Notice2026-02854
Final Priority and Definitions-Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Meaningful Learning Opportunities
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
February 12, 2026
Effective
March 16, 2026
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces a final priority and definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use the entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. This priority and definitions augment the initial set of three Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Evidence-Based Literacy, Educational Choice, and Returning Education to the States published as final priorities on September 9, 2025 (90 FR 43514), and the additional proposed Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Artificial Intelligence, published as a proposed priority on July 21, 2025 (90 FR 34203); Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness, published as a proposed priority on September 25, 2025 (90 FR 46111); and Promoting Patriotic Education, published as a proposed priority on September 17, 2025 (90 FR 44788).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6625-6635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02854]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2025-OS-0680]
Final Priority and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental Priority
and Definitions on Meaningful Learning Opportunities
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a final
priority and definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary
grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The
Secretary may choose to use the entire priority for a grant program or
a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component
parts. This priority and definitions augment the initial set of three
Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Evidence-Based Literacy,
Educational Choice, and Returning Education to the States published as
final priorities on September 9, 2025 (90 FR 43514), and the additional
proposed Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Artificial
Intelligence, published as a proposed priority on July 21, 2025 (90 FR
34203); Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness, published as a
proposed priority on September 25, 2025 (90 FR 46111); and Promoting
Patriotic Education, published as a proposed priority on September 17,
2025 (90 FR 44788).
DATES: The final priority and definitions are effective March 16, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zachary Rogers, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 7W213, Washington, DC 20202-
6450. Telephone: (202) 260-1144. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d1e1e1d0d2829632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="451616150520216b222a33">[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 September 25, 2025, the
Department published a notice of a proposed supplemental priority and
definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register (90 FR 46114). This final
priority 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 one supplemental priority and
associated definitions. Each major provision is discussed in the Public
Comment section of this document.
The NPP contained background information and our reasons for
proposing the priority and definitions. The Department describes the
differences between the proposed priority and definitions and those
established as final in this notice of final priority and definitions
(NFP), as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section in
this document.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, the
Department received comments from more than 40 commenters on the
proposed priority 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
priority or definitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority and definitions since publication of the
NPP follows.
General Comments
Comments: The majority of commenters responding to the NPP were
supportive of the proposed priority and definitions, including the
broader focus of the priority on meaningful learning opportunities and
the importance of prioritizing work related to mathematics and other
subject areas outlined in the NPP. Many commenters further identified
specific areas of support, such as for the focus on High-Quality
Instructional Materials (HQIM), Strategic Staffing, High-Impact
Tutoring, Competency-Based Education, Career-Connected Learning, and
Innovative Assessment models.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support from commenters
and the discussion around the potential benefits of specific components
of the priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters discussed the benefit of meaningful
learning opportunities, specifically for students with disabilities and
the importance of emphasizing accessibility throughout the priority and
definitions. One commenter noted how students with disabilities benefit
from experiential learning, assistive technology, and reasonably
accommodated learning in all settings and subject areas. A few
commenters emphasized the importance of accessibility, with some
encouraging that the instructional materials and assessments
contemplated throughout the priority should meet Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) principles. One of these commenters noted that
innovations discussed in the priority must be aligned with the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requirements.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important for
applicants to consider the needs of students with disabilities as they
respond to this grant priority and appreciate the thoughtful feedback
from commenters about the best strategies for doing so. 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 designed to provide a flexible framework that can inform and support
ongoing and future efforts to improve access to meaningful learning
opportunities 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.
We note that projects funded through discretionary grants using
this priority must already adhere to the accessibility requirements in
the IDEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, where applicable. Therefore, the Department declines to add
accessibility requirements to the priority as they would be duplicative
of existing law.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters recommended that the Department issue
guidance or provide technical assistance to applicants and grantees
responding to or implementing the priority. Commenters noted that
guidance could discuss how the elements of the priority interrelate and
how states can strategically focus efforts to maximize outcomes. One
commenter suggested guidance specifically around part (b)(iii) related
to coherence and alignment across multi-tiered systems of support.
Discussion: While we appreciate the suggestion from commenters, we
decline to specify guidance regarding the priority in this document.
While the Department typically provides pre-
[[Page 6626]]
application technical assistance related to each grant competition, it
is important to allow applicants the flexibility to propose project
activities that best meet their local needs, based on the best
available evidence appropriate for their context, rather than dictating
strategies from the high-level perspective of the federal government.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter shared concerns regarding the Department's
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), and information collection requirements. The
commenter argued that the priority and definitions is economically
significant and may involve additional information collection
requirements that must be addressed in the NFP. The commenter requested
that the Department withdraw the RFA certification and publish an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), reevaluate the
significance of the priority and definitions; and provide an assessment
of costs, benefits, and alternatives, identify any new or expanded
information collection requirements, and initiate PRA clearance.
Discussion: The Regulatory Impact Analysis section of the NPP
explains that this priority is not economically significant and that
``application submission and participation in competitive grant
programs that might use this proposed priority 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
this proposed priority. Therefore, any potential costs to applicants
would be de minimis.'' PRA clearance requirements would be determined
if this priority is used in a grant competition, specifically in
relation to the program's grant application package.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to fully fund supports
under IDEA, noting the importance of these programs in providing access
for students with disabilities and the opportunity that greater funding
would provide to ensure additional resources are available for
investing in inclusive, meaningful learning opportunities for all
learners.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's advocacy for
programs funded under IDEA and shares in celebrating the importance of
these programs in ensuring education access for students with
disabilities. Comments about funding levels for specific programs are
outside the scope of this notice.
Changes: None.
Priority
Comments: Several commenters discussed the importance of educators
to the success of the priority, with commenters highlighting such
topics as the importance of sufficient recruitment efforts, the need
for high-quality educator preparation and professional development, the
opportunities in educating teachers on how to use and teach with
artificial intelligence (AI), and the potential impact of elevating
educator voice in program design and implementation. One commenter
specifically discussed the importance of preparing and supporting
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) educators.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' points about
the important role of educators in providing meaningful learning
opportunities to all students. We note that the priority includes
several opportunities for applicants to propose projects focused on
educators, if it is within the authority of the program authorization
where the priority is used.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters discussed the focus in the priority on
the use of evidence. Commenters provided suggestions on how the
Department could further prioritize or encourage the use of evidence
such as through the use of logic models or continuous improvement
cycles, leveraging Institute of Education Sciences (IES) practices
guides, conducting formative and summative evaluations, and employing
third-party evaluators and rigorous evaluation metrics. A few
commenters also recommended issuing guidance to provide further clarity
for the field on what investments would meet the priority or meet the
definition of ``evidence-based'' and what types of conditions need to
be present on the ground to support successful implementation.
Additionally, one commenter recommended that the Department clarify
whether proposed projects must meet evidence levels at the point of
application or build evidence through evaluation activities and what
evaluation components are required.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' interest in
evidence-based practices. The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) provide the Department with the
authority to add various components including evidence priorities,
logic model requirements, and selection criteria related to evaluations
and continuous improvement across Department programs. The Department
will consider those decisions and their connection to the priority as
appropriate based on the context of each competition where this
priority may be used. We also clarify that, in a grant competition
where this priority is used, activities would be reviewed for whether
they meet the priority. Applicants may propose additional activities
for which they would like to build evidence, if those activities are
within the authority of the program authorization, or certain
competitions may have additional evidence-building requirements based
on program statute or competition-specific requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department amend the
priority to add an additional component on projects to ``support the
research, development, dissemination, and evaluation of meaningful
learning opportunities.''
Discussion: The Department appreciates the suggestion but notes
that we do not define meaningful learning opportunities to support
flexibility for implementation in multiple contexts. We believe this
suggestion is therefore overly broad to include as a separate component
of the priority. We do note, however, that if it is within the
authority of the program authorization where the priority is used,
applicants may propose activities related to research in response to
more specific components of the priority included in a competition for
a given program. As such, we do not believe the addition is required.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department should revise
the references to evidence tiers throughout the priority to allow
evidence that demonstrates a rationale.
Discussion: The Department intentionally chose to focus on higher
tiers of evidence to ensure that projects are leveraging the best
possible evidence available to maximize student impact. The Department
does agree with the importance of supporting innovation, however, and
clarifies that projects can propose to implement additional evidence-
based practices that demonstrate a rationale requirement in their
project. In a grant competition where this priority is used, activities
would be reviewed for whether they meet the priority. Applicants may
propose additional activities for which
[[Page 6627]]
they would like to build evidence, if those activities are allowable
within the program authorization.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify
that evidence-based interventions must demonstrate efficacy across the
full range of achievement levels or include plans to evaluate impacts
for advanced learners.
Discussion: The Department developed this priority to be applicable
across a number of grant programs and settings, and we decline this
suggestion to ensure that the priority remains flexible to be adapted
in settings where this level of specificity may not be applicable or
advised.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters provided suggestions on how
meaningful learning opportunities should be prioritized for or tailored
to specific student populations, such as rural, urban, and low-income
students, students of color, multilingual students, and students with
disabilities. Additionally, a commenter recommended the Department
should issue guidance for grantees, particularly for what investments
are recommended to best serve these populations of students. A few
commenters advocated for the priority to incorporate a focus on
cultural and linguistic relevance and diversity of materials, arguing
that these factors are shown in research to support improved student
outcomes. A few commenters recommended that applicants be required to
demonstrate how projects would serve various specific populations,
including one commenter that identified high-potential students from
underrepresented groups, such as rural students and students with
disabilities. Another commenter recommended that the priority require
grantees to monitor for differential impacts on subgroups of students.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' input and
the emphasis on the importance of providing meaningful learning
opportunities across many populations. The priority has been developed
to provide a flexible framework that can be adopted into multiple
discretionary grant programs. The Department will ensure that all
projects funded adhere to Federal civil rights laws. The student groups
that are the focus of this priority would be determined based on the
underlying program authority. We also note that, relevant to rural
students, 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: A few commenters discussed the importance of afterschool
and summer learning programs in promoting meaningful learning
opportunities, with some commenters focusing on these programs'
specific importance for promoting STEM learning. These commenters
encouraged the Department to incorporate these programs into the
priority and provided specific suggestions on ways to do so.
Specifically, two commenters recommended adding a new component under
(a)(i) focused on strategies to provide students an opportunity to
participate in hands-on, engaging math activities through afterschool
and summer learning programs and amending (a)(vi) under new school day
schedules to include scheduling innovations focused on expanding access
to quality afterschool programs that partner with community-based
organizations. Both also recommended amending (c)(ii) to add a
reference to leveraging afterschool and summer learning programs to
advance career-connected and work-based learning. One commenter
recommended incorporating out-of-school-time educators, including those
who do not work directly in school-day classrooms, into professional
development opportunities throughout the priority, outlining specific
suggestions to incorporate these educators throughout part (a) of the
priority, and modifying part (b)(iv) of the priority on high-impact
tutoring to include tutoring programs that happen during afterschool
programs. Finally, another commenter also recommended that the
Department recognize additional entities including afterschool
providers and other similar partners as eligible collaborators under
this priority.
Discussion: The Department agrees that efforts to increase access
to meaningful learning opportunities may occur outside of the regular
school day. If it is allowable within 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. The
Department declines to include priority language that would prioritize
out-of-school-time activities over core instruction. Additionally, the
Department clarifies that eligible entities and partnership
requirements vary by program and therefore declines to specify whether
specific entities may be engaged as applicants or partners in this
priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters shared concerns regarding the
Department's ability to carry out the priority or support grantees,
arguing that the strategies in the priority are not consistent with the
Department's 2025 Reduction in Force, grant or contract cancellations,
or proposed budgets. One commenter specifically shared support for the
Regional Educational Laboratories and What Works Clearinghouse and
advocated for the Department to continue to prioritize dissemination,
research, and implementation of effective instructional practices.
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 meaningful learning opportunities
for students informed by the best available evidence, 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 and funding for specific programs are outside of the scope of
this notice.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters supported the focus on mathematics in
part (a)(i) of the priority, with several commenters noting the
importance of this focus in complementing the Department's earlier
priority on Evidence-Based Literacy. One commenter discussed the
importance of math instruction in balancing conceptual understanding,
procedural fluency, and real-world application. Another noted the
potential for AI to support strong math instruction and encouraged the
Department to work with evidence-based commercial AI tools to
understand how they can strengthen core math instruction and to inform
the Department's review of grant applications including such
deliverables. One commenter suggested that the priority should also
explicitly elevate the subjects of science and engineering to promote
STEM learning and careers beyond mathematics.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' support for
improving mathematics instruction and the discussion of effective
strategies and implementation considerations. The Department agrees
that AI presents significant opportunities and notes that applicants
may propose activities that leverage AI in response to this priority,
if permitted in the programs authorizing
[[Page 6628]]
statute. Relating to the introduction of science and engineering to
this part of the priority, the Department has intentionally chosen to
focus on mathematics, given the foundational importance of this subject
area to student success and to address the depth of the need
illustrated by recent National Assessment of Educational Progress
results. We also clarify that additional STEM fields are identified in
parts (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) of the priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter discussed the importance of new teachers
entering the field with skills and experience already aligned to a
specific state's math instruction priorities. The commenter suggested
revising part (a)(i)(1) on statewide mathematics plans to focus on
aligning instruction, including pre-service preparation and clinical
practices for math teachers, to evidence-based practices. This
commenter also recommended to further support preservice alignment with
HQIM adoption goals by revising part (a)(i)(2) on HQIM adoption by
including language to support partnerships between districts and
educator preparation programs (EPPs) to ensure new teachers are
equipped to implement HQIM.
Discussion: 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 aligning educator preparation
to statewide mathematics plans. However, to ensure that the priority is
structured in a way to provide greater flexibility to applicants to
develop comprehensive statewide plans responsive to their local needs,
we decline to specify this alignment strategy in the priority.
Changes: None.
Commenters: In response to the proposed focus in (a)(i)(1) of
supporting statewide mathematics plans and evidence-based professional
development in (a)(i)(6), one commenter recommended to amend the
priority to encourage applicants to use evidence that is based on meta-
analyses that incorporate multiple research studies, where possible, to
encourage states not to overly rely on single studies.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback regarding the
available evidence. We note that, if they otherwise meet the
requirements for strong, moderate, or promising evidence, meta-analyses
may be used by applicants. We believe it is important for the
Department to be consistent in defining evidence-based practices across
Department priorities, regulations, and statutes, and therefore decline
to make this change specifically in this priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters discussed the inclusion of automatic
enrollment policies in part (a)(i)(3) in the priority. One commenter
highlighted the potential of high-quality virtual and blended learning
programs to support the higher demand for advanced mathematics courses.
Another commenter advocated for concerted efforts to improve early
identification and intervention, arguing that policies like automatic
enrollment cannot be successful if students do not have the
foundational skills to succeed. Another commenter advocated for
additional research into the long-term impacts of innovative policies
such as automatic enrollment.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for automatic enrollment
policies outlined in the priority and the considerations identified by
commenters. We clarify, as noted above, that if permitted in the
program's authorizing statute, applicants may propose activities
related to research to build evidence on the effectiveness of these
practices.
Changes: None.
Comments: Under (a)(i)(4), which is focused on early identification
and support, one commenter recommended that the Department offer
funding to develop research-validated screening tools and assessments
for states, including training teachers in data-based decision-making
and other strategies to provide struggling learners access to grade-
level content.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for these points.
We note that the priority does include several components that allow
applicants to propose project activities related to these topics so
long as they are permitted in the program's authorizing statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters discussed the focus on evidence-based
professional development in mathematics for educators in part
(a)(i)(6). One commenter recommended clarifying that professional
development as envisioned by the priority may be connected to specific
curriculum or focused more broadly on supporting teachers' pedagogical
learning on how to teach mathematics. Another commenter recommended
that pre-service preparation pipelines be included in elements of the
priority focused on professional development and recommended adding to
part (a)(i)(6) components for the development for teacher-educators,
including mathematics methods faculty, clinical supervisors, and
cooperating teachers.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenters for these
suggestions. We note for clarity that part (a)(i)(6) does not specify
the precise focus of evidence-based professional development that may
be proposed and notes that applicants can propose activities related to
the approaches suggested by the commenter if permitted in the program's
authorizing statute. We also clarify that part (a)(i)(7) addresses pre-
service training directly and that neither part specifies the
recipients of such development or training. Further, we confirm that
applicants could propose strategies related to teacher-educators as
permitted in the program's authorizing statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters responded to the focus on preservice
training in part (a)(i)(7). One commenter recommended that the
Department clarify whether the references to ``explicit and systematic
teaching strategies'' and ``programming to build subject matter
expertise'' within the priority are intended to be separate priority
areas or interrelated components of preservice training. The commenter
further suggested that the priority should not be limited to pre-
service training but be expanded to also apply to ongoing professional
learning. Another commenter recommended revising (a)(i)(7) to more
explicitly connect to evidence-based teaching strategies and practice
implementing HQIM. Finally, another commenter suggested that teacher
preparation programs in this part focus on high-leverage practices for
struggling learners, particularly for general education candidates who
may receive less training on this skill than those focusing on special
education.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenters for these
considerations regarding the most effective approaches to pre-service
training. We clarify that the priority is written to allow applicants
to focus on explicit and systematic teaching strategies for mathematics
or building subject matter expertise for mathematics to provide
applicants the flexibility to focus on one of these elements, or both,
depending on local need. We also note that part (a)(i)(6) specifically
addresses professional development for educators, which may support
ongoing learning. Finally, we also agree that applicants could propose
activities related to pre-service training focused on supporting
general education candidates in
[[Page 6629]]
supporting struggling learners or broadly supporting educator
candidates with practice related to HQIM implementation, if permitted
in the programs authorizing statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters discussed the importance of other
educator roles to the priorities, namely school leaders and
paraprofessionals. Specifically, commenters cited the importance of
effective building-level leadership to implementation of the strategies
outlined in the priorities and the opportunity to support the educator
pipeline through effective paraprofessional advancement. One commenter
suggested revisions to (a)(i)(6) and (a)(iii) to include various types
of educators, including paraprofessionals, principals, and other school
leaders, in addition to teachers. The revisions recommended also
include changes to reflect that some staff roles may support the
management and implementation of math curriculum. The commenter also
recommended incorporating a reference to supporting school leaders and
paraprofessional advancement in (a)(iv) on strategic staffing and
adding new components under parts (b) and (c) on preparation of
principals and other school leaders to implement the elements of the
priority in those parts. Another commenter supported adding a new
component focused on building the leadership capacity of school leaders
as a standalone component of the priority.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the discussion from
commenters on the many educational roles that impact student access to
meaningful learning opportunities. We agree that paraprofessionals and
school leaders are critical to school operations and classroom
instruction, and we concur with the recommendation to include such
roles within part (a)(i)(6) on professional development and (a)(v) on
strategic staffing initiatives. Concerning part (a)(iii) on training
related to HQIM implementation, we believe the priority already allows
the inclusion of these additional roles and that no changes are
necessary.
Changes: We have amended (a)(1)(6) to clarify that professional
development in mathematics may include paraprofessionals and other
licensed educators and may include support for school leaders on
implementation of mathematics instruction. We have also amended (a)(v)
to expand the priority to focus on paraprofessionals in addition to
teacher roles and to include support for principals and other school
leaders in implementing strategic staffing models. We have also amended
the definition of strategic staffing to clarify that the professional
educators referenced in the definition may include paraprofessionals
and other licensed educators.
Comments: Many commenters shared support for the Department's focus
on expanding access to HQIM under (a)(ii) and (a)(iii). One commenter
noted the importance of integrating targeted interventions with HQIM
implementation. A few commenters provided feedback on supporting
states, districts, and educators with implementation, through
strategies such as providing additional technical assistance,
encouraging districts and institutions to partner with education
solution providers, and providing guidance for teacher training,
supports, ongoing professional development, and planning time to
implement HQIM well. Several commenters discussed the importance of
accessibility for students with disabilities as noted in the general
discussion above. One of these commenters noted a specific concern that
not all HQIM are accessible or designed with UDL principles in mind and
recommended that the priority explicitly require that they be
accessible and validated for students with learning disabilities.
Another commenter discussed the importance of educator preparation
programs (EPPs) to the goal of strengthening mathematics instruction
and recommended revising part (a)(iii) to include pre-service teachers
as eligible recipients of specific training on the subject of HQIM
implementation by creating a new component under (a). This new
component would focus on building partnerships between EPPs and
districts to align preservice preparation to district improvement
efforts.
Discussion: We appreciate the discussion from commenters on the
importance of access to HQIM and the suggested consideration for
applicants and grantees related to implementation of these strategies.
While we agree that educator preparation partnerships may be valuable
in local education efforts, we do not believe a priority specific to
this is necessary. If it is within the authority of the program
authorization where the priority is used, applicants may propose to
include such partnerships as part of their projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters supported the inclusion of competency-
based instructional models in part (a)(iv) of the priority. Commenters
discussed several ways these models can be strengthened, including
recommendations to prioritize interdisciplinary and hands-on learning,
to name project-based learning alongside competency models to support
workforce readiness, to explicitly name a focus on skill acquisition in
the priority, and to highlight the potential of AI to expand the
pathways through which students can master learning objectives. One
commenter cautioned that competency-based models in this part, as well
as strategic staffing and scheduling innovations, must align with IDEA
and Section 504 requirements.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for the supportive comments. We
agree that many of these approaches may be effective approaches to
competency-based education and we note that, if these strategies 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 provided feedback on the inclusion of
strategic staffing in part (a)(v) of the priority. A few commenters
discussed the importance of time for educators to collaborate, analyze
student learning, and engage families and communities. Another
commenter discussed the opportunities that strategic staffing could
provide to advance personalized learning. An additional commenter
discussed the role of district offices in enabling systemic improvement
and urged the Department to amend (a)(v) on strategic staffing to
include language allowing for a focus on district-level systemic
leadership development and organizational design. Another commenter
argued that the priority could be more impactful if it explicitly
discussed the opportunity to leverage strong educators in the mentoring
and development of in-service and pre-service educators. The commenter
also recommended creating two additional components under (a)(v).
Specifically, they suggest one focus on creating collaborative
structure for teachers and coaches to work in partnership with staff in
EPPs on clinical experiences for pre-service candidates and that the
second prioritize projects that demonstrate a blending of and cohesion
between resources across federal and state funding streams.
A few commenters also provided feedback on the proposed definition
of Strategic Staffing connected to this priority. One commenter
recommended expanding the proposed definition to clarify that teacher
residents, apprentices, candidates, and tutors may be considered in the
model where two or more educators share responsibility
[[Page 6630]]
for students. Another commenter recommended that the definition be
clarified further to support consistent implementation.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the thoughtful discussion
from commenters related to strategic staffing initiatives. We agree
that school districts may be critical to implementation of strategic
staffing strategies and that additional educator roles such as tutors,
apprentices, and candidates can provide great value to students.
However, we believe the priority and related definition will be most
effective if we remain focused on the educators most closely connected
to core instruction for students, including school leaders and
paraprofessionals. Pre-service preparation is addressed directly under
part (a) of the priority and applicants can propose activities related
to these suggestions, if permitted in program statute. We also note
that applicants may propose additional activities that leverage
educators such as tutors, residents, apprentices, and candidates, in
addition to licensed educators, if it is permitted in the program's
authorizing statute. We do not believe other changes to the priority or
definition are necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter discussed their support of the inclusion of
(a)(vi) on planning or implementing a new school day schedule, noting
the opportunities to build in time for high dosage tutoring and other
learning opportunities for students, as well as opportunities for
educators to collaborate and engage in professional learning. The
commenter recommended revising this component to incorporate specific
language related to educator collaboration and learning, including
support from an instructional coach or administrator. Another commenter
recommended that the reference to ``meaningful'' learning be replaced
with ``coherent'' learning to emphasize the opportunity to leverage
schedule changes to support collaboration between teachers and
intervention specialists.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their feedback and agree
that the considerations may be appropriate areas of focus for
applicants if within the authority of the program authorization;
therefore, we do not believe changes to the priority are necessary. We
also decline to change the focus from meaningful to coherent learning
as we believe that meaningful learning includes instruction that is
aligned and coherent. We prefer to maintain a consistent focus on
meaningful learning opportunities throughout the priority.
Changes: None.
Commenter: One commenter recommended combining parts (a) and (b) of
the priority on strengthening core instruction and expanding high-
quality interventions and accelerations to better emphasize the
importance of coherence across core classroom instruction and
personalized interventions. The commenter provided several specific
revisions to combine the strategies under each section to build
cohesion across training, core instruction, and personalized
interventions.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for the suggestions and agree
with the commenter on the importance of coherence across instruction,
interventions, and accelerations. However, we decline to revise the
priority to combine parts (a) and (b) to preserve flexibility to adapt
the priority and its component parts based on the discretionary grant
program in which the priority may be used. We also note that such
flexibility may allow applicants to propose activities to address
multiple parts of the priority to address coherence, as suggested by
the commenter, if permitted by the program's authorizing statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters supported the Department's focus on
students across the learning spectrum and discussed ways the priority
could advance accelerated learning. A few commenters noted their
support for strategies to support struggling learners with concurrent
interventions while continuing to provide access to grade level
content, rather than requiring remediation prior to moving on in
sequence. One commenter noted several suggested requirements to ensure
that interventions funded under part (b) of the priority are validated
for students with disabilities and align with Individualized Education
Program (IEP) requirements.
Another commenter discussed opportunities for the priority to
strengthen educator capacity to support gifted and talented learners
and recommended that the Department require or encourage grantees under
the priority to include professional learning components that support
teachers with differentiation for all learners; to demonstrate how EPPs
or ongoing professional development continue to build these skills; and
include evaluation metrics around how well teachers meet diverse
learning needs.
Several commenters suggested that the Department include
additional, standalone components to the priority connected to these
topics. One commenter recommended that the Department add a priority
component for applicants who demonstrate success in expanding access to
advanced coursework, broadening the identification of gifted and
talented learners, and embedding acceleration or enrichment
opportunities within HQIM. Another commenter suggested inclusion of a
component focused on building cross-sector community partnerships to
advance STEM learning and career preparedness.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' support and
recommendations to ensure the priority supports all learners and
advances accelerated learning. We clarify applicants may propose
activities related to the suggestions from commenters, as permitted in
the program's authorizing statute. Related to evaluation metrics, the
Department declines the suggestion to ensure that the priority remains
flexible to be adapted in multiple settings where this level of
specificity may not be applicable or advised. We also reiterate that
all activities funded under this priority must adhere to existing laws
and nothing in this priority changes requirements related to student
IEPs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters supported the focus on personalized
learning in the priority. One commenter recommended that the Department
consider how this priority can be used to support innovative learning
models that combine multiple learning modalities, tools, and resources
to enable schools to provide personalized learning. Another commenter
discussed the importance of using technology to personalize
instruction, citing evidence of success of certain virtual and hybrid
models.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their feedback and agree
that the considerations may be appropriate areas of focus for
applicants proposing activities related to personalized learning that
are permissible under the priority, if allowable under the program's
authorizing statute. Therefore, we do not believe changes to the
priority are necessary.
Changes: None.
Commenters: A few commenters discussed the focus on high impact
tutoring under part (b)(iv). One commenter discussed the potential
impact of AI to enable high-dosage tutoring strategies to scale but
emphasized the importance of ensuring that AI-powered tutoring tools
have demonstrated clear, evidence-based learning gains and are grounded
in research. Another commenter noted the importance of fidelity to
evidence-based
[[Page 6631]]
practices for these models to be effective. One commenter recommended
that part (b)(iv) on high-impact tutoring be revised to add language
encouraging projects or proposals that use aspiring teachers as tutors.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback from commenters about the
supports and strategies to enable successful high-impact tutoring
programs. We also appreciate the commenter's suggestion to encourage
the use of aspiring teachers as tutors. We note that, if it is
allowable within 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 shared support for the reference to
outcomes-based contracting and grantmaking in part (b)(iv) and (v). One
commenter discussed the alignment of outcomes-based contracting to the
standards of evidence in the priority and its importance to the
delivery of high-impact tutoring. The commenter also suggested that the
Department ensure that any implementation of outcomes-based contracting
outlined in the priority includes technical assistance for districts
developing contracts, clear guidance on data collection and outcome
measurement, support for continuous improvement structures, and
protection against unintended consequences through mutual
accountability provisions. Another commenter noted the opportunity this
focus could have to promote a broader understanding of success if
outcomes measured go beyond standardized assessment results to
incorporate other indicators.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their suggestions on how
grantees may best leverage outcomes-based contracting and grantmaking
to support meaningful learning opportunities. We agree that these
considerations may be appropriate areas of focus for applicants
proposing activities related to this area, but we do not believe it is
necessary to name the specific supports as these should be determined
based on local experience and need. Therefore, we do not believe
changes to the priority are necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters discussed the focus in the priority on
support for career-connected learning under part (c) of the priority
and the ways in which the priority is aligned to practices in the
field. One commenter noted the importance of programs that develop
employability skills, not just specific technical skills, into
workforce development programs. Another commenter encouraged the
department to prioritize proposals that leverage multiple strategies
under the priority and build on existing Career and Technical Education
(CTE) infrastructure for developing integrated learning experiences.
This commenter discussed programs funded through Perkins V programs as
exemplars of the way that CTE naturally supports meaningful learning
opportunities and encouraged the Department to seek increased
appropriations for Perkins V programs, as well as provide greater
weight to applications that incorporate the rigorous accountability
measures used in several Perkins V programs.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for career-
connected learning and CTE programs and appreciate the examples of
existing programs that align with the priority. We agree that
applicants responding to this priority may propose projects that focus
on both employability and technical skills, if authorized under the
program's authorizing statute. Comments about funding and
accountability measures are outside the scope of this priority. The
Department will hold grantees accountable to requirements associated
with the program(s) they are receiving funds to administer.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters supported the focus in the priority on
advancing innovative assessment models. A few of these commenters
advocated for the development and use of balanced assessment systems
that incorporate ongoing, formative, comprehensive assessments beyond
standardized, summative assessments and that measure learning, growth,
and competencies such as critical thinking, collaboration and
communication through authentic and performance-based approaches.
Commenters highlighted several opportunities for innovation and greater
impact, such as for cross-state collaboration to improve scalability
and generalizability, assessments designed by educators in
collaboration with stakeholders, and the potential for timely and
actionable feedback to educators, families, and students. Other
commenters discussed the potential benefits of AI-powered assessments.
Another commenter recommended that the Department further clarify
expectations for alignment between competency-based instruction and
assessment, include implementation and evaluation studies of innovative
assessments, and support states with effective implementation of the
technical and operational demands of these strategies.
While most commenters supported the focus on innovative assessment,
a few shared concerns or considerations for successful implementation.
One commenter cautioned that the use of adaptive technology for
assessments should not come at the expense of student privacy, civil
rights, or transparency. Another commenter noted that the Department
should specify expectations for technical quality, fairness, and
accessibility and expand the language on adaptive technologies to
highlight the potential to improve accessibility for students with
disabilities, support linguistic diversity, and increase engagement.
This commenter also suggested emphasizing the importance of early
identification and ongoing monitoring with a clear methodology for
using assessment data to inform interventions, accelerations, and
placements. Other commenters noted that grantees under this priority
should be required to demonstrate that assessments have been validated
either across diverse student populations or specifically with students
with disabilities.
Finally, an additional commenter suggested revising the priority
under (d)(v) to ensure that innovative assessment models span multiple
grade levels and also include an explicit reference to developing
innovative accountability systems.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' supportive
feedback on the opportunities presented by innovative assessment models
and the feedback on the best strategies to develop and implement these
models. We agree with many of these suggestions and note that the focus
in the priority on timely and useful information, early identification
and ongoing support, and assessments that accurately and fairly measure
learning and progress directly addresses several of these ideas. We
also note that part (d)(v) focuses on research activities and could
include studies on implementation, if permissible under the program's
authorizing statute. We discuss the department's approach to guidance
and technical assistance elsewhere in this notice.
We appreciate the important considerations raised by commenters
around implementation of innovative assessment models. We believe that
the focus in the priority on assessment models that fairly and
accurately measure all student's learning and progress captures the
importance of validating assessments across various groups served by
the applicant. We also
[[Page 6632]]
reiterate that all projects funded through discretionary grants using
the priority must already adhere to the accessibility requirements in
the IDEA, the ADA, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as requirements in the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and civil rights and other
laws, where applicable, and does not believe that changes are
necessary.
Finally, while we note that applicants may propose innovative
assessment models that span multiple grade levels, if permissible based
on the program's authorizing statute, we do not believe it is
appropriate to require all grantees to include this component in their
projects. We also clarify that this priority does not alter any
accountability requirements at the program or state level, and the
Department will hold grantees accountable to requirements associated
with the program(s) they are receiving funds to administer.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters noted the connection to the Competitive
Grants for State Assessment (CGSA) program and advocated for the
Department to continue to support this program as a resource for states
in assessment innovation. Another commenter noted the connection to the
Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA) and recommended
the Department clarify the relationship to this priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support of CGSA, and the
discussion related to the connection with IADA. The Department is
actively working to improve these programs and support state and local
partners with implementation related to assessment. We appreciate the
commenters' discussion of these programs. Comments about funding levels
for specific programs are outside the scope of this notice.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters shared their support for the focus on
parent and family engagement in part (e), with one commenter
highlighting existing tools available to support parents. Another
commenter shared support for this element of the priority and noted
many parents need additional opportunities, including family literacy
services, to better support their child's academic growth at home and
advocated for supports funded under the priority to extend beyond basic
resources for families. One commenter recommended that parent-facing
resources be written in plain language, available in multiple formats,
and aligned with evidence-based strategies for supporting students with
disabilities in reading and math.
One commenter noted their overall support for the priority but
shared concerns with component (e), noting their opposition of
supporting homeschooling with federal funds. The commenter instead
recommended that the Department focus on students in low socio-economic
status rural and urban school districts, groups they argued are most in
need of support to access meaningful learning opportunities.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' advocacy for
the central role of parents and families in learning. We agree parental
and family involvement is crucial in improving education. We also agree
that supporting families in providing meaningful at-home learning may
include appropriate family literacy programs. We also clarify that
while this priority could support projects focused on home-based
education programs, it also could support a wide variety of strategies
to engage families in their children's education. Finally, while this
priority does not specifically highlight communication strategies for
families, applicants may propose activities that ensure information is
accessible and understandable to all families.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding a component under part
(e) to focus on engaging parents through workshops on financial
literacy, health and wellness, and other focus areas designed to help
them prepare students for careers in STEM fields.
Discussion: We appreciate this suggestion but clarify that the
Department intends for the priority to remain focused on support
related to core academic areas. However, applicants may propose
additional activities aligned to these suggestions, if permitted in the
program's authorizing statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter discussed meaningful learning in early
education and recommended that the Department emphasize developmental
appropriateness within the priority to ensure that strategies designed
in alignment with the priority focus on ways of teaching and learning
that are tailored to the age and developmental stage of the students
being served. The commenter specifically discussed the importance of
thematic, play-based, integrated learning for young learners and shared
a recommended framework from the National Academies of Science,
Engineering, and Medicine focused on early childhood learning.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the importance of
meaningful learning opportunities in early learning settings. We
emphasize that the priority is intended to be applicable across a
variety of settings and therefore decline to make edits specific to
early childhood. 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.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that applicants be required to
submit sustainability plans as a part of grant applications to ensure
projects endure beyond initial funding.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's focus on project
sustainability. We note several existing EDGAR selection criteria that
can be used to evaluate applications in any grant competition and focus
on adequacy of resources and sustainability beyond initial grant
funding, and we may use those as appropriate for the purpose of the
program.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter shared a proposal related to a specific
financial literacy product that uses pop culture to engage students.
The commenter urged the Department to form a committee to implement pop
culture-based financial literacy materials across K-12 schools.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's interest in promoting
financial literacy but note that the Department does not endorse
specific products.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter discussed the important role that Tribally
Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) play in higher education
and the strategies and programs in place at TCCUs that support access
to meaningful learning, in alignment with the focus of the priority.
The commenter recommended that the Department incorporate an option
into the priority to prioritize funding to build capacity within TCCUs
and invest in evidence-based professional development and expand access
to HQIM and work-based learning opportunities. The commenter discussed
a public-private partnership program to help improve student
persistence, retention, and financial management skills and requested
that the Department provide renewed funding for the program.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's discussion around the
important role of Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities and the
[[Page 6633]]
examples provided of successful programs aligning to the priority. We
clarify that comments focused on funding are outside the scope of this
notice. While the priority does not focus on specific types of higher
education institutions, we note that the Department does operate
discretionary grant programs that serve TCCUs and this priority can be
used in those programs, if permissible under their authorizing statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter shared concern about the priority having a
disproportionate burden on small entities. The commenter recommended
that the Department pursue several strategies to support small entities
in accessing grants under this priority, including adopting
flexibilities for small entities to meet application requirements,
providing clear, objective criteria for meeting the priority and
definitions, and allowing phased implementation timelines. The
commenter also recommended that the priority should be optional in
competitions primarily serving small or rural Local Education Agencies.
A few commenters suggested that the Department provide technical
assistance to smaller districts or entities to support fair competition
for grant funding.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's feedback
around the need to support small entities. Notices Inviting
Applications (NIAs) establish the type of priority being used in a
grant competition. Additionally, this NFP does not establish
application requirements or selection criteria. Each NIA will establish
the clear and objective criteria used to evaluate applications for
funding, as well as identify any application requirements for that
specific competition. The Department may adapt the priority based on
the context of each grant program in which in which it is used,
including considering factors such as the number of small entities that
may be expected to apply. Finally, we note that the ability to
establish phased implementation may vary based on each program's
authorizing statute.
Changes: None.
Definitions
Comments: Several commenters provided feedback on the Department's
proposed definition of HQIM to make the definition clearer or to
increase its impact. Suggestions included to amend the definition to
emphasize the importance of student's understanding of the goals of
learning and criteria for success, to reference evidence-based,
standards-aligned, and culturally sustaining resources that reflect
students' and communities' lived experiences, to include evidence-based
instructional guidance for differentiation, enrichment, and
acceleration, to use the term ``research-validated'' instead of
``evidence-based'', to include personalized interventions and to
incorporate references to evidence-based instructional and assessment
practices to reinforce coherence between curriculum, instruction, and
evaluation. As noted in the general discussion summary above, a few
commenters noted that it was important for HQIM to be accessible and
compliant with student data privacy regulations. One recommended
modifying the definition to explicitly promote accessibility for
students with learning disabilities through Universal Design for
Learning principles.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' suggestions
on the definition for HQIM. We note that the definition currently
includes a focus on providing evidence-based instructional strategies
and implementation supports, embedded formative assessments, a coherent
scope and sequence, and other components to promote a comprehensive
package of instructional tools. However, we agree with the commenters
on the importance of these topics and have amended the definition to
reinforce the focus on evidence-based materials, differentiation,
coherence, and clear goals for learning and criteria for success for
students. Beyond this, we do not believe it is appropriate for the
Department to define the types of content that should be included and
instead believe these decisions should be made by those closest to
local needs, supported by the best available evidence for that context.
We also decline to amend the reference to ``evidence-based'' to
maintain consistency across the notice and to other Department programs
and regulations but clarifies that the Department can define a minimum
evidence-level requirement in individual competitions to focus on
higher levels of evidence, if appropriate. Additional discussion
related to accessibility and privacy requirements is included in
general comment summaries above.
Changes: We have amended the HQIM definition to include additional
references to evidence, coherence, differentiation, and learning goals
for students.
Comments: One commenter supported the Department's definitions of
computer science and AI and discussed the importance of using AI tools
ethically, transparently, and effectively and recommended the
Department support AI literacy initiatives and PD to support educators
to teach with and about AI. Another commenter argued that the
Department's definition of computer science should be framed within a
broader goal or ensuring every student develops computational thinking
and data-literacy skills across all subjects.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their discussions related
to the computer science definition and the connection to AI tools. We
appreciate the suggestion to broaden the definition but decline to make
changes. We believe it is important for the definition to remain
focused on the defining elements and foundational skills of computer
science to ensure projects focused in this area reflect these key
components.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters suggested adopting additional
definitions to complement or clarify the priority, including
definitions for: meaningful learning opportunities; outcomes-based
contracting or grantmaking; high ability/gifted and talented learners;
competency-based education; and strong core instruction.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the suggestions from
commenters for additional definitions. We intend for the priority to be
applicable across a variety of grant programs and settings and so we
decline to adopt additional definitions to preserve flexibility within
the priority.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
The Department establishes the following priority for use in any
Department discretionary grant program.
Priority:
Projects or proposals that are designed to do one or more of the
following:
(a) Strengthen core instruction through one or more of the
following:
(i) Improving mathematics instruction to promote student
achievement through one or more of the following priority areas:
(1) Assisting states in developing comprehensive statewide plans to
raise mathematics achievement that align with mathematics instruction
based on strong, moderate, or promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR
77.1);
(2) Selecting, adopting, or implementing high-quality instructional
materials in mathematics;
(3) Developing and implementing pathways to accelerate conceptual
understanding of mathematics or
[[Page 6634]]
advanced mathematics coursework, including strategies like automatic
enrollment that encourage participation in such pathways;
(4) Developing and implementing strategies that provide
opportunities for the early identification and support for students
struggling with foundational and developmental mathematics concepts;
(5) Developing and implementing strategies for the identification
of gifted and talented students, including strategies for students to
access higher grade-level and/or advanced placement in mathematics;
(6) Offering high-quality professional development based on strong,
moderate, or promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) in
mathematics for educators, which may include teachers,
paraprofessionals, and other licensed educators or support for
principals and other school leaders on managing the implementation of
high-quality mathematics instruction; or
(7) Integrating explicit and systematic teaching strategies for
mathematics or programming to build subject matter expertise for
mathematics into preservice training for general or special education
educators.
(ii) Providing or expanding access to high-quality instructional
materials in one or more of the following subjects:
(1) A science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM)
discipline, including computer science;
(2) English Language Arts; or
(3) Social Studies.
(iii) Providing or expanding access to training on implementing
high-quality instructional materials in one or more of the following
subjects:
(1) A STEM discipline, including computer science;
(2) English Language Arts; or
(3) Social Studies.
(iv) Creating competency-based instructional models that provide
timely and actionable insights for students, families, and educators.
(v) Creating and supporting principals and other school leaders in
implementing strategic staffing models, instructional leadership roles,
or developing models for teacher and paraprofessional advancement that
incentivize high-performing educators with opportunities and leverage
their time, resources, and talent in innovative ways to better support
student learning and achievement.
(vi) Planning or implementing a new school day schedule to allow
more opportunities for meaningful learning.
(b) Expand high-quality interventions or accelerated learning
supports for students based on strong, moderate, or promising evidence
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) aimed at improving student outcomes through
one or more of the following priority areas:
(i) Providing remedial or accelerated learning opportunities
focused on individualized, differentiated, and scaffolded supports for
students to access grade-level (or above grade-level) content;
(ii) Identifying and implementing strategies for delivering
effective personalized supports to all students;
(iii) Supporting states in defining, implementing, or improving
statewide tiered educational frameworks that meet the varied needs of
students;
(iv) Implementing, expanding, or scaling high-impact tutoring
programs that occur during the regular school day, are aligned with
practices to accelerate student learning in literacy and mathematics,
and which include innovative delivery models or approaches, that may
include outcomes-based contracting, artificial intelligence (AI),
technology-enabled platforms, or strategic partnerships and staffing;
or
(v) Leveraging outcomes-based contracting or grantmaking.
(c) Provide career-connected learning through one or more of the
following priority areas:
(i) Providing career and academic advising and mentorship
opportunities for all students;
(ii) Integrating career-connected and work-based learning into K-12
education, including approaches to help all students connect core
academic instruction with real-world career skills and foster career
awareness, exploration, and preparation throughout their education
journey; or
(iii) Supporting vocational rehabilitation for students with
disabilities (pre-employment transition services and transition
services); or
(iv) Supporting States in developing, piloting, or scaling
statewide plans for career-connected learning.
(d) Advance innovative assessment models through one or more of the
following priority areas:
(i) Supporting the development, implementation, and scaling of new
or innovative assessment models that accurately and fairly measure all
student's learning and progress, including competency- and mastery-
based assessments;
(ii) Supporting the development, implementation, and scaling of
assessment models that provide timely and useful information to
educators, students, and families to address student learning needs;
(iii) Encouraging the use of adaptive technologies for assessments;
(iv) Developing a clear methodology for early identification and
subsequent ongoing support of students at-risk, students with
disabilities, or gifted and talented students; or
(v) Supporting states to re-envision state assessment systems
through research activities, planning, piloting, and/or scaling new or
innovative assessment models.
(e) Support families in providing meaningful at-home learning,
which can include providing resources, educational materials, and
access to learning platforms to support student learning needs.
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 competition notice.
The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Definitions
The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any
Department discretionary grant program in which the final priority is
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. The expanding field of
computer science
[[Page 6635]]
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.
High-quality instructional materials (HQIM) means evidence-based,
standards-aligned, content-rich instructional tools that provide a
coherent scope and sequence for grade-level academic content. HQIM
provide a full suite of resources for teachers, students, and
families--including lesson plans, instructional units, embedded
formative assessments to support a cohesive relationship between
curriculum, instruction, and evaluation. HQIM utilize evidence-based
instructional strategies, including guidance for differentiation,
enrichment, and acceleration, and provide implementation supports for
educators to ensure the learning needs of all students are met. HQIM
clearly communicate the goals of leaning and criteria for success for
students.
Strategic Staffing means a team-based approach to school staffing
that replaces the traditional one-teacher, one-classroom model. In this
model, at least two professional educators, which can include
paraprofessionals and other licensed educators, share responsibility
for a common roster of students during the same blocks of time in the
school day. Teamed educators have differentiated roles and distributed
expertise, allowing for flexible student grouping, more effective use
of instructional time, and expanded career entry and advancement
opportunities.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
Regulatory Impact Analysis: This regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This
regulatory action is not considered an ``Executive Order 14192
regulatory action.'' We have also reviewed this regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563. We are issuing the priority and definitions only
on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their
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 priority 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 priority and definitions outweigh any associated
costs, to the extent these de minimis costs even exist, because the
priority and definitions would result in higher quality grant
application submissions. Application submission and participation in
competitive grant programs that might use the priority 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
the priority 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 priority and definitions do not
contain information collection requirements or affect currently
approved data collections.
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. 2026-02854 Filed 2-11-26; 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 February 12, 2026.
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.