutions and advocated for specific definitions for
``evidence-based program'' and ``evidence-building program.'' One
[[Page 43521]]
commenter applauded the focus on proven literacy interventions and
recommended widening the evidence definition to include ``promising
evidence'' and ``demonstrates a rationale.'' The commenter also stated
that the Science of Reading would not be considered an evidence-based
practice in Priority 1. Another commenter recommended that the
Department advise States to reference multiple evidence-validation
resources, beyond curriculum alignment tools, to ensure subgrantees
meet the rigorous criteria defined in this priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments that addressed the evidence
definitions. We note that the definitions in the notice are aligned
with ESEA and decline to introduce a new definition in the interest of
consistency with statutory language and clarity for the education
community. In a future notice, we anticipate proposing changes to EDGAR
to align with the definitions of evidence in this priority.
We know that organizations in addition to the WWC may be well-
positioned to classify evidence as moderate or strong, so have included
the option to have external organizations verify the rigor of evidence
cited in grant applications.
We will not be including ``promising evidence'' or ``demonstrates a
rationale,'' because the body of evidence related to literacy supports
a moderate or strong level of evidence, and we want the highest
standard of content being used to help our students read.
Changes: None.
Comments: One comment representative of multiple organizations
noted strong concerns with the WWC, and cited a report focused on how
the WWC could be improved. The comment noted concerns about the
negative impacts the budget cuts will have on the Institute for
Education Sciences (IES) research and its ability to make the proposed
changes to the WWC. The comment also provided a link to a guide to
evidence for the Department's consideration.
Discussion: We appreciate commenters sharing concerns regarding the
WWC. We acknowledge that other organizations may also be well-
positioned to assess the rigor of evidence. As such, we have included
the option for external organizations to verify the strength of
evidence presented in grant applications in this priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters expressed support for IES and recommended
linking to IES resources in the priority.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' points
related to IES as it relates to this priority. The Administration is
focused on reforming and improving IES.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns about evidence-based
interventions being expensive, with one commenter saying that evidence-
based strategies are likely most used by entities with more funding,
under the Federal Education Innovation and Research program. Another
commenter made a related point, suggesting that the Department
emphasize that public support, including grant funding, is vital to
help evidence-informed innovations reach scale.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' feedback. We believe
maintaining a focus on moderate or strong evidence is critical to
improving literacy outcomes for students. This notice finalizes
definitions related to evidence to address some of these concerns.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter urged the Department to prioritize
funding for initiatives that have demonstrated measurable success in
improving literacy outcomes for students, particularly in urban and
rural school districts for both public and charter schools.
Discussion: We appreciate this comment. The priority will continue
to focus on evidence-based literacy instruction that is supported by
strong or moderate evidence because those approaches are the ones that
have demonstrated measurable success and we want the highest standard
of content being used to help our students read.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters made suggestions related to sharing
information about lessons learned. One commenter made recommendations
related to data-sharing, rapid evaluation, and collaboration between
product providers and researchers. The commenter suggested using
funding to encourage use of evidence-based practices to publicly report
results, including through clearinghouses, technical assistance, and
capacity building.
Discussion: We agree with the importance of disseminating results
of education programs, whether done by the Department or by other
entities ensuring high-quality evidence materials. Several of the EDGAR
selection criteria that can be used in any grant competition focus on
sharing information about projects with the education community, and we
may use those as appropriate for the purpose of the program. In
addition, unless an exception applies, the Department requires all
grantees to openly license materials developed with grant funds, and we
encourage applicants to consider effective dissemination strategies for
sharing what they learn from their projects.
Changes: None.
Priority 2: Expanding Education Choice
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for Priority 2 and
the focus on expanding education choice, with many discussing the
importance of having options available based on student interest,
supporting parents as key decisionmakers, and ensuring that all
students have access to quality schools regardless of income or
geography. Some commenters highlighted the importance of offering
flexible educational options for part-time students. Multiple
commenters expressed support for the priority's focus on work-based
learning and allowing high school students to earn college credits
through participation in dual enrollment programs, which a few
commenters specifically highlighted as accessible options for rural
students. Some commenters specifically highlighted the importance of
high impact tutoring, including one commenter who suggested an even
greater emphasis on this strategy. One commenter offered support for
the priority's inclusion of language supporting tax credit scholarship
programs, educational savings accounts, and related options as areas of
particular support, as well as support for State-level efforts to
promote educational choice. Another commenter highlighted microschools
and interest-based online courses as promising models that can be
supported with expanded choice; this commenter also advocated for
outcomes-based financing as a tool to support access to career-aligned
training programs.
Discussion: We agree that this priority, and its focus on providing
families and individuals with access to quality educational options, is
important to best meet their unique needs. This priority can be adopted
across a wide range of Department programs and offers applicants a wide
range of options to develop strategies that increase educational choice
and promote high-quality learning opportunities.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters, including some commenters that
support the public school choice
[[Page 43522]]
components of the priority, expressed opposition to the aspects of the
priority that could encourage applicants to propose strategies to
encourage students to enroll in private schools. Many commenters noted
that encouraging private school enrollment through voucher programs or
other strategies diverts funding from public schools without generating
proportional cost reductions in such schools.
Discussion: We are dedicated to ensuring families have access to
high-quality educational options, and that families should have the
freedom to select the best school for their children. Our commitment is
to provide families with choices and equip them with the necessary
information and tools to make these crucial decisions.
We believe that promoting education freedom supports public
schools. Additionally, this priority will be implemented in programs
that enhance the program statute, rather than replacing Federal
statutory requirements, and must align with the specific language of
each program where applicable.
Changes: None.
Comments: Commenters raised concerns that encouraging private
school enrollment does not primarily benefit the students who need the
most help, such as: low-income students because they cannot afford to
pay the difference between the private school tuition price and the
amount of the voucher; students with disabilities and English learners
because private schools do not need to abide by the same civil rights
requirements as public schools, nor afford protections and services
such as those provided under IDEA or 504; students in rural areas
because transportation and broadband access limit access to private
schools; LGBTQ+ students and families, with some commenters sharing
evidence that private schools practice exclusionary or discriminatory
practices towards LGBTQ+ individuals; and students from religious
minorities, as many private schools offer sectarian education and
exclude students or limit the practice of other faiths.
Discussion: This priority is designed to increase access to
educational choice for all students and allows parents to make informed
decisions, choosing the best learning environment for their children.
Depending on the program, this priority can be used as a tool for the
Department to incentivize proposals that provide families with greater
educational choice, whether that be through expanding charter schools,
disseminating information on innovative school models, or providing
families with resources to make the best education decisions for their
learners. Education choice improves student outcomes and enables
families to pursue an excellent education for their learners regardless
of where they live.
This priority will be used to complement the applicable program
statute and will not replace statutory requirements under the ESEA,
IDEA, or other laws and must be consistent with all applicable Federal
and State laws. The Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces
students' antidiscrimination protections.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters shared concerns that there was limited
evidence of the effectiveness of private school expansion efforts such
as voucher programs, that private schools may have negative effects on
communities such as increased racial segregation and isolation, and
that private schools were not subject to the same accountability as
public schools, risking waste and corruption.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments about the current evidence
on educational choice. Parents best know their children and what they
need to succeed. At its core, education choice provides parents the
opportunity to select the best education option to meet their students'
unique needs. This priority is designed to support this crucial work.
The evidence related to school choice indicates that it is
connected to improved parent and student satisfaction and other
positive outcomes. An analysis of a specific set of voucher programs
found that they can be a cost-effective use of public funding for
education.\1\ The study found that private school voucher programs were
generally at least as effective as traditional public schools at
improving math and reading scores and cost the government less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shakeel, M.D., Anderson, K.P., and Wolf, P.J. (2017). The
Justice Is Worth the Squeeze: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the
Experimental Evidence on Private School Vouchers across the Globe.
Paper presented at the Spring 2017 conference of the Society for
Research on Educational Effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the body of evidence supporting the benefits of education choice
continues to grow, the Department is committed to prioritizing
innovative choice models and expanding the evidence base for education
choice. EDGAR provides the Department with the authority to add an
evidence priority to any competition, and the Department will consider
those decisions and their connection to these priorities as
appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters discussed the inclusion of charter
schools within the priority, with mixed feedback from commenters.
Several commenters shared support for the inclusion of charter schools
within the priority, highlighting the importance of public charter
schools in providing high-quality choice where schools are accountable
to Federal laws and regulations. Multiple commenters shared concerns
with the inclusion of charter schools within the priority, citing
insufficient evidence of the impact of charter schools on student
outcomes; concerns that some charter schools may participate in
exclusionary practices, including for students with disabilities and
English learners; and that charter school expansion could divert
resources from public schools. Another commenter recommended that the
Department focus on the Charter Schools Program authorized under ESEA
as the primary driver of charter school expansion, noting its robust
protections for students with disabilities; and another recommended
that the Department focus more on expanding choice programs within
existing public schools over expansion of public charter schools.
Discussion: Charter schools play a foundational role in this
Administration's priority of empowering parents with educational
options and are a key lever to improving student outcomes and
increasing the number of high-quality educational choices available to
our Nation's students and families. The inclusion of charter schools
within this priority is intended to support continued expansion and
enhancement of charter school programs, through a focus on areas such
as replicating or expanding successful charter school models and
supporting the successful operation of schools through technical
assistance. This priority builds upon the Administration's support for
the Federal Charter Schools Program authorized through the ESEA and is
designed to provide additional opportunities to prioritize and
strengthen charter school programs. The Administration appreciates the
feedback on the role and impact of charter schools and believes that
the continued inclusion of these elements within the priority is
critical to its successful implementation and responsive to calls to
ensure that all students have access to high-quality education options.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter specifically identified support for the
[[Page 43523]]
long-term planning for charter schools enabled under Priority 2
(a)(ii).
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support of this element
of the priority. Thoughtful, strategic planning is essential to the
success and sustainability of charter schools.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters provided specific suggestions on the
language related to technical assistance for charter schools within
Priority 2 (a)(iii). A few commenters shared recommendations to expand
this technical assistance to also include charter school authorizers
and States, and several suggested that this technical assistance should
include a focus on how to provide equitable access for students with
disabilities, with one commenter also specifically referencing students
with autism.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback from commenters
on this element of the priority and agrees that it may be helpful to
the goal of supporting charter schools to support technical assistance
to other entities, including States or authorizers, as these groups are
critical to charter school expansion. The Department also appreciates
many commenters' focus on providing opportunities to students with
disabilities and ensuring compliance with IDEA and agrees that this
could also be a relevant topic of technical assistance, but notes that
the priority as written already provides applicants the flexibility to
propose projects providing support connected to this topic and does not
feel that specifying it as an option is necessary.
Changes: Priority 2 (a)(iii) is updated to indicate that technical
assistance can be provided to States, authorizers, or other relevant
parties supporting charter schools, in addition to charter school
operators.
Comments: A few commenters provided input on the proposed focus
areas for charter schools under Priority 2 (a)(i). One commenter
suggested that the Department should not identify suggested focus areas
and instead allow the field to innovate, or to keep potential focus
areas as invitational priorities only. Several commenters opposed the
inclusion of classical education and patriotic education among the list
of proposed topic areas, with concerns including that the areas were
vague and needed definition, lacked evidence of their effectiveness, or
that their inclusion may violate prohibitions on the Department's
involvement related to specific curricula or programs of instruction.
Specifically, for patriotic education, one commenter raised concerns
that this topic area may stifle coverage of Black history and
experience and create a hostile environment for students. Other
commenters discussed the proposed focus area under (a)(i)(4) on charter
schools to serve students with disabilities or special needs, with one
commenter opposing this focus area, and one urging the Department to
prioritize transparency, monitoring, and accountability for such
schools. Another commenter opposed using the phrase ``students with
special needs'' in this section as it is not a defined term in law.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback from commenters
on the proposed focus areas for charter schools. The Department notes
that we do not establish or identify the type of priority (Absolute,
Competitive Preference, or Invitational) through an NFP but separately
in each Notice Inviting Applications in which the priority is used.
Additionally, the language of the priority allows for the focus on
schools with a ``record of improving students' academic achievement,''
not only the specific focus areas listed in (a)(i).
The Department appreciates the feedback on the inclusion of
classical education, patriotic education, and models serving students
with disabilities, but disagrees with the concerns raised by
commenters. The Department believes that including these as topic areas
is responsive to innovation occurring within charter schools. Many
charter schools with such focus areas as classical education and
serving students with disabilities have been opened and the Department
intends to continue to support such innovation from the field.
Further, the Department views patriotic education models as a
critical tool to support citizenship competency and informed
patriotism, rooted in a recognition of the value of America's
foundational principles and ideals, and an accurate and honest account
of American history. The Department plans on defining patriotic
education in an upcoming notice and wants to provide the public the
opportunity to comment on the potential definition. For this notice,
the Department prefers to allow charter schools flexibility in the
models they propose under this element of the priority. The Department,
does, however, agree to amend the language in Priority 2 (a)(i)(4) to
reference only students with disabilities.
Changes: Priority 2 (a)(i)(4) has been amended to remove the
reference to students with special needs.
Comments: Several commenters suggested additional forms of public
school choice to incorporate within Priority 2. Multiple commenters
encouraged the Department to explicitly mention magnet schools in the
priority, noting that such schools are key to expanding education
choice. One commenter also recommended that the Department include
controlled choice, interdistrict transfer, and dual language immersion
public charter schools as options under the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate these suggestions. While we view magnet
schools as an allowable option under (a) of this priority, we agree
that their prominence as an educational choice model in the public
school system warrants explicit reference. Regarding the other
suggestions, we prefer to focus the text of the priority on core choice
options that can be integrated across a wide range of programs and do
not think additional changes are needed.
Changes: Priority 2 (a) has been revised to include reference to
magnet schools.
Comments: Several commenters suggested additional options to
include in Priority 2 as options to advance educational choice. One
commenter recommended that the Department add an option for projects or
proposals to expand access to high-quality afterschool and summer
learning to the priority, noting that these programs are critical
elements of the school choice landscape. Another commenter recommended
that the Department include projects or proposals to expand access to
high-quality, proficiency-based language education taught by a
certified language educator and to those supporting students working
towards a Seal of Biliteracy, citing evidence around workforce needs
and employability skills as rationale.
Discussion: Thank you for these suggestions. We recognize the value
of high-quality afterschool and summer learning programs, as well as
proficiency-based language education. We want to focus Priority 2 on
core choice options that can be integrated across a wide range of
programs and note that after-school and summer learning programs can be
included in applicant proposals if they are allowable within the
authority of the program authorization where the priority is used. This
approach allows for broader applicability and ensures that the priority
supports education choice in a scalable way.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters highlighted the importance of ensuring
that information is communicated in ways that English learners can
[[Page 43524]]
understand in order to expand education choice for all families.
Discussion: While this priority does not specifically highlight
communication strategies for parents of English learners, applicants
may propose activities that ensure information is accessible and
understandable to all families, including English learners, as part of
their efforts to expand education choice. The Department notes, when
communicating with parents whose English is limited about their child's
education, public schools must comply with applicable laws.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters raised concerns that the priority
threatened the separation of Church and State by allocating Federal
dollars to sectarian schools. One commenter recommended expanding
educational choice to include Christian schools recognized by reputable
accrediting organizations.
Discussion: We believe that families should choose the educational
experience that is best for their children. The priority does not
change any existing laws regarding public school funding as it relates
to religious schools.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters discussed the inclusion of home-based
education programs in the priority. One of these commenters shared
support for policies to advance home-based education if there are
requirements in place for data collection and reporting. Another
commenter supported the inclusion and recommended that the Department
explicitly mention individuals pursuing home-based education in the
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands in Priority 2 (f) to ensure
that these communities receive support in this area. One commenter said
that the Department should provide technical assistance to parents who
are or are interested in homeschooling their children. Several
commenters opposed any policies that would leverage Federal grant funds
to advance home-based education, citing concerns around diverting funds
from public schools and accountability.
Discussion: We believe that families are best equipped to make
decisions about the educational settings that will help their children
thrive. We consider technical assistance for parents about
homeschooling to be an allowable option under (f) of this priority.
Applicants may propose activities to develop resources with students
who are home schooled in mind, and those resources may have benefits
beyond those attending school in other settings as well. For example,
families who choose home schooling may create cooperatives that
leverage learning resources in their community or online. These
learning resources may also be for use by students who attend school in
other settings as enrichment resources. Regarding concerns about
diverting funds from public schools, the Department notes that the vast
majority of public school funding comes from State and local
governments. For the allocation of Federal dollars, we believe that
promoting choice options, such as home-based education, complements the
public school system and fosters healthy competition, ultimately
benefiting all educational options.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed strong support for the dual
enrollment option in Priority 2 and encouraged the Department to make
changes to support instructional quality in dual enrollment programs.
More specifically, the commenter provided feedback about professional
development for high school dual enrollment instructors, collaborative
models between secondary and post-secondary institutions, funding for
research-practice partnerships, and instructional alignment as a
criterion in evaluating programs.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestions
as it relates to dual enrollment. We note that, if these activities are
within the authority of the program authorization where this priority
is used, applicants may propose to include them as part of their
projects. Therefore, we do not believe changes to the priority are
necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters urged the Department to continue
funding adult education and Career and Technical Education (CTE)
programs at current levels. One commenter said that this priority
ignores the importance of adult education and also said that such
programs are underfunded.
Discussion: We appreciate these comments. Comments about funding
for specific programs are outside the scope of this notice. The
Department is focusing these Federal priorities on addressing the
urgent challenges highlighted by the abysmal NAEP scores in literacy,
empowering parents and families, and returning education to the States.
Therefore, we decline at this time to add adult education to this
priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters recommended that the Department
encourage or require applicants responding to Priority 2 to propose
projects that meet certain evidence thresholds. One commenter
recommended that the Department require projects to use strong or
moderate evidence, similar to the levels of evidence required in
Priority 1. Another commenter recommended that applicants use evidence-
based practices or a logic model in their projects and engage in data
collection.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' interest in
evidence-based practices. EDGAR provides the Department with the
authority to add an evidence priority to any competition, and the
Department will consider those decisions and their connection to these
priorities as appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters discussed the connection between
transportation and education choice, noting the importance of
transportation as an enabling factor for taking advantage of school
choice, as well as acknowledging how a lack of transportation options
can serve as a barrier to choice for some students, particularly those
in rural communities. One commenter recommended that the Department add
language to Priority 2 to address transportation explicitly, with
specific recommendations to encourage States and organizations to allow
transportation expenses as a permitted use of scholarship or tax-credit
funds and to support innovation in transportation solutions. Another
commenter recommended that the Department invest in transportation
infrastructure to support access to educational options.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' perspective
on transportation as an aspect of education choice. If it is allowable
within the authority of the program where the education choice priority
is being used, applicants may propose to include activities that use
funds for transportation as part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters provided specific feedback on the
priority related to access for students with disabilities. A few
commenters recommended that the Department require projects
disseminating information on choice programs involving private schools
ensure that parents understand what rights they may waive when
attending private schools. Several commenters also recommended that the
Department require private schools that participate in educational
choice programs to enroll and provide services to students with
disabilities that are aligned with
[[Page 43525]]
requirements in Federal laws such as IDEA.
Focusing on other elements of Priority 2, one commenter recommended
that the Department revise (g) on dual and concurrent enrollment
programs to support access for students with disabilities by providing
funding to hire counselors and for high impact tutoring.
Another commenter discussed the importance of having choice
available to young learners with disabilities and recommended that
resources be used to strengthen and support public early intervention
and education services. This commenter also encouraged the Department
to ensure choice initiatives consider inclusion as an evidence-based
practice and promote the importance of holistic, developmentally
appropriate practices.
Discussion: Education choice empowers all families and students,
including those with disabilities, to select the educational
environment that best meets their needs. The priority language supports
the dissemination of information for all education choice options for
students, including information about the rights of students with
disabilities, and allows applicants to propose the most effective
methods of communication and topics in order to reach and support the
specific students and families they intend to serve. We decline to add
additional requirements as the context may vary based on a particular
competition or program.
This priority can be utilized in any discretionary grant
competition, including those that focus on young learners with
disabilities. The Department may also use selection factors related to
evidence-based practices from EDGAR.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter discussed the role of parents as key
decision-makers in IDEA Part C Early Intervention Programs and
recommended that the Department recognize and maintain the parent role
as a key decisionmaker in early intervention within Federal priorities.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the central role of parents
and families as decision-makers. Any use of this priority in a
particular program would be in addition to the core requirements and
elements of the underlying program, which would also be true in
programs authorized under the IDEA.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concern about the impact
that the priority would have on Tribal education, including concerns
that the priority could direct funding away from Tribal schools. One
commenter suggested that the Department require Tribal consultation
anytime this priority is used in programs that impact Tribal
communities.
This commenter further suggested that the Department ask applicants
to describe how the proposed curricular models ``demonstrate cultural
relevance and alignment with State or Tribal academic standards,
particularly in schools serving significant numbers of Native
students,'' and ensure that Tribal Education Departments can apply for
funding to develop Tribal choice models. One commenter recommended that
the Administration affirm its commitment an Executive Order or
Presidential memorandum.
Discussion: The priority does not change any specific funding
levels for programs at the Department. This priority can be used in any
discretionary grant competition, including those that focus on Native
populations. Proposing executive orders or presidential memorandums are
outside of the scope of this notice.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that Priority 2 (h) on high-
impact tutoring be revised to add language encouraging projects or
proposals that use aspiring teachers as tutors, create pathways for
tutors to receive credentials such as paraprofessional and PK-12
educator licenses, or offer both PK-12 students and tutors additional
work-based learning opportunities. Another commenter supported the
inclusion of high-impact tutoring and recommended that the Department
ensure that such efforts are adapted to local context, supported by
data, and implemented with fidelity.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions to explicitly
connect high-impact tutoring to supporting teacher pathways by
encouraging the use of aspiring teachers as tutors as well as the
suggestions of strategies to strengthen tutoring programs. We note
that, if it is within the authority of the program authorization where
the priority is used, applicants may propose to include these
activities as part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters provided suggestions for how Priority 2
(j) could be revised to strengthen workforce pipelines and address
shortages for teachers, related service providers, and other in-demand
professions. Specifically, one commenter recommended that elements
(iii-v) focused on pre-apprenticeships, apprenticeships, and work-based
learning explicitly reference education occupations. Another commenter
recommended that the Department ensure that apprenticeship
opportunities under Priority 2 (j)(iv) are explicitly available to a
wide range of fields, including audiology and speech-language
pathology. One commenter also recommended that the Department promote
teacher apprenticeship structures that allow teacher apprentices to
serve as the teacher of record as part of high-quality, non-traditional
programs. Finally, one commenter recommended that the Department revise
Priority 2 (j) to include an option for skilled trades education.
Discussion: We share the commenters' interest in strengthening the
educator pipeline; we note that as written, the language in 2 (j) would
allow applicants to propose strategies to expand educational choice in
ways that address workforce shortages, including teacher shortages, in
their communities. The Department believes that States and localities
are best positioned to identify workforce shortage areas.
Changes: None.
Comments: None.
Discussion: We note that the Notice of Proposed Priorities and
Definitions included a misnumbering in Priority 2 (j)(i)-(v).
Changes: We have revised Priority 2 (j) such that ``work-based
learning'' is now paragraph (v) and the ``shortened time-to-degree
models'' is now paragraph (vi).
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department revise
Priority 2 (j) to include an option for ``youth apprenticeships''
distinct from pre-apprenticeships and apprenticeships. Another
commenter recommended that projects targeted to the high school or
postsecondary level under (j) include a focus on hands-on learning
experiences.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for suggesting the addition of
youth apprenticeships. We agree that the skills and training provided
through apprenticeship pathways should be available as an option to our
nation's youth and have revised Priority 2 (j)(iv) to make this clear.
Changes: We have changed Priority 2 (j)(iv) to ``Registered
Apprenticeships'' and noted that they include apprenticeships for in-
school and out-of-school youth.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department explicitly
include alternative educator preparation and pathway programs within
the priority, with specific suggestions to incorporate references to
these programs in part (k) on part-time
[[Page 43526]]
coursework and career preparation. This commenter suggested that the
Department include a definition for ``high-quality alternative educator
training and support program'' in connection with these proposed
revisions.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for this recommendation. We note
that, if it is within the authority of the program authorization where
the priority is used, applicants may propose to describe their
alternative educator preparation and pathways programs as part of their
projects. Therefore, in order to ensure that the priority is structured
in a way that can accommodate this and other approaches to providing
greater flexibility around coursework and career preparation, we
decline to make this change.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department add a new
section to Priority 2 focused on expanding access to career navigation
that would prioritize cross-system collaboration to engage participants
in a process leading to quality jobs and sustainable career pathways.
Discussion: We share the commenter's interest in leveraging
Department grant programs to expand access to career navigation
systems. We note that, in a separate Notice of Proposed Priority, the
Department is proposing a Secretary's Supplemental Priority on Career
Pathways and Workforce Readiness. We welcome comments on this proposed
priority and anticipate using it in grant programs to encourage
applicants to propose strategies to assist students in making informed
education and career decisions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department replace the
term ``competency-based education'' in Priority 2 (j)(ii) with
``personalized competency-based learning'' and suggested a definition
for this term.
Discussion: We appreciate this comment and proposed definition. We
agree, depending on the program in which the priority is used, that
personalized learning may be allowable under ``competency-based
education''. For this reason, we do not think a revision to the
priority is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended amending Priority 2 (a)(i)(1)
to add AI and data science to the description of STEM.
Discussion: The Department appreciates this commenter's suggestion
and shares the commenter's interest in integrating AI into education.
We note that the current priority language specifically mentions
``computer science'' and the proposed definition of computer science
explicitly identifies AI as a key area of focus. In addition, we note
that the Department has separately published a Notice of Proposed
Priority and Definitions proposing a new Secretary's Supplemental
Priority on Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Education (90 FR
34203). We anticipate that priority language, when finalized, will
provide the Department with additional flexibility to advance AI
education, including in charter schools by combining with Priority 2.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter supported the priority to expand
research and evaluation of education choice policy and provided
specific recommendations to explicitly incorporate language into the
final policy priorities that promotes transparency in assignment
mechanisms and encourages the development and deployment of innovative,
AI-supported digital tools for family engagement in school choice and
education savings account programs.
Discussion: We appreciate these suggestions. As noted above, the
Department has separately published a Notice of Proposed Priority
proposing a new Secretary's Supplemental Priority on Advancing
Artificial Intelligence in Education (90 FR 34203). We anticipate that
priority language, when finalized, will provide the Department with
additional flexibility to advance AI education. Additionally, we note
that, if it is within the program authority where the priority is used,
applicants may propose these types of activities as part of their
project.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended a definition for the term
``industry-recognized credential,'' used under Priority 2 (g).
Discussion: We thank this commenter for the suggestion and agree
that adding a definition to provide clarity is helpful to applicants.
Changes: We are adding a definition from the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act of ``Recognized Postsecondary Credential'' to the
Definitions section. Where ``industry-recognized credential'' is used,
we are inserting ``postsecondary'' between ``recognized'' and
``credential.''
Comments: One commenter suggested that the priority's emphasis on
short-term, workforce-aligned credentials should not supplant access to
broad, high-quality, affordable postsecondary education, and asserted
that studies warn that shortened or non-degree programs often result in
lower earnings and reinforce occupational stratification for
marginalized groups unless paired with strong quality, transfer, and
mobility assurances.
Discussion: While we appreciate the commenter's feedback, the
Department believes it is important to promote choice options, such as
shortened time-to-degree models in addition to other options. Parents
and youth are best positioned to make decisions about their education
and future.
Changes: None.
Priority 3: Returning Education to the States
Comments: As described in the general summary of comments, several
commenters offered support for Priority 3. Several commenters offered
support for themes presented in the background of the priority.
Commenters agreed, for example, that States and local decision-makers
have a better understanding of their students and families and are
better suited to make decisions on their behalf, that resources can be
deployed more effectively at the local level under this priority, and
that the priority expands opportunities for families. One commenter
shared that States are best positioned to design responsive, student-
centered systems. One commenter supported the priority and noted that
they do not agree with Federal agencies receiving funding for education
or disability relief programs. Many offered nuanced support, noting
they agree with the concept of States determining what works best for
their communities, and offered concerns or considerations that are
summarized elsewhere in this section.
Discussion: Thank you to all the commenters who expressed support
for Priority 3 and its focus on returning education to States. We
continue to believe that States, rather than the Federal government,
are best positioned to lead in education. Because States and local
governments are closer to the students they service, it is crucial that
the Department empower States to create opportunities through policies
that are more responsive, effective, and aligned with the unique needs
of their communities.
Comments: Several commenters generally opposed or expressed concern
with Priority 3. Some felt that the priority was connected to the
Administration's goal to close the Department of Education and
disagreed with the use of the priority to achieve that goal. Commenters
also disagreed with moving oversight of IDEA to another agency.
[[Page 43527]]
Commenters were concerned that closure of the Department will
negatively impact public education. Many expressed support for various
functions that the Department performs, such as providing and
overseeing funding for specific groups of students (e.g., students who
qualify for services under Title I of the ESEA and IDEA), enforcing
students' rights and protections, conducting research and evaluation,
ensuring accountability and transparency of State education systems and
setting minimum expectations, and providing technical assistance to
States, especially underperforming and underfunded States. Many
commenters are concerned that closure of the Department will lead to
fewer student protections under applicable laws, especially for
specific groups of students, such as LGBTQ+ students, students of
color, students with disabilities, and those traditionally underserved.
Many commenters provided feedback that the Department should
continue to carry out its core functions, with multiple requesting
restoration of Department staff, specifically staff from OCR and IES.
Several commenters stated that the authority to close or dismantle the
Department lies with Congress.
Many commenters disagreed with or questioned the background for the
priority presented in the Notice of Proposed Priorities and Definitions
claiming that it is misleading because it gives the impression that
States do not already control most of education. They argued that the
Department's role is limited and that most education-related decisions,
such as curriculum choices, educational standards and testing,
graduation requirements, teacher certification requirements, personnel,
and funding are already made at the State and local levels. One
commenter said that the Department's oversight role will be more
important if greater authority is given to States. One commenter
requested a correction to the preamble to clarify the Department's
already limited role in State and local education decisions.
Several commenters stated that Federal education structures have
yielded benefits and gave specific examples. One commenter cited data
related to, for example, increased graduation rates, including for
Black and Hispanic students, decreased gaps in performance between
student populations, and an increase in the percentage of students with
disabilities attending schools with students in the general population.
One commenter said that dismantling the Department would limit the
Administration's ability to achieve its evidence-based literacy and
educational choice goals.
Discussion: This priority is for use in currently authorized
discretionary grants programs or programs that may be authorized in the
future where Congress has appropriated funds and the authorizing
statutes permit doing so. It is a means of addressing the most urgent
needs of students and families. The text of the background that is
being addressed in the comments provides context to the priorities but
is not text that can be utilized in any grant competition as it is not
part of the final priority. Therefore, we are not making any changes in
response to comments about the background.
The Department agrees that the Federal government's role in
education is limited and is issuing Priority 3 to improve educational
outcomes by reducing the administrative burden of Federal grants and
empowering States to take the lead in shaping education policy. As this
priority may only be used in currently authorized discretionary grant
programs or programs that may be authorized in the future, we do not
agree that it will undermine current functions of the Department.
States understand their communities best and we remain committed,
through this effort and others, to return greater authority over
educational decisions to States and local communities.
Comments about the Department's closure and the closure's potential
impact on current Department functions and funding are outside the
scope of this priority. This priority does not relieve the Federal
government of its responsibilities to enforce student protections under
civil rights and other laws.
Changes: None.
Comments: Regarding the rights of children and families, several
commenters stated that the Department's role in enforcing civil rights
and ensuring equitable access emerged from States not adequately
fulfilling these responsibilities and therefore, it is important for
the Department to continue this enforcement. Several commenters
questioned whether the priority, by granting funding to States,
abandons the Department's responsibility in protecting and enforcing
civil rights and questioned how the Department will ensure that States
comply with Federal laws such as Title VI, Title IX, IDEA, and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Many commenters are concerned about
protections and equal access to education for specific student
populations, including students with disabilities, English learners,
LGBTQ+ students, and migratory students. Two commenters suggested
addressing how the Department will provide guidance to and oversight of
States to ensure compliance with Federal laws, including how they will
ensure that all students have equal access to education. Two commenters
proposed conditioning the receipt of Federal funds on State compliance
with civil rights statutes. Many suggested the Department must continue
its role in protecting student rights.
Discussion: The Department notes that these comments, which speak
to legal obligations, are outside of the scope of this notice. These
priorities are related to the Department's discretionary grant
programs. This priority can only be used in competitions where States
are already eligible applicants. This Administration has shown
steadfast commitment to ensuring grantees follow civil rights laws.
Grantees must, as a condition of receiving funds under our programs,
commit to adhering to all Federal civil rights and other laws,
including the laws mentioned by commenters.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters stated that the priority is overly
limiting in its focus on State-level entities. Multiple commenters
argued that it is Congress' responsibility to determine eligibility.
Another commenter noted that State-level entities are already eligible
entities in some Federal discretionary grant programs and that the
Department should continue to ensure that all key stakeholders, not
just State-level and Tribal entities, are eligible entities.
Some commenters said that focusing on States could negatively
affect local communities, students, and families. These commenters
noted, for example, that some States may not apply for specific
programs thereby removing educational opportunities from students in
those States, that States may not focus the funds on areas with the
greatest needs, that routing funding through States may not be an
efficient approach, and that other types of entities might be better
poised to implement specific projects and proposals depending on the
program. One commenter recommended striking, at a minimum, subsection
(f) of the priority. The commenter expressed concern that allowing
Governors or chief State education officials to identify specific
entities runs the risk of politicization, exclusion, or statutorily
ineligible entities being included.
[[Page 43528]]
Several commenters said that the priority, despite the stated
purpose, would reduce local authority and control and further
exacerbate inequities between small, rural and high-poverty districts,
and other districts. One commenter suggested revising the priority to
ensure that high-poverty, rural, and small districts are not negatively
impacted by the priority. One commenter suggested that limiting grants
to States runs counter to the Administration's position of limiting
government interference.
Many commenters felt that limiting eligibility to State-level
entities would prohibit effective non-profit organizations from
applying for grants. Additionally, there were a large number of
commenters representing Native Hawaiian and Native American
stakeholders who opposed limiting the priority to State-level
applicants for this reason. Many of these commenters suggested removing
the priority or revising it to include non-profits, or a consortium of
non-profits, in the list of eligible entities. These commenters noted,
for example, the flexibility, cultural expertise, and impact that
community-based organizations (i.e., currently eligible entities), have
had implementing projects in Native Hawaiian communities. Another
commenter suggested clarifying that the priority, as written, would not
apply to programs if the authorizing statute includes non-profits as an
eligible entity. One commenter said Native Hawaiian Education program
funds should not be distributed through the State.
For reasons such as these, commenters suggested broadening the
priority to include non-profits, post-secondary institutions, local
educational agencies, and locally driven community partnerships. One
commenter also suggested targeting funds to communities that have been
historically disadvantaged and that have a higher need population.
Another group of commenters emphasized the important role Hispanic
serving institutions play and encouraged prioritizing them within the
current framework.
Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to include other
entities in this priority. The priority does not change funding levels
or the eligible entities authorized in program statutes. These comments
are outside the scope of this priority and the authority of the
Department. This priority gives the Department the ability to focus on
or incentivize State-level entities in discretionary grant programs
where State-level entities are already eligible applicants and allows
the Department to encourage State-level or State-coordinated projects
where States are not themselves the grantee. While we appreciate
commenters sharing their concerns about the focus on State-level
entities, we do not believe such concerns outweigh the benefits of this
priority. The 10th Amendment wisely reserved constitutional authority
for education to the States in order to limit Federal overreach.
Educational decisions should be made at the State level, where local
needs, priorities, and circumstances can be better understood and
addressed.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters representing Tribal stakeholders
appreciated the inclusion of Tribes in the list of eligible entities.
Some requested adding Tribes to the title of the priority to emphasize
their inclusion and to reinforce the relationship and role of Tribes.
Several commenters questioned if the priority, as written,
delegates the Federal government's trust responsibility with Tribes to
State-level entities and requested that the Department engage in
meaningful Tribal consultation on matters. One commenter clarified that
Tribes do not have the same responsibilities as States and, therefore,
urged the Department to clarify the priority language so that it
accurately reflects the arrangement between Tribes, States, and the
Federal government in meeting students' needs. One commenter, in
considering the potential for any transfer of authority, urged the
Department not to compromise any Federal Indian education program and
that funds should continue to flow directly to Tribal Education
Departments.
Two commenters suggested requiring a partnership between State
entities and Tribes. Another commenter suggested making a separate,
permanent priority for Tribes.
Discussion: This priority is focused on returning education to the
States and includes prioritizing various statewide entities and Tribes
as potential grantees. It would not change the Federal government's
trust responsibility with Tribes and, in fact, gives the Department
additional ability to preference support for Tribes. While it is not
practical to name every subcomponent of the priority in the priority's
title, the title itself does not determine how the priority is used,
and we hope commenters will nonetheless appreciate the additional
emphasis on Tribes.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested revising the title and the lead
text of the priority to emphasize State innovation. The commenter also
suggested requiring States to use evidence-based practices, tools, and
programs in their projects or proposals. Specifically, the commenter
recommended the term evidence-based as defined in the ESEA.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback regarding State
innovation. While the Department is committed to fostering innovation
at the State level, it is dedicated to allowing States the flexibility
to determine the most effective ways to implement programs within their
own jurisdictions. In discretionary programs where the Department may
consider it appropriate to require the use of evidence-based practices,
we have the authority to incorporate evidence into competitive grant
programs using factors in EDGAR.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters supported the Department's role in
helping States with research, evaluation, and sharing of best practices
across States. Several commenters said that the Department should
continue technical assistance investments and explained that these
investments help States implement their programs and comply with
Federal laws (possibly by adding specific examples, including the
National Evaluation of Career and Technical Education, which was named
by a commenter). One commenter requested that the Department maintain
programs focused on technical assistance and building State capacity,
particularly in areas of national concern such as cybersecurity and
student privacy protection. One commenter said it would be inefficient
for every State to engage in the same research and evaluation work. One
commenter was concerned that it will be more difficult to learn from
other States if the Department is no longer gathering data.
Discussion: This priority can be utilized in grant competitions in
which State-level entities are already eligible applicants or where
States can take on a greater role. As mentioned earlier, comments about
funding and the authorization of programs are outside the scope of this
priority and the authority of the Department.
Changes: None.
Comments: As noted in a previous section, several commenters said
the Department plays an important role in ensuring accountability and
transparency of State education systems. Other commenters noted that
the Department's data, including performance data, is beneficial to
education stakeholders. One commenter suggested the Department maintain
requirements in their current form for annual State assessments and for
each
[[Page 43529]]
State to have an accountability system, noting that such policies
protect States from interest groups whose goal is to eliminate
transparency; identify gaps between student populations; and require
consequences when progress goals are not met. The commenter also
emphasized that State accountability data are the only objective data
and that parents rely on these data to make important school-related
decisions. One commenter suggested deemphasizing national standardized
tests in light of the shift to greater State authority.
Discussion: We appreciate the points about the importance of
transparency and believe that prioritizing various State-level entities
and Tribes as potential grantees would promote transparency at a level
closer to students and families. We note that this priority does not
alter any accountability requirements, and the Department will hold
States or any other grantee accountable to requirements associated with
the program(s) they are receiving funds to administer.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter recommended the Department remove
excessive accountability on public schools that do not also apply to
private, parochial, co-ops, homeschools, and other variations of
education.
Discussion: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed
notice. As noted earlier, this priority does not alter any
accountability requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters said it is the Department's
responsibility to administer IDEA and support State and local
implementation to meet the needs of students with disabilities,
including requirements for infants and toddlers with disabilities.
Several commenters provided examples related to identification,
personnel, services, and protections that would be affected if IDEA
funding, including IDEA Part D (National Activities), are not awarded
or the Department is not available to provide oversight and technical
assistance. One commenter said Priority 3 would undermine the
Department's ability to fulfill its responsibilities under IDEA.
Discussion: This priority does not impact the Department's
oversight role within IDEA and merely allows the Department to work
more closely with States. Comments about funding for specific programs
and any impact a potential future closure might have on current
Department functions are outside the scope of this notice.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that Priority 3
would result in decreases in overall Federal education funding. Others
questioned whether focusing on State-level entities would eliminate or
redirect funds away from existing Federal programs. Some commenters
said that the intent of Federal funding is to supplement State and
local funding to support the needs of specific students. Some suggested
that combining funds into a block grant for States undermines and
negates Congress' intention to focus on specific groups of students or
specific high priority topics. Another suggested that combining funding
for special needs students with other funding would result in programs
that vary widely from State to State. One commenter said that
elimination of a supplement/not supplant requirement for the funds
would likely result in reduced school funding. One commenter disagreed
with withholding funds if State priorities do not align with Federal
priorities.
Discussion: Comments about funding are outside the scope of this
notice. This priority is for use in currently authorized discretionary
grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future where
Congress has appropriated funds and the authorizing statutes permit
doing so.
This priority would elevate the role of States in programs where
they are already eligible to apply. We believe this priority would
leverage State capacity to improve educational opportunities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended providing State Medicaid
agencies with specific guidance about reimbursement for school-based
services. The commenter included suggestions for consideration.
Discussion: This comment is outside the scope of this notice.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested building into the priority
mechanisms for States to prioritize rural districts in competitions and
to include separate funding allocations for rural, urban, and suburban
areas.
Discussion: The Department has a priority available in EDGAR to
prioritize rural areas, if appropriate for a given competition. As
such, the Department does not need to include a focus on rural areas in
this priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended using the priority to support
State or local efforts to more broadly utilize high-quality alternative
certification initiatives to effectively address teacher shortages.
Discussion: We appreciate this comment. If it is within the
authority of the program authorization where the priority is used,
applicants may propose to include activities of this nature as part of
their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested the priority establish a minimum
counselor to student ratio as a means of protecting student mental
health and ensuring academic success, while still providing State
flexibility.
Discussion: This priority is intended to give States the
flexibility they need to meet the needs in their States. We do not
believe establishing a requirement of this specificity is appropriate
given the goal of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters had concerns about State-level
infrastructure or capacity to successfully implement new programs under
this priority. One commenter suggested prioritizing Federal support
toward State-level data infrastructure to ensure that States are
equipped to manage, safeguard, and use their data as more funds are
transitioned to States. Another commenter suggested investing funds in
building State-level capacity to carry out the work of the priority.
Another commenter encouraged the Department to consider the
administrative and financial impacts the priority will have on eligible
entities and ensure they have the resources they need to implement
programs successfully.
Two commenters are concerned that States do not have the capacity
to take on the work the priority would require, with two commenters
expressing specific concerns about under-resourced States and Tribal
entities. These commenters suggested ensuring that Tribal entities and
under-resources States receive technical assistance. One commenter
noted, for example, that the State of Hawaii does not have the capacity
to serve Native Hawaiians in all States even though the funds are
intended for all Native Hawaiians. One commenter claimed that it is
more efficient for the Department to enforce civil rights and
compliance with IDEA than for State or local staff to do it.
Discussion: While the Department appreciates the comments, it is
beneficial to keep the focus of the priority narrow to ensure that is
has wide applicability across many different programs. As noted
previously, this priority is intended for use in currently authorized
discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the
future where Congress has appropriated funds and the authorizing
statutes permit doing so. The priority does not compel States to apply
for any funding they are not able to expend
[[Page 43530]]
with fidelity. Nevertheless, the Department will continue to uphold its
oversight responsibilities for any entities that receive an award.
Changes: None.
Comments: Other commenters provided feedback about potential
inappropriate political influence by States. For example, two
commenters were concerned that greater State control could lead to
inappropriate political or ideological influence in curriculum. One of
the two commenters suggested curriculum decisions should instead be
based in evidence and the other suggested the need for Federal
oversight to ensure this influence does not transpire. One commenter
noted, in enforcing civil rights and compliance with IDEA, that State
and local staff are more vulnerable to political influences. Another
commenter shared that the Federal government's role is important to
ensure that local policies do not change regularly due to political
changes.
One commenter cautioned against giving all funding to States given
the disparities in the quality of education systems. The commenter
recommended maintaining Parent and Training Information Centers as
independent organizations that are not subject to the influence of
outside factors such as State governments, noting that States may not
act in the best interest of families. One commenter requested that the
Department ensure that roles are clearly defined so that important
programs are not unintentionally ended.
Discussion: We appreciate this feedback. The Department will
continue to uphold requirements under Federal law. We continue to
believe that States, rather than the Federal government, are best
positioned to lead in education because they are closer to the students
and families they serve.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
The Secretary establishes the following priorities for use in any
Department discretionary grant program.
Priority 1: Promoting Evidence-Based Literacy
Projects or proposals to do one or more of the following:
(a) Advance, increase, or expand evidence-based literacy
instruction (as defined in this notice), or
(b) Focus on evidence-based literacy instruction (as defined in
this notice).
Priority 2: Expanding Education Choice
Projects or proposals that will do one or more of the following:
(a) Increase access to public charter schools and other innovative
school models, such as public laboratory schools, magnet schools,
public microschools, course-based choice, or regional academies, which
may include one or more of the following:
(i) Efforts to expand or replicate existing charter schools that
have a record of improving students' academic achievement or have a
specific focus on one or more of the following:
(1) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM),
including computer science,
(2) Career and technical education,
(3) Evidence-based literacy instruction,
(4) Serving students with disabilities,
(5) Patriotic education, or
(6) Classical education.
(ii) Multi-year plans to create new charter schools.
(iii) Providing Technical Assistance to States, charter school
authorizers, new or existing charter schools, or other relevant parties
that support charter schools related to authorization, operation,
construction, or other relevant areas, including navigating State and
local statutes and regulations.
(iv) Opening opportunities for new or existing charter schools to
access resources that are currently only available to, or primarily
accessed by, district schools in their area.
(b) Expand access to K-12 school options through open enrollment or
course-based choice.
(c) Support dissemination of information for all education choice
options for students, including private school enrollment, education
savings accounts, tax credit scholarships, home-based learning and
homeschooling, learning pods and co-ops, public charter schools, and
district public schools through open enrollment or course-based choice.
(d) Support State or local development or implementation of
education savings accounts.
(e) Support dissemination of information about education savings
accounts.
(f) Support families in educating students through home-based
education programs, which may include one or more of the following:
(i) Support for online learning communities, or
(ii) Assistance with understanding of State and local requirements
for homeschooling.
(g) Provide or expand access to dual or concurrent enrollment
programs (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(15)) or early college high
schools (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(17)) or other programs where
secondary school students begin earning credit toward a postsecondary
degree or industry-recognized postsecondary credential prior to high
school graduation.
(h) Expand access to education services that accelerate learning
such as high-impact tutoring.
(i) Expand access to military schools or academies.
(j) Expand access to one or more of the following at the high
school or postsecondary level:
(i) Distance education,
(ii) Competency-based or skills-based education,
(iii) Pre-apprenticeships,
(iv) Registered Apprenticeships, including apprenticeships for in-
school or out-of-school youth,
(v) Work-based learning, or
(vi) Shortened time-to-degree models.
(k) Expand access to part-time coursework and career preparation.
(l) Expand access to programs or coursework that lead to in-demand,
industry-recognized postsecondary credentials.
Priority 3: Returning Education to the States
Projects or proposals that will be carried out by one or more of
the following:
(a) State educational agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49)),
(b) Governors,
(c) State workforce development agencies or boards,
(d) State vocational rehabilitation agencies,
(e) State higher education agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C.
1003(22),
(f) Entities identified, designated, or endorsed by a Governor or
chief State education official for purposes of implementing the project
or proposal,
(g) An Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(e)), Tribal
organization (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(l)), or Tribal educational
agency (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7452(b)(3)), or
(h) Consortia of the entities identified under this priority.
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,
[[Page 43531]]
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 Definitions
The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any
Department discretionary grant program in which the final priorities
are used.
Computer science means the study of computers and algorithmic
processes, including their principles, their hardware and software
designs, theories, computational thinking, coding, analytics,
applications, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a
tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and
tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of
computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing,
securing, and using digital information. In addition to coding, the
expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking
and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills
and abilities necessary to apply computation to the digital world.
Computer science does not involve using computers for everyday
tasks, such as browsing the internet or using tools like word
processors, spreadsheets, or presentation software. Instead, it focuses
on creating and developing technology, not just utilizing it.
Evidence framework means an approach to providing a determination
about whether an activity, strategy, or intervention meets each aspect
of the definition of strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined
in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I-II)), as applicable.
(a) An evidence framework must include each of the following:
(i) Whether or not a study is an experimental study or quasi-
experimental design study;
(ii) Whether or not a study shows a positive, statistically
significant effect on student outcomes or other relevant outcomes;
(iii) Whether or not a study uses outcome measures that demonstrate
validity and reliability, that do not give an unfair advantage to
participants in one condition over another, and that are measured
consistently for the groups or participants that are being compared;
(iv) Whether or not a study design is otherwise of high quality,
including whether it minimizes factors outside the intervention that
could affect student or other relevant outcomes (confounds) and whether
random assignment (if used) was done with integrity; and
(v) Whether or not study implementation and analysis is
appropriate, including whether groups or participants being compared
demonstrate baseline equivalence on key individual and other relevant
characteristics, whether differences in baseline equivalence are
statistically controlled, and by considering the impact on the validity
of the study of any changes to the sample over time.
(b) An evidence framework may be implemented or verified by one or
more of the following:
(i) An organization with relevant expertise that has demonstrated
to the Department that it has a rigorous, transparent (i.e., publicly
accessible) process for determining each aspect identified in (a);
(ii) By peer reviewers with statistical expertise who apply an
evidence framework consistent with each aspect identified in (a) in
reviewing support for an applicant's assertion that relevant
information is strong evidence or moderate evidence, as applicable; or
(iii) By the Department or peer reviewers with statistical
expertise who affirm an applicant's assertion that relevant information
is strong evidence or moderate evidence because it is supported by
study ratings included in the What Works Clearinghouse in one or more
of:
(1) a practice guide;
(2) an intervention report; or
(3) individual studies otherwise assessed to meet strong evidence
or moderate evidence.
Evidence-based literacy instruction means literacy instruction that
relates to explicit, systematic and intentional instruction in
phonological awareness, phonic decoding, oral and sign language,
vocabulary, language structure, reading fluency, reading comprehension,
and writing; promotes knowledge-rich materials; and is backed by one or
more of the following, as supported by an evidence framework (as
defined in this notice):
(a) strong evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or intervention
that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving
student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least one well-
designed and well-implemented experimental study (strong evidence as
defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I)) or
(b) moderate evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or
intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on
improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least
one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study
(moderate evidence as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(II)).
Note: In any discretionary grant program competition in which the
definition of ``evidence-based literacy instruction'' is used as
proposed, the Secretary may use the entire definition or one or more of
the subparts of the definition that are most relevant for the grant
program competition.
Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare
outcomes between two groups (such as students) that are otherwise
equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group
receiving an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product,
practice, or policy as compared with a control group that does not.
Experimental studies can support claims of strong evidence. Randomized
controlled trials and single-case design studies are specific types of
experimental studies that meet this definition.
Recognized postsecondary credential means a credential consisting
of an industry-recognized certificate or certification, a certificate
of completion of an apprenticeship, a license recognized by the State
involved or Federal Government, or an associate or baccalaureate
degree, as defined in section 3(53) of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act.
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important
respects. Cross-sectional group designs, comparative interrupted time
series, difference-in-difference designs, and growth curve designs are
specific types of quasi-experimental studies that meet this definition.
This type of study can meet the definition of moderate evidence but not
strong evidence.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
Regulatory Impact Analysis: This regulatory action is not a
significant
[[Page 43532]]
regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. These priorities
are not considered an ``Executive Order 14192 regulatory action.'' We
have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 13563.
We are issuing the priorities and definitions only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits would justify their minimal costs.
The Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563. We also have determined that
this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local,
and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive Orders, the Department has assessed
the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of
this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from
statutory requirements and those we have determined are necessary for
administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The priorities and definitions
would impose no or minimal costs on entities that receive discretionary
grant award funds from the Department. Additionally, the benefits of
implementing the priorities and definitions outweigh any associated
costs, to the extent these de minimis costs even exist, because the
priorities and definitions would result in higher quality grant
application submissions. Application submission and participation in
competitive grant programs that might use the priorities and
definitions is voluntary. We believe, based on the Department's
administrative experience, that entities preparing an application would
not need to expend more resources than they otherwise would have in the
absence of these priorities and definitions. Because the costs of
carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds, the costs
of implementation would not be a burden for any eligible applicants
that earn a grant award, including small entities.
Intergovernmental Review: This action is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. This document provides
early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: This section considers
the effects that the final regulations may have on small entities in
the educational sector as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action
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.
Paperwork Reduction Act: The priorities and definitions do not
contain information collection requirements or affect the currently
approved data collection.
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, compact disc, or another accessible
format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. 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>.
Linda McMahon,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2025-17310 Filed 9-8-25; 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 September 9, 2025.
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.