Notice2026-09203
Comprehensive Centers Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 8, 2026
Effective
June 8, 2026
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces final priorities, requirements, and definitions under the Comprehensive Centers (CC) Program, Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) 84.283B and 84.283D. We may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2026 and later years. These final priorities, requirements, and definitions are intended to redesign the CC program to better meet its statutory purpose to provide high-quality capacity-building services to State, regional, and local educational agencies and schools that improve educational opportunities and outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction for all students.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 89 (Friday, May 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25452-25473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09203]
[[Page 25451]]
Vol. 91
Friday,
No. 89
May 8, 2026
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Centers Program; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 2026 / Notices
[[Page 25452]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2026-OESE-0364]
Comprehensive Centers Program
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces final
priorities, requirements, and definitions under the Comprehensive
Centers (CC) Program, Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) 84.283B and
84.283D. We may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, and
definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2026 and later years.
These final priorities, requirements, and definitions are intended to
redesign the CC program to better meet its statutory purpose to provide
high-quality capacity-building services to State, regional, and local
educational agencies and schools that improve educational opportunities
and outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of
instruction for all students.
DATES: The final priorities, requirements and definitions are effective
June 8, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michelle Daley. Telephone: (202)
987-1057. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91ded4c2d4bfd2fefce1e3f4f9f4ffe2f8e7f4d2f4ffe5f4e3e2d1f4f5bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="440b0117016a072b293436212c212a372d322107212a302136370421206a232b32">[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 March
3, 2026, the Department published a notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, and definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register (91 FR
10353). Through this regulatory action, we establish final priorities,
requirements, and definitions that the Department may use for
competitions in FY 2026 and later years. To the extent not otherwise
specified or incorporated herein, this NFP supersedes and revokes the
2024 Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and
Selection Criteria (2024 NFP) published in the Federal Register on May
13, 2024 (89 FR 41498) and the 2019 Notice of Final Priorities,
Requirements, Definitions, and Performance Measures (2019 NFP)
published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2019 (84 FR 13122). As
discussed below, following the publication of these priorities,
requirements, and definitions, the Department may decide to end the
current CC awards and run a grant competition to award new CC grants in
FY 2026 or in subsequent fiscal years.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: The NPP
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
priorities, requirements, and definitions. There are changes between
the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions and the final
priorities, requirements, and definitions established in this notice of
final priorities, requirements, and definitions (NFP), as discussed in
the Analysis of Comments and Changes section in this document.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the CC program is to provide
capacity-building services to State educational agencies (SEAs),
regional educational agencies (REAs), local educational agencies
(LEAs), and schools that improve educational opportunities and student
outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of
instruction for all students, particularly for groups of students with
the greatest need.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. and 20 U.S.C. 6674.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, the
Department received comments from 49 commenters on the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and directed questions.
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, requirements, or definitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since
publication of the NPP follows.
General Comments
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed general support for the
proposed priorities for the CC program. A few commenters noted the
opportunity for further individualization based on State needs in the
proposed model and made suggestions to strengthen the federal technical
assistance infrastructure to align more closely with State-identified
needs. A few endorsed the concierge style role of the National Center.
One commenter appreciated the Department's effort to reduce
administrative burden on States by streamlining technical assistance,
and noted this model further decentralizes services to ensure access in
rural and urban centers serving students with the highest need. Several
commenters noted the importance of service providers with appropriate
expertise, including deep expertise in implementation and demonstrated
results working with State and local clients in improving student
outcomes.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the
priorities. The Department appreciates the support for the
prioritization of providing high-quality capacity-building services to
State, regional, and local educational agencies and schools that
improve educational opportunities and outcomes, close achievement gaps,
and improve the quality of instruction for all students. We agree with
the importance of applicant expertise in implementation and note
Application Requirement 4 which requires applicants to demonstrate
expertise in the current research on adult learning principles,
coaching, and implementation science. We also emphasize that applicants
should have experience working with State and local clients and amend
Application Requirement 1 to include demonstration of results in
similar projects as evidence of the applicant's ability to provide
effective capacity building services.
Changes: We amend Application Requirement 1 to include
demonstrating results from prior experience.
Comments: Several commenters discussed the aspects of the notice
that promote alignment between the Regional Educational Laboratories
(RELs) and Regional Centers, including geographic alignment, alignment
of funding cycles, and operational coordination. A few commenters
suggested that stronger regional alignment and coordination between
RELs and CCs will reduce State burden and further clarify the distinct
roles of each provider in supporting State's needs. One commenter noted
the proposed priorities would improve coordination and promote greater
coherence between the RELs and Regional Centers.
A few commenters also recommended clarification on distinct roles
of Regional Centers and RELs where there might be overlapping work.
They highlighted the importance of having structures that support
continuity of staff, consistent points of contact, collaboration
essential for meaningful systems change, strong understanding of the
policy, demographic, and operational contexts of the States they serve,
the ability to respond to emerging State and federal priorities, and;
staffing models support both rapid-response support and sustained, and
in-depth
[[Page 25453]]
engagement. A few commenters recommended establishing joint
coordination and collaboration between RELs and the Comprehensive
Center Network (CCNetwork).
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' general
support for stronger coordination and agrees that close collaboration
between the RELs and CCs is necessary to successfully meet the needs of
States and utilize program resources most effectively. We appreciate
the commenters that shared preferences for stronger regional alignment
to reduce burden on State agencies, support stronger alignment of REL
and CC work to State priorities, and more explicitly differentiate
support from RELs and CCs. The Department agrees that, where functions
align, RELs and CCs can achieve efficiencies in working together to
support States in their assigned regions, such as through joint
planning, coordinated support of State Learning Agendas, and having a
joint Governing/Advisory Board so that both programs advance work
driven by State-defined priorities and promote coherence and strategic
use of program resources.
We appreciate comments regarding opportunities for stronger
coordination between RELs and Regional Centers. The REL and CC
programs, both authorized under the Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-279), are related programs with distinct but
complementary functions in supporting State educational systems. The
RELs are responsible for conducting applied research and developing and
disseminating activities, as well as providing related technical
assistance. The CCs focus on capacity-building support to facilitate,
implement, and provide sustainable evidence-based policies and
practices. The Department highlights that Program Requirement 1 for
Regional Centers requires collaboration with the REL serving their
region, including joint annual planning and establishing joint advisory
boards, and Program Requirement 2 for Regional Centers requires
partnering with the REL serving their region to work with States to
develop or refine State Learning Agendas, which serve as a basis for
both REL and CC annual planning. We believe the existing requirements
provide a strong basis for ongoing collaboration within the priorities
and requirements and do not believe additional changes are needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters noted their concerns regarding potential
duplication of efforts of Centers within and beyond the CC program and
the importance of strong coordination across the CCNetwork, with most
comments focusing on the potential role of the National Center in
mitigating concerns with duplication and coordination. One commenter
argued that issues of duplication of efforts across CCs and RELs and
other federally funded initiatives stemmed from a lack of coordination
through a single, clearly authorized coordinating entity and suggested
this was not sufficiently addressed in the proposed priorities. Another
commenter noted the risk of duplication of work created by the overlap
in the approach of both RELs and the National Center to manage a cadre
of subject matter experts. Additionally, one commenter noted that
clearly defining the roles of each type of CC would reduce the
possibility of duplicating efforts in service provision across the
CCNetwork.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' feedback
regarding the need to reduce or eliminate duplication of efforts across
technical assistance providers and ensure strong coordination of
services across the CCNetwork. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify
and discuss the rationale of how the priorities, requirements, and
definitions reduce duplication of effort, particularly through Priority
1 and program requirements related to the National Center. Under
Priority 1, the National Center will serve as a lead coordinator across
the CC programs to ensure that all technical assistance provided by
Centers reflects State-driven technical assistance priorities, reduces
burdens and barriers to service for States and beneficiaries, and
reflects efficient use of program resources, which includes efforts to
reduce duplication of effort both within the CC program and with other
Department technical assistance. This function will also include
supporting coordination with RELs, including through supports for
regional Learning Agenda development, identifying and coordinating
support for national needs, and supporting dissemination of
information, tools, resources, and best practices across CCs and RELs.
However, the Department agrees that further clarification related
to the role of the National Center in reducing duplication and
advancing coordination would be helpful to improving client experience,
grantee operations, and efficient use of program resources.
Specifically, the Department amends Priority 1 to clarify and enhance
the coordination responsibilities for the National Center, including
promoting overall alignment and coherence of CCNetwork services,
conducting analyses of common high-leverage problems, and developing
tools and resources to support service delivery across Centers. The
Department additionally specifies that the National Center should
support multi-State coordination, as needed, and should limit its own
service delivery to needs identified through analysis of data, in
consultation with its Advisory Board, that are not being addressed by
other Centers, to avoid potential duplication.
The Department also amends Priority 1 to explicitly include
responsibility to conduct a national needs analysis, to share this
information with other Centers for planning purposes, and to use it to
inform the identification of high-leverage problems for its own service
plan, in consultation with its Advisory Board. To align with these
amendments to Priority 1, the Department has added a new Program
Requirement 1 for the National Center to clarify that National Center
should focus on developing tools and resources to support coordination
and collaboration in its first project year, and we have amended
Program Requirement 3 for the National Center to incorporate the
requirement to conduct and publish annual synthesis of common high-
priority needs across states each year of the National Center's grant.
The Department also amends the Application Requirement 1 for the
National Center to include these additional coordination
responsibilities.
The Department also appreciates the feedback from commenters
related to the importance of coordination across the CCNetwork,
including related to Regional Centers and Content Centers. We highlight
that Proposed Priority 2: Regional Centers requires that Regional
Centers must effectively work with the National Center, the REL in
their region, federal technical assistance providers and Content
Centers as appropriate to avoid duplication of efforts. Importantly,
the program requirements for both Regional Centers and Content Centers
include a focus on coordination with other CCs and other technical
assistance providers. Regional Centers must, under the requirements,
coordinate with the REL serving their region, including through joint
planning and establishing a joint advisory board. Given the focus on
coordination within these elements for Regional and Content Centers,
the Department does not believe edits to Priority 2, Priority 3, or the
requirements for Regional Centers or Content Centers are needed to
address the commenters' feedback. The Department will also provide
ongoing support to grantees to support efforts to
[[Page 25454]]
prevent and address any concerns related to duplication.
Changes: The Department updates Priority 1 language to specify that
National Center services must address evidence-based national needs not
already addressed by other federal investments and to include
additional coordination responsibilities as noted above. The Department
also amends the Program Requirements for the National Center to add a
Requirement for the National Center to develop tools and resources to
support coordination and collaboration, and to amend Program
Requirement 3 for the National Center to include language to conduct
and publish an annual synthesis of common high-priority needs across
States, and to share this information with all Centers to identify
potential opportunities for support. The Department also amends
Application Requirement 1 for the National Center to ensure the
required description of the approach to coordination incorporates the
coordination responsibilities described in Priority 1 and the Program
Requirements for the National Center.
Comments: Several commenters discussed the potential of the State
Learning Agendas to strengthen federal technical assistance and create
stronger alignment to State-identified priorities. A few commenters
specifically noted the potential for this strategy to support a
customer-driven Regional Center model anchored in State Learning
Agendas, that will produce stronger State partnerships and support
continuity across provider transitions by grounding Regional Center
work in sustained State priorities. One commenter recommended that
Regional Centers should focus on addressing high-leverage problems
identified through States' Learning Agendas as they work with their
States on State-directed service plans.
However, a few commenters raised considerations related to the
implementation of the State Learning Agendas and suggested areas where
additional clarity may be needed. One commenter noted that additional
clarity would be needed related to oversight and reporting requirements
if Regional Centers would be expected to directly work with clients
other than through State-directed service plans. A few commenters noted
that improved coordination across Regional Centers, Content Centers,
the National Center, and RELs would be needed to effectively implement
State Learning Agendas, and urged the Department to clearly define
roles, expert capacity expectations, and processes to support the
development and use of State Learning Agendas.
Discussion: The Department appreciates commenters' feedback
regarding the role of Regional Centers to support State Learning
Agendas and agrees that State Learning Agendas may serve as an
important lever to provide high-quality technical assistance on State-
identified high priority topics. The Department emphasizes that, under
Priority 2 and Program Requirement 2 for Regional Centers, Regional
Centers are expected to partner with the National Center and the RELs
serving their regions to develop or refine, as appropriate, a multi-
year State Learning Agenda to identify needs and set priorities. We
intend this requirement to be flexible to accommodate States that may
already have Learning Agendas, those that do not but wish to develop
one, or to accommodate States with other forms of articulated
priorities, such as a Strategic Plan, that demonstrates the State's
priorities, educational goals, and commitments. The Department
recognizes that the development of a Learning Agenda may require
significant engagement from the State and believes it to be an
appropriate use of significant CC and REL resources to support Learning
Agenda development. As discussed above, the Department has amended the
National Center priority to include a focus on coordinating and
refining tools and processes for Learning Agenda development to build
on the current tools and processes under development in a current
Learning Agenda pilot, in a manner that can be utilized and adapted by
all RELs and Regional Centers. The Department expects the National
Center to support RELs and Regional Centers in working with their
States to develop Learning Agendas, such as by producing and adapting
tools and resources, providing additional expertise, as needed, sharing
examples of model Learning Agendas, or convening States across regions,
as needed. The Department intends that Regional Centers should develop
their annual service plans as an outgrowth from the priorities
established by States in their Learning Agendas and gather feedback
from key stakeholders including Chief State School officers, SEA
leaders, TEAs, LEAS, educators, student and parents to reflect the most
pressing needs of all States within the region to be served. The
Department will provide programmatic oversight and guidance on program
reporting requirements to grantees post-award and does not believe that
changes to the priority or requirements related to State Learning
Agendas are needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters suggested a preference for States as
applicants for Comprehensive Center grants in a future grant
competition, connected to the Department's goal to ensure that the
program is aligned with State priorities. A few commenters noted their
support for using the Secretary's Supplemental Priority on Returning
Education to the States, published on September 9, 2025 (90 FR 43514),
as a Competitive Preference Priority in the next grant competition,
with a few commenters suggesting that the Department encourage States
as lead applicants or lead consortium partners for applications under
Priority 3: Content Centers and Priority 2: Regional Centers.
Commenters identified potential benefits to State-led CCs such as
strengthening accountability to State leadership, ensuring Center
priorities are aligned with State needs, and reducing the
administrative burden on States by allowing States to partner with
established technical assistance providers for administrative and
compliance support while maintaining client-led priorities at the
forefront of the work.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback from commenters
on the potential benefits of State-led centers. Consistent with the
program statute, we affirm that States are eligible entities under
Section 9602(b) of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002
(ETAA) and that States may choose to serve as the lead applicant under
this program. States may also apply as consortium partners in
collaboration with other eligible entities, depending on the design of
the grant competition. We also appreciate the feedback on the ways the
Department can prioritize applications from States for CC grants.
Because there is a current Secretary's Supplemental Priority on
Returning Education to the States that the Department could use in the
upcoming competition to prioritize applications from SEAs, tribal
education agencies, other relevant state or tribal organizations or
agencies, or those endorsed by governors or chief State education
officials, we do not believe that any changes to the priorities are
needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to consider
incorporating school safety measures into the current CC priorities to
ensure that federal and State safety measures are not only adopted but
operationalized effectively at the school level.
[[Page 25455]]
Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback from the
commenter. While we agree with the commenter on the importance of
school safety, the Department's intent is to focus the priorities in
this notice on the statutory purposes of the CC program, while not
overly prescribing certain topics for support proactively to ensure
that State and local needs can drive the services areas of the CCs. We
note that, as written, the Content Center priorities do not preclude
the Department from proposing a Center focused on school safety as an
Emerging Needs Center, nor do they preclude applicants from proposing
such a Center under the Field-Initiated focus area, if there is
demonstrated need for support from CC clients on the topic. Similarly,
should States choose to prioritize school safety as a need for support,
CCs could provide support or partner with other federal providers to
address State needs. As such, we decline to add school safety measures
as a required focus area across the priorities, but emphasize that, to
the extent that this focus area is aligned to the purpose of the
program and identified as an area of need by clients, CCs may support
clients in the adoption and implementation of school safety measures.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter raised several procedural concerns with the
Department's proposed rulemaking action, notably that the proposed
priorities, requirements, and definitions impose binding grant
conditions on grantees. The commenter argued that ED should publish a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with a 60-day comment period and more
extensive Regulatory Impact Analysis. Additionally, the commenter
raised concerns that the Department imposes undisclosed information
collection burdens; that the proposed rulemaking action constitutes a
major rule requiring congressional submission given the program's
funding level; and that the Department's analysis of the rulemaking
action does not provide a reasoned explanation including alternatives
considered and an assessment of reliance interests. The commenter
disagrees with the finding that the rulemaking action is not considered
a significant action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and argues that
it should trigger a deregulatory offset pursuant to E.O. 14192;
additional Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review;
cost accounting for all new grantee information collection and
compliance requirements; an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis;
and an analysis of how burden will be reduced by eliminating existing
requirements in place of the new requirements established in this
action.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' feedback but
disagrees with these assertions. The Regulatory Impact Analysis section
of the NFP explains that this priority is determined by OIRA to not be
economically significant and that application submission and
participation in competitive grant programs that might use these
priorities, requirements, and definitions is voluntary. With respect to
the commenter's request for additional OIRA review and expanded cost
accounting, the agency notes that the information collection and
compliance obligations associated with this rule have been reviewed
consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Pursuant to those obligations, we believe, based on the
Department's administrative experience, that entities preparing an
application for this program would not need to expend more resources
than they otherwise would have in the absence of these priorities,
requirements, and definitions, as most potential costs result from
statutory requirements and those we have determined are necessary for
administering the Department's programs and activities, and that
potential costs to applicants would be de minimis. The Department also
clarifies that the priorities, requirements, and definitions contain
information collection requirements that are approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Generic Application Package for
Departmental Generic Grant Programs (OMB control number 1894-0006)
consistent with the requirements of the PRA. The priorities,
requirements, and definitions are accounted for in the currently
approved data collection. Additionally, the Department clarifies that
the program has in recent years received annual appropriations of no
higher than $50-$55,000,000, which falls below the threshold to require
Congressional Review under the Congressional Review Act. Moreover, the
Department notes that reliance interests and alternatives considered
are discussed in other portions of this NFP, and that ED need not
consider every conceivable alternative to the proposed priorities but
rather must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that fosters
informed decision making, which it has done here.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter raised concerns with the Department's
authority for the priorities, requirements, and definitions.
Specifically, the commenter argued that the ETAA does not give the
Department the authority to establish a coordinating National Center or
to establish the configuration of regional centers on a competition-by-
competition basis; or to establish application requirements beyond
those explicitly listed in the ETAA.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback from the
commenter but disagrees with these assertions. Section 9602(a)(1) of
the ETAA requires that the Department operate no fewer than 20 centers
total, and Section 9602(b)(1) requires only that ``not less than 1
comprehensive center is established in each of the 10 geographic
regions served by the regional educational laboratories established
under section 941(h) of the Educational Research, Development,
Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994.'' Section 9602(b)(2)
further authorizes the Department, after meeting the requirements of
9602(b)(1), to establish additional centers, considering ``the school-
age population, proportion of economically disadvantaged students, the
increased cost burdens of service delivery in areas of sparse
population, and the number of schools implementing comprehensive
support and improvement activities and targeted support and improvement
activities under section 1111(d) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 [20 U.S.C. 6311(d)] in the population served by
the local entity or consortium of such entities.'' This provides
substantial flexibility to the Department to define regions based on
these considerations, while also recognizing that these needs-based
factors may change over time and subsequently, regional configurations
may need to be adjusted to take these changes into account. Further, to
the extent that there are commonly identified needs across these
considerations, the Department has defined ``the Nation'' as the region
served for the National Center and Content Centers. The Department
notes that it has funded Content Centers or a National Center in each
competition of this program since last authorized under the ETAA in
2002. The Department has operated a National Center since 2019 and has,
in each competition cycle, conducted rulemaking to establish the
regional configuration for Regional Centers. Regarding application
requirements, Section 9602(c)(1) of the ETAA requires that applicants
for grants under the CC program ``shall submit an
[[Page 25456]]
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
additional information as the Secretary may reasonably require.'' Given
these statutory authorizations, the Department believes that the
priorities, requirements, and definitions are well within the authority
of the ETAA.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters opposed new priorities that may lead
to a competition to replace existing grants and to establish new grants
prior to the end of the current grant awards made in 2024. Many of
these commenters highlighted a primary concern that a mid-cycle
competition would interrupt the current work of CCs and cause a
disruption to the progress of multi-year projects. Several comments
noted that a majority of existing CCs had recently been reinstated
after a period of termination and highlighted negative experiences that
these interruptions had on State work. A few commenters focused on
concerns related to disrupting ongoing Regional Centers projects;
losing existing capacity provided by current Regional Centers,
particularly for small, rural school divisions that rely upon their
support; or slowing progress on State priorities if CC work is
transitioned to new providers. A few commenters highlighted ongoing
projects between specific Regional Centers and their clients that they
were concerned would be disrupted by a new competition, including
ongoing work with the Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
Departments of Education on priority initiatives; the work of the
Northeast Center, the work of the West Center; and the work of the
Appalachia Regional Center on career and technical education and
workforce development initiatives. Other commenters also shared
concerns related to a potential mid-cycle competition, including the
potential negative impact on relationships between States and their
Regional Centers should current awards be discontinued and an increased
administrative burden on States and grantees if grants are terminated
mid-cycle, which may result in States having to dedicate more time to
engaging with potential applicants, navigating disruptions to currently
scoped work, or onboarding and transitioning work to new grantees. A
few commenters recommended the Department consider extending the
current grants for two years at the end of the current five-year grant
cycle to align with REL awards that would next be made in 2032. A few
commenters recommended that, in lieu of running a competition and
making new awards in 2026, the Department could make adjustments to
existing cooperative agreements to embed new priorities and goals for
the program into the work of current grantees.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback from commenters
regarding the benefits of continuing to fund existing CC projects and
specific examples of concerns with possible disruption of work for
State clients. The Department has not made a final decision regarding
the timing of new CC projects, and whether such new CC projects would
necessitate a cessation of old CC project activity. However, if the
Department were to make new CC awards within this fiscal year, an
advantage would be the ability to align REL and CC funding cycles to
achieve stronger program alignment and program efficiencies that
support States and other clients in achieving improvements in student
outcomes and building the necessary capacity to advance the
Administration's priorities to return education to the States in the
current funding year rather than waiting another year or years for the
next potential funding cycle. In order to take advantage of this
flexibility, the Department believes that finalizing these priorities,
requirements, and definitions now is a significant and necessary step
towards the Department's goals to improve the design of the CC program
to better align to the statutory intent of the ETAA.
The Department also considered, as a countervailing factor, the
potential for service gaps or other disruptions should a competition,
award, and initiation of new grants occur within the current fiscal
year. If the Department ultimately determines that existing project
activities should be concluded, it will provide current grantees with a
reasonable period to wind down their projects. In addition, the
Department would require these grantees to coordinate with, and, as
appropriate, transfer ongoing State level projects to the newly
selected grantees to minimize any interruption in services. This
transition process would be consistent with the procedures the
Department employed when winding down and transferring work from prior
CC grantees in 2019 and 2024. The Department also evaluated the
alternative of directing existing CC grantees to modify their
cooperative agreements to implement the priorities, requirements, and
definitions set forth in this action. However, as explained in the NPP,
a central objective of this Administration is to return education
decision-making authority to the States. To most effectively advance
that objective, the Department may determine that conducting a
competition under these priorities that provides preferences to
entities to best reflect this focus is necessary. Therefore, while the
Department may decide to end the current CC awards and run a grant
competition to award new CC grants in FY 2026 or in subsequent fiscal
years, we make no further changes based on these comments.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter discussed the connection of the priorities,
requirements, and definitions to tribal interests, particularly related
to tribal consultation and tribal sovereignty. The commenter argued
that the Department should be required to complete Tribal Consultation
prior to final rulemaking given the potential impact on services
impacting tribal education. Additionally, the commenter raised concerns
that the focus on State Learning Agendas could infringe upon the
sovereignty of tribes to establish education priorities. The commenter
shared additional recommendations such as to require coordination with
the National Congress of American Indians and the Bureau of Indian
Education and to create a pathway for tribal educational agencies
(TEAs) to access technical assistance services separate from the
Regional Centers, such as through the National Center.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments, and we agree
with the importance of upholding tribal sovereignty and supporting
tribal education priorities through the CC program. The Department
conducted extensive engagement related to the CC program in 2023,
including Tribal Consultation (see transcript at <a href="https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2023/05/Jan-24.2023-Tribal-Consultation_transcript.pdf">https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2023/05/Jan-24.2023-Tribal-Consultation_transcript.pdf</a>)
and the feedback from that process informs these priorities,
requirements, and definitions. The development of State Learning
Agendas or State service plans does not compel adoption of these
priorities by TEAs; centers will be expected, aligned with the
requirements in the ETAA and these priorities, to ensure that services
reflect the needs of the clients they are serving, including TEAs.
Finally, the Department has emphasized the importance of coordination
with relevant partners and agencies throughout the priorities and
requirements and does not believe that specific additions related to
these comments are needed. We also emphasize that the Department
believes, aligned with the requirements for service in the ETAA, the
priorities allow for TEA clients to access services through multiple
pathways similar to
[[Page 25457]]
what is available for SEA clients, through direct work with the
Regional Center in the region, through Content Centers focused on
relevant topics, or through the National Center, where applicable. To
emphasize this, the Department has added serving the needs of tribal
students to the National Center priority to confirm the importance of
services to this population.
Changes: The Department added language to the National Center
priority to emphasize that services shall address national needs
identified to address the unique educational obstacles faced by tribal
students.
Comments: One commenter raised concerns that the priorities,
requirements, and definitions could impose burdens on small States,
TEAs, and rural communities by mandating participation in proposed CC
program activities, such as developing State Learning Agendas; program
intake processes; and participation in joint advisory boards. The
commenter also recommended that the Department take steps to reduce
barriers for participation in the CC program for small entities,
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs);
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs), other minority
serving institutions (MSIs), and small businesses, including a specific
suggestion to reserve funds or provide priority points for applications
from these types of entities.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's feedback
around the need to support small entities, including those who are
clients of the program and those who may apply for funding. We clarify
that, while we believe that these priorities, requirements, and
definitions will improve the CC program to make participation
beneficial to all clients, these actions do not compel any clients,
including TEAs or small States, to participate, and that all clients
would be able to weigh the benefits of participation in the program
against any time and resource obligations such participation may
require. To the extent that certain groups are identified to
participate in CC Advisory Boards, the Department notes that the
requirements for participation and input are statutory, while providing
flexibility for Chief State School Officers (CSSOs) to appoint
designees to participate on behalf of the CSSO, as well as to recommend
appropriate representation from constituent groups and partners within
their States who have the capacity to participate. By establishing
joint rather than separate governing and advisory boards with RELs, the
Department intends to significantly reduce the participation burden on
regional participants. Additionally, the Department disagrees with the
suggestion to create a priority related to small businesses, HBCUs,
TCCUs, or MSIs because we do not believe that it is necessary to
advancing the statutory intent of this program under the ETAA or the
Department's policy goals for this program, particularly related to
returning education to the States. We therefore decline to establish a
specific priority for small businesses, HBCUs, TCCUs, or MSIs in this
program, though we welcome applications from these entities to the
extent that they are eligible entities under Section 9602(b) of the
ETAA.
Changes: None.
Priorities
Priority 1: National Center
Comments: Multiple commenters provided feedback on the role of the
National Center as outlined in Priority 1, specifically related to the
degree to which the National Center should provide direct services to
CC clients. Many commenters supported the National Center primarily
serving in a coordinating role for the CCNetwork and RELs and several
commenters suggested that the National Center should not provide direct
services but instead serve only as a broker and coordinator of
services, aligned to State-identified, rather than federally-identified
needs. Another commenter recommended that the National Center's primary
role should focus on leading coordination, escalation, and quality-
assurance across the CCNetwork, supporting cross-center alignment,
addressing unresolved or cross-cutting issues, and providing States
with a clear pathway to raise concerns around service provision.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the opportunity to clarify
its intent that the National Center both implement and coordinate
client-driven technical assistance. The Department appreciates
commenters' recognition of the importance as a primary role of the
National Center to coordinate services to both support client needs and
the broader functioning of the CCNetwork. However, The Department
disagrees that the National Center should not provide services. We
believe the National Center must retain the ability to address multi-
State needs that may arise throughout the course of a multi-year grant
cycle that cannot be addressed by Regional Centers given their focus on
region-specific support. The Department also recognizes that national
needs may arise that cannot be addressed by Content Centers who are
focused on specific topical areas. The Department believes that the
National Center has an important role in addressing cross-State
priorities, provided these needs are not already being addressed by
another federal provider. However, we agree that these needs should be
State-identified, rather than identified by the Department. For this
reason, the Department amends the priority language for the National
Center to further clarify its role to provide cross-State targeted or
universal services, when appropriate and grounded in demonstrated need,
consistent with the statutory priorities and focus areas of this
program, and as identified by analysis of high-leverage needs across
State Learning Agendas, Regional Service Plans, its Advisory Board, or
other data-based means of needs identification.
Changes: The Department amends Priority 1: National Center to
clarify how its services should be focused to ensure that needs
addressed are State-identified.
Comments: Many commenters supported the creation of a National
Center concierge service, while several commenters emphasized the
importance of clarifying the National Center's role in relation to the
Regional Centers in identifying and selecting expertise through its
cadre of national subject matter experts. Several commenters noted the
concierge service strategy would promote better access to expertise and
support through the CCNetwork.
Several commenters indicated concerns about the proposed concierge
role as a single point of entry to CC services. Commenters noted the
importance of Regional Centers' long-term, sustained relationships with
States in understanding needs and context and shaping complex capacity-
building projects. Commenters shared concerns with transitioning this
primary contact role to the National Center, including that the
concierge role would add an unnecessary layer between States and
Regional Centers, that the approach risks unintentionally limiting
States' ability to strategically leverage available supports, that the
National Center may avoid distributing requests to potential
competitors, and that a centralized process may slow rather than
expedite service intake and delivery timelines and delay needed
services to State clients.
Several commenters recommended that States' primary relationships
and entry points to the CCNetwork should continue to be driven through
Regional
[[Page 25458]]
Centers, but suggested that the National Center can serve as a helpful
``clearinghouse'', coordinating information sharing and learning, a
coordinating hub to support coordination and connection across Centers
where multi-provider engagement is needed, and to promote overall
alignment and coherence of CCNetwork services.
A few commenters also suggested that the National Center serve as a
``broker'' to connect States and Centers with a broad registry of
national subject matter experts with proven expertise and results
supporting CC clients. One commenter suggested that such a registry
should include client reviews and transparency in service pricing. One
commenter proposed that the National Center should create a publicly
accessible database of pre-qualified providers, and that it should be
regularly updated based on evidence of demonstrated effectiveness and
State-reported satisfaction with services provided. One commenter
recommended that the National Center directly contract services with
the national cadre of experts on behalf of States.
Discussion: The Department appreciates commenters' thoughtful
reflections and recommendations on how the National Center concierge
service can best improve access to services and expertise and reduce
burden for potential CC clients. The Department agrees that States
should retain direct relationships with their Regional Centers who
serve as their primary service providers and as discussed in the
General Comments section, amended language to clarify the National
Center's role as a facilitator and connector rather than a necessary
entry point. The Department also notes that we have consistently
received client feedback that they are not aware of all the Department-
funded Centers and therefore do not always know how to direct requests
or which Centers can support their needs. The Department intends not
that the National Center serve as an obligatory starting point for
those inquiries, but instead that the National Center concierge service
can provide a voluntary point of entry for any State or other client
seeking federal technical assistance on a particular issue or high-
leverage problem. In this capacity, the National Center can make
potential clients aware of their options and facilitate access to
available resources across the federal technical assistance ecosystem.
To clarify this element, the Department amended the National Center
priority language and Program Requirement 6 for the National Center to
reflect the voluntary aspect of utilizing this service.
The Department disagrees that the National Center should directly
contract work on behalf of States, and notes that individualized State
support should still be directed through a State's Regional Center,
with support from the National Center to identify options for qualified
providers and subject matter experts that may meet State needs. The
Department does agree, however, that the National Center should play a
role in soliciting, vetting, and providing access to a broad range of
subject matter experts and service providers with proven track records
of providing high-quality, outcomes-based services that could be
contracted by Centers, and that States should have choice in selecting
subject matter experts they deem best qualified to meet their needs.
The Department has further clarified this intention by amending the
Program and Application Requirements for the National Center related to
establishing a national cadre of subject matter experts to ensure that
the cadre includes a broad range of expertise from providers with
proven outcomes working with CC clients and sufficient information to
help clients make informed selections among potential providers. The
Department agrees that this information should be made available to
clients and include client reviews, examples of work, and transparency
in pricing. The Department also notes the Program Requirement for
Regional Centers to partner with clients on determining their needs for
expertise and provide clients with transparent options, including via
the national cadre of subject matter experts, with the intention that
clients can select the expertise for each project best suited for their
needs, including expertise beyond the immediate staff of the Center. We
have amended the language of Program Requirement 3 for Regional Centers
to reinforce the importance of client-driven selection.
Changes: The Department has amended Priority 1 and Program
Requirement 6 for the National Center to reflect the voluntary aspect
of the concierge service. The Department additionally amends Program
and Application Requirements for the National Center related to the
establishment of a national cadre of subject matter experts to specify
that the cadre must include providers with proven results working with
State clients to improve student outcomes. The Department also amended
Program Requirement 3 for Regional Centers to incorporate language
supporting client selection of providers and the Regional Centers' role
to support evaluation of options.
Comments: One commenter noted the broad variation among SEAs in
size, funding, political context, and operational sophistication that
produce varying levels of State agency capacity, resulting in each
agency's need for differentiated support from CCs. The commenter
suggested adding a requirement to this priority for the National Center
to conduct and maintain biennial comprehensive capacity assessments of
SEAs to assist Regional and Content Centers in developing
differentiated support based on State capacities for strategic
planning, evidence use, organizational learning, data infrastructure,
and talent management dimensions.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions regarding how
to address variations in State agency capacities and agree it would be
appropriate for the National Center to create assessments to assist in
identifying SEA needs related to specific dimensions of capacity,
including strategic planning, evidence use, organizational learning,
data infrastructure, and talent management. However, we believe these
assessments would best be conducted voluntarily and led by Regional
Centers in their direct engagement with States, rather than required
and conducted by the National Center. Therefore, we have added language
to the National Center priority and added a program requirement for the
National Center related to developing tools and resources that will
promote service delivery across the CCNetwork, which could include the
suggested capacity assessments.
Changes: The Department added language to Priority 1 to include
developing tools and resources that support delivery of high-quality,
high-impact technical assistance and capacity-building services across
the CCNetwork, including capacity assessments. Additionally, the
Department added a program requirement for the National Center aligned
to the Priority 1 additions.
Comments: One commenter recommended adding a requirement to this
priority for the National Center to identify common high-priority needs
across States prior to soliciting applications for Regional Centers and
Content Centers.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestion
that the National Center could play an important role in identifying
common high priority needs that could be addressed by Regional or
Content
[[Page 25459]]
Centers and has added a program requirement related to this focus area
for the National Center. The Department agrees that the National Center
could draw these data from State Learning Agendas and other
organizational assessments, as well as from analysis of REL and
Regional Center annual plans. The Department disagrees that the
National Center should be responsible for identifying priorities prior
to the Department inviting applications for Regional Centers and
Content Centers. We believe that the Regional Advisory Committees
(RACs) required under Section 206 of the ETAA are intended to serve
this purpose, and that these are appropriate vehicles, among others, to
identify priorities for the program according to current statutory
intent. The Secretary established 10 RACs in 2023 to conduct an
education needs assessment and identify each region's most critical
educational needs and develop recommendations for technical assistance
to meet those needs, and the priorities and needs identified through
this process informed the priorities, requirements, and definitions in
this notice.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final RAC reports were published in December 2023 on the
Department's website at <a href="https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/regional-advisory-committees">https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/regional-advisory-committees</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: The Department added a Program Requirement for the
National Center to conduct and publish an annual synthesis of common
high-priority needs across States to inform and enable cross-regional
peer learning on shared challenges and targeted and universal support
needs from Content Centers, or other Centers, as needed.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the National Center advisory
board should be comprised primarily of current CSSOs and should include
representation from the leadership of national representative
organizations to increase accountability and ensure the National
Center's services are focused on State priorities.
Discussion: The Department generally agrees with the commenters'
recommendations, and notes that the Department currently requires
National Center Advisory Board membership from national organizations
representing CSSOs, chief executive officers (e.g., governors),
Regional Centers and other organizations with expertise relevant to the
goals of the project. The Department notes that membership requirements
for the National Center Advisory Board have typically been addressed
through cooperative agreements issued after grant awards are made. The
Department also agrees with the importance of the Advisory Board in
helping the Center to identify common issues that should be addressed
by the National Center in its annual service plan and adds language to
this priority to clarify that services shall address national needs
identified by the Center's Advisory Board.
Changes: The Department has added language to the priority to
ensure services address needs identified by the Center's Advisory
Board.
Comments: One commenter recommended enhancements to this priority
to ensure that the National Center intentionally and effectively serves
rural students through service plans that reflect rural needs, embeds
rural expertise in its personnel, expands outreach to rural partners
and supports cross-agency coordination that aligns education,
workforce, health, and community services.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestions
and agrees that serving the needs of rural students is an important
focus area of this program. The Department notes that serving rural
populations has been an area of focus in previous competitions and
would be an appropriate use of National Center resources. The
Department also notes that in any competition where the Field-Initiated
or Emerging Needs priorities are used for Content Centers, applicants
may propose Content Centers focused on the unique needs of rural
students, in which case the National Center should not duplicate those
services. Therefore, the Department proposes amending the language of
the priority to note the importance of support for rural students,
while also noting the imperative to ensure services do not duplicate
those provided by other federal Centers.
Changes: The Department added language to the National Center
priority to emphasize that services shall address national needs
identified to address the unique educational obstacles faced by rural
students.
Priority 2: Regional Centers
Comments: Many commenters provided feedback on Priority 2: Regional
Centers and the Directed Question regarding the optimal configuration
of Regional Centers. A few of these commenters emphasized that the
ideal regional configuration should ensure Centers understand the local
context of the States they serve and have sufficient capacity relative
to the number of States served to develop deep, long-term relationships
with clients.
Commenters discussed the optimal number of states served by each
Regional Center, ranging from 1-2 States up to all States in a given
REL region. A few commenters noted that serving large geographic areas
can add complexity to service delivery or prove difficult to manage for
Regional Centers. A few commenters highlighted the value of smaller or
moderately sized regions, noting that such arrangements allow for
stronger relationships, stronger multi-year collaboration, rapid-
response support, and meaningful peer-to-peer learning among states.
One commenter noted that previous models, with more regions, provided
more balanced support and recommended a more flexible or expanded
regional structure. Another commenter cautioned that close alignment to
REL regions could give longtime REL operators an unfair competitive
edge in applying for Regional Center grants.
One commenter recommended serving States through a hybrid model of
a smaller number of Regional Centers along with 8-10 national thematic
Content Centers to offer States both regional relationships and deep
national expertise.
Overall, commenters stress that alignment should balance
operational efficiencies with State needs for differentiated and
intensive supports.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the thoughtful feedback from
commenters on Priority 2 and the Directed Question regarding the
optimal configuration of Regional Centers that best supports clients
while meeting the requirements of the ETAA. The Department agrees that
retaining a regional configuration that aligns with and does not cross
boundaries with the established REL regions is beneficial to effective
coordination and clear lines of support for States. We disagree with
commenters that suggest regions should not be bound by REL region
boundaries and would point to commenters who spoke to challenges in
operation, coordination, and partnerships during prior cycles in which
regional boundaries crossed multiple RELs.
The Department additionally appreciates commenter suggestions on
how the Department might determine additional regions, based on need,
State size or capacity, or other factors. The Department has designed
Priority 2 to allow the Department flexibility to establish the
regional configuration for each competition, in compliance with the
requirements in Section 9602(a)(2) of the ETAA. We also emphasize the
factors from the ETAA that the Department will consider to determine
the configuration of Regional Centers for any given competition,
including the school-age population, proportion of
[[Page 25460]]
economically disadvantaged students, the increased cost burdens of
service delivery in areas of sparse population, and the number of
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities
and targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the population
served by the local entity or consortium of such entities.
The Department does not believe that specific changes to Priority 2
are needed given this flexibility, but we will consider feedback from
commenters in determining the regional configuration, along with these
statutory factors, in subsequent competitions where this priority is
used.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern about potential alignment
of Regional Centers with existing REL regions, expressing that one-to-
one alignment may disadvantage smaller States, and recommended the
Department adopt a differentiated regional structure to ensure
equitable access to services nationwide and avoid administrative or
structural changes that could inadvertently reduce responsiveness or
effectiveness of Regional Centers. This commenter urged the Department
to avoid strict alignment with REL regions, to increase the number of
Regional Centers, and incorporate features that ensure smaller States
receive an equitable share of resources and support from Regional
Centers. The commenter additionally recommended that the Department
prioritize State-driven service models, to ensure all States have
access to intensive, customized support and to better position the
program to achieve its goals of improving outcomes, closing achievement
gaps, and strengthening educational systems nationwide and ensure
equitable access to services and funding by incorporating safeguards
that prevent larger States from disproportionately consuming regional
resources.
Discussion: The Department appreciates this comment and agrees with
the importance of ensuring sufficient resources and differentiation to
States, and particularly to smaller States or States with unique needs.
The Department appreciates the commenters' input on the potential
impacts of strict alignment to existing REL regions, as well as the
challenges of providing equal support to large and small States alike
in the same regions. The Department notes that Section 9602(b)(1) of
the ETAA requires only that at ``not less than 1 comprehensive center
is established in each of the 10 geographic regions served'' by the
RELs, which implies that some Regional alignment is needed. However,
Section 9602(b)(2) further authorizes the Department to, after meeting
the requirements of 9602(b)(1), to establish additional centers,
considering factors related State contexts, needs, and capacities. The
Department also notes that it has established, in competitions, minimum
funding levels for Regional Centers to ensure that all Regional Centers
have sufficient resources to operate according to regional needs,
including needs related to economically disadvantaged students, student
attending schools identified for improvement, or needs associated with
areas of sparse population or large geographic service areas.
Finally, we note that Section 9602(d) requires that ``(e)ach
comprehensive center established under this section shall allocate such
center's resources to and within each State in a manner which reflects
the need for assistance'' based on multiple factors which ensure that
all States within a region receive adequate support regardless of the
State population or size, and potentially advantage smaller States with
more acute needs for assistance. The Department maintains alignment to
statutory requirements for service provision in section 9602(f) of the
ETAA across Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3, as well as Program
Requirement 1 for All Centers, which requires that all Centers' service
plans must demonstrate how services will prioritize support for
students and communities with the highest needs, as described in
section 9602(e) of the ETAA. We believe this combination of statutory
and regulatory requirements provides the necessary flexibility to
consider the needs of smaller States in regional configurations and
provides existing leverage for differentiation to ensure each State
receives equitable, tailored, and sustained capacity-building support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters urged the Department to make
supporting SEA and LEA school improvement capacity an explicit priority
for Regional Centers.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' suggestion
and notes that Priority 2 reinforces the focus on the statutory intent
of the program described in section 9602(f) of the ETAA to address the
unique educational challenges, and improve the outcomes, of schools
implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or
targeted or additional targeted support and improvement activities
under title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)). The Department
also reinforces this statutory emphasis in Program Requirement 1 for
All Centers which requires that service plans must demonstrate how
services will prioritize support for students and communities with the
highest needs, as described in section 203(e) of the ETAA, which
requires Centers to give priority to schools in the region that have
been identified for school improvement under section 1116(b) of the
ESEA. We believe the current priority and requirement sufficiently
address the statutory focus of the program on school improvement and
that no additional changes are needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that Regional Centers should
conduct baseline capacity assessments of the States they serve, and
then differentiate support based on SEA capacity, with suggested tiers
for high, middle, and emerging capacity, to promote intensive
organizational development across states. This commenter also
recommended that Regional Centers establish structured mentorship
programs between States, and allow explicit use of intermediate
capacity indicators, including, for example, adoption and regular use
of SEA organizational learning and improvement processes, gains in
evidence-based decision-making, and evidence of skill building in
transformation-related topics, among others. The commenter suggests
that these indicators could be compared against a known standard that
aligns to expectations for State leadership, and that expected changes
in State capacity should be specified in annual service plans alongside
outcomes related to improvements in student outcomes.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the suggestion to support
differentiated support based on SEA capacity under Priority 2: Regional
Centers and agrees in the importance of setting explicit goals for
building State capacity and demonstrating that capacity is being built
through measuring and reporting on intermediate capacity measures. In
the Application Requirements for Regional Centers, applicants must
describe how they intend to ``measure the readiness of clients and
recipients to work with the Center; co-design projects and define
outcomes; measure and monitor client and recipient capacity across the
four dimensions of capacity-building; and measure the outcomes achieved
throughout and at the conclusion of a project.''
The Definitions section of this notice includes explanations of the
four
[[Page 25461]]
dimensions of capacity-building for this program that form the basis
for Centers' work with clients. The Department believes these
dimensions generally and adequately capture the types of organizational
capacity the commenter describes. The Department also notes that
Program Requirement 1 requires Centers to define capacity-building
outcomes related to their work with each client, including short-,
medium-, and long-term outcomes, in their annual service plans. These
outcomes, as included in the Definitions section of this notice, must
describe the ``demonstrable effects of receiving capacity-building
services and must reflect the result of capacity built in at least one
of the four dimensions of capacity building.''
The Department amends Program Requirement 2 to ensure services are
designed with clients to address specific client needs and desired
outcomes. The Department agrees on the importance of having available
capacity assessments that would assist Centers in assessing, tracking
and reporting State capacity indicators, and in having standards of
State capacity against which States might identify opportunities to
focus development and improvement. However, the Department declines to
require use of specific indicators at this time, as we believe
applicants may each propose effective strategies to measure
``readiness'', and that standards would be best developed in
collaboration with Centers and their clients after award. The
Department believes this is an appropriate role for the National Center
to compile examples of capacity assessments and develop common tools
and resources to align capacity assessment, tracking, and reporting
across Centers and, as discussed in a prior discussion and changes
section, have added language to Priority 1 and the Program Requirements
to add the responsibility. We do not believe that further changes are
needed.
Changes: We amended Program Requirement 2 to require that services
are designed to address specific client needs and desired outcomes.
Comments: One commenter raised concerns related to the work of
centers around supporting clients to address corrective actions related
to audit findings or the Department's ESEA program monitoring and if
that work may undermine the collaborative relationship between CCs and
States.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern related to how
potential CC work to support clients in addressing corrective actions
may impact CC-client relationships. We note that States are not
required to work with Centers to address corrective actions or results
from audit findings and ESEA program monitoring conducted by the
Department, but may do so at the State's request, and do not believe
this type of work undermines the collaborative relationship of the
Regional Center with the State but rather elevates specific technical
assistance needs identified by the Department and provides a free and
cost-effective support to remedy Department monitoring findings or
corrective actions where building state capacity is needed. Because
State engagement around corrective actions would be voluntary and at a
State's request, and this notice neither requires nor prohibits this
engagement, we do not believe changes are needed.
Changes: None
Priority 3: Content Centers
Comments: Several commenters shared general concerns with Priority
3: Content Centers, particularly related to the Emerging Needs and
Field-Initiated Content Centers. Specifically, a few commenters noted
concerns that the inclusion of Content Centers could decrease resources
available for Regional Centers or decrease coherence across the
program. One commenter shared concerns that past iterations of Content
Centers had not been effective and had negatively constrained research
in their relevant fields, and another commenter noted that the focus on
Emerging Needs Centers with Department-identified topics appeared
contrary to the focus on State-driven needs.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the perspectives shared by
commenters. We note that the priorities do not indicate funding levels
and that, based on Congressional appropriations, the Department will
determine and publish funding levels for Regional and Content Centers
in an Application Notice and Instructions (ANI) for a specific
competition. In setting funding levels, the Department considers the
factors identified in Section 9602(a)(2)(B) as well as any expected
minimum funding levels needed to provide services and maintain the
Center. Further, the Department believes that Priority 3 establishes
strong expectations for the performance of the Centers and their
alignment to statutory requirements of the ETAA, State needs and
coordination with other CCs and Department TA providers. We do not
believe changes to the priorities or specific focus areas are needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters strongly recommended that the Department
maintain the Content Center on English Learners and Multilingualism and
expressed support for the expertise provided by the Center during the
current grant cycle. In addition, a few commenters expressed their
support to preserve the current Content Center for Early Learning
Success and the focus within the CC program on the continuum of PK-3,
emphasizing the critical importance of strengthening early learning,
addressing persistent national challenges in early literacy and math
and minimizing disruptions to current work plans.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters'
perspectives. The CC program aims to improve educational outcomes,
close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction for all
students, particularly those with the greatest need. Section 9602(f) of
the ETAA requires that the CCs include technical assistance activities
focused on supporting English language acquisition. As such, the
Department believes that, according to the needs of local school,
district, and State clients of the CC program, supporting the needs of
English learners in English language acquisition will continue to be a
focus area of the CC program. Additionally, related to early learning,
the Department believes that, based on the needs of clients such as
States, LEAs, and schools, supporting early learning will remain a
significant area of focus for the program. Therefore, we do not believe
that it is necessary for the Department to dictate either of these as a
required topic for a dedicated content center. We emphasize that the
Department could, in a future competition cycle and based on the
evolving needs of CC clients, identify these as topic areas for
Emerging Needs content centers. Additionally, we note that applicants
can, under the Field-Initiated topic area under Priority 3: Content
Centers, propose centers that focus on a specific topic on national
need, as emphasized by the demonstrated needs of States, districts, and
other CC clients.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters provided feedback on the potential
focus areas for Emerging Needs Centers under Priority 3: Content
Centers. One of these commenters discussed the importance of Emerging
Needs Centers being relevant across States and recommended that, in any
competition using this focus area, the Department share a clear
explanation of how the focus of the Emerging Needs Centers were
determined and how they reflect input from stakeholders across States
and regions. Several commenters provided suggestions for potential
[[Page 25462]]
specific focus areas of Emerging Needs Centers aligned to the current
Secretary's Supplemental Priorities, including literacy acceleration
and achievement, numeracy acceleration and achievement, advancing
artificial intelligence in education, civics education, school choice,
and career pathways and workforce readiness or career and technical
education. Another commenter cautioned that focus areas for Emerging
Needs Centers should be grounded in clear areas of need, such as school
improvement and literacy, where there is evidence of gaps in State
capacity rather than setting content areas to align primarily with
Administration priorities. The commenter shared concern about potential
alignment between Emerging Needs center topic areas and the Secretary's
Supplemental Priorities on Returning Education to the States; Expanding
Education Choice; and Promoting Patriotic Education. One commenter
suggested additional potential focus areas including school finance,
open education resources, and effective communication and engagement
strategies. Other commenters suggested Emerging Needs should focus on
building SEA capacity, including, for example, organizational
development, strategic planning, evidence-use infrastructure, and data
and research infrastructure, to support State agencies in building
their internal capacity for solution-building and evidence use. Another
commenter suggested potential focus areas for Emerging Needs Centers
related to national security and STEM industry workforce needs, such as
those in the defense industrial base, in semiconductor production, or
those addressing National Security Education Program-designated
critical language instruction areas. This commenter also recommended
evaluating proposals for Emerging Needs centers against Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act priorities, Perkins State plans and
workforce security goals.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' suggestions
related to Emerging Needs centers. We agree that these centers must be
grounded in areas of shared need across States and believe that is
sufficiently emphasized in the priority through the language noting
that centers established under this priority will focus on an
``education topic of significant national or regional need.'' Because
this focus area under Priority 3 is currently written to provide
flexibility for the Department to define topics for Emerging Needs
centers in any given competition, we do not believe changes to the
priority are necessary to reflect the specific topical feedback from
commenters. The Department reiterates as stated in the priority that we
will establish the specific topic area or areas for Emerging Needs
Centers that are ``aligned to the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities,
areas of need identified in the Regional Advisory Committee reports,
the technical assistance topics identified in the ETAA, or other
critical aspects of need related to quality implementation of programs
under the ESEA'' in a ANI for any future grant competition, and
therefore decline to propose specific topical focus areas in this
priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters provided feedback on the focus area
for Field-Initiated Centers under Priority 3: Content Centers. Overall,
commenters supported the shift toward field-initiated centers, noting
that this approach allows for a more targeted, sustained technical
assistance response to emerging State and regional needs. One commenter
recommended strengthening this approach by identifying specific topics
areas for field-initiated applications, such as strategic school
staffing, skill validation and competency aligned pathways, and the
educator workforce. A few commenters suggested ensuring field-initiated
centers align to State-identified needs and that applicants demonstrate
engagement with multi-region stakeholders to validate any proposed
topic for a Center. One commenter suggested establishing a threshold or
minimum number of States or Regions supporting the proposal for
consideration as a Field-Initiated topic. Another commenter emphasized
the importance of incorporating mechanisms for ongoing feedback from
States and partners to continuously refine and guide the work of Field-
Initiated Centers. One commenter recommended clarifying priority topics
for Content Centers to be identified and updated based on emerging
evidence and field needs.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' suggestions
related to Focus Area 1: Field-Initiated Centers. Because this focus
area under Priority 3 is currently written to provide flexibility for
education topics of significant national or regional need that are
aligned to the statutory purposes described in section 9602(f)(1) of
the ETAA, we do not believe specific topics need to be identified in
the priority; however we amend the application requirements for Content
Centers to require applicants to describe how their proposed topic is
aligned to the statutory program purposes. We appreciate commenters'
suggestions to define what may constitute a significant need and add
language to the priority to require evidence that the need must be
``national'' or identified as a need in more than one region to support
its identification as a topic of significant national or regional need.
As outlined in the priority, educational topics for Field-Initiated
Centers may include an array of topics based on State and regional
needs and priorities, State learning agendas or another similar
identification set forth by SEAs, REAs, TEAs or LEAs. With all proposed
priorities, the Department acknowledges the importance of ensuring the
relevance, responsiveness, and stakeholder's input to ensure Centers
remain aligned to clients' needs.
Changes: The Department adds language to the priority to clarify
how applicants may identify topics of national or regional
significance. The Department additionally adds language to Application
Requirement 3 for Content Centers to require applicants to identify how
the proposed project aligns to statutory purposes in Section 9602(f)(1)
of the ETAA and provide data to support the national or regional
significance of the project.
Comments: One commenter supported the focus on principals,
teachers, paraprofessionals, other school leaders, and specialized
instructional support personnel in the focus area for the National
Comprehensive Center for Improving Literacy for Students with
Disabilities (NCIL), under Priority 3: Content Centers. The commenter
recommended that the Department reinforce this focus on educators in
the Emerging Needs and Field-Initiated focus areas as well by adding a
definition for ``educator workforce'' inclusive of teachers,
paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and specialized
instructional support personnel, and amending the priority language for
these focus areas to make reference to this definition of the educator
workforce to ensure that all individuals in these specific roles in
schools are included.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's support for
the importance of a definition of ``educator workforce'' that focuses
on a broad range of professionals, and we agree that further clarity
would be helpful to better define the types of educators and
practitioners that the Department envisions would benefit from
services. Specifically, the Department notes its definition of educator
for this program established in the 2024 NFP, which means ``an
[[Page 25463]]
individual who is a teacher (including an early education teacher),
principal or other school leader, administrator, specialized
instructional support personnel (e.g., school psychologist, counselor,
school social worker, librarian, early intervention service personnel),
paraprofessional, faculty, and others,'' clarifies the intention of
this program to support educators across a range of roles and will
include this term in the Definitions section for greater clarity.
However, we disagree that Priority 3 should be amended to include the
term ``educator workforce'' as a specific topical focus area because
the flexibility to address this topic already exists in the Priority.
Changes: The Department has included the definition of educator
established in the 2024 NFP in the Definitions section of this notice
for greater clarity.
Comments: Several commenters supported the proposed focus area for
the NCIL under Priority 3: Content Centers and also provided feedback
on the activities and scope of center. One commenter recommended
strengthening requirements related to access to education materials,
assistive technology (AT), and training opportunities for students,
families, and educators. Additionally, the commenter emphasized the
importance of supporting literacy instruction for students who use
augmented and alternative communication (AAC), American sign language
(ASL), and braille, to more effectively support students with diverse
learning needs. One commenter suggested that the Center should focus on
essential technical assistance and support in States and local
jurisdictions, to improve the literacy skills development for students,
including those with disabilities. The commenter also emphasized that
the proposed center should assist States and districts to understand
the flexibility and allowable uses of general and special education
funding. Another commenter suggested that the Center should serve all
SEAs and LEAs, including charter schools that operate as their own
LEAs, and proposed changes to add additional requirements for the NCIL
to be more specific regarding the creation of evidence based universal
screeners and the components of these tools.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' support for
the NCIL and the perspectives from commenters on topics such as the
importance of AT in meeting the individual needs of students and
supporting their learning. The Center is dedicated to advancing
evidence-based teaching methods for pre-K through grade 12 students
with literacy-related disabilities, including dyslexia. The language of
this focus area under Priority 3 reflects the authorizing language for
this Center in ESEA, and therefore the Department declines to revise
the priority text in order to remain closely aligned to the statutory
intent for this Center. However, related to supporting effective use of
AT, the Department affirms that, as noted under part (b) of this Focus
Area, a grantee may develop products and services that better support
educators, families, and students in the effective use of AT. Given the
population of students served under the NCIL, as defined in statute as
students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a
disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or
developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing,
comprehension, or executive functioning, the Center is expected to be
responsive to these needs, including serving students who use AAC, ASL,
and braille. In addition, the Department funds a Center on Technology
Systems that provides technical assistance to LEAs to support the
implementation of comprehensive and sustainable assistive and
instructional technology systems. The Center funded under this priority
may, as needed based on client input, collaborate with other centers to
ensure access to specialized expertise and avoid duplication of efforts
across the Department's technical assistance landscape.
The recommendation to support States and districts in understanding
the flexible and allowable uses of general and special education
funding falls outside of the statutory responsibilities of the Center
and therefore we decline to make edits to the priority to incorporate
this as a focus area. The Department clarifies that the center serves
SEAs, and LEAs, and charter schools operating as LEAs as outlined in
the ESEA Section 8101(30) and does not believe that changes are needed
because these types of charter schools are already included as
potential clients.
Related to the screener tools, the Department believes it is
aligned with the statutory authorization for this center to allow the
focus on developing screening assessments and tools to be broad, as
long as such tools and assessments are evidence-based and therefore
declines to make revisions to the priority related to this topic.
Changes: None.
Requirements
Program Requirements
Comments: Many commenters expressed opposition to the proposed
restricted indirect cost rate, which would reduce the amount of grant
funds going to supporting program overhead. One commenter argued that
it is not legally permissible for the Department to impose this as a
program requirement in this circumstance. Many commenters believed that
the addition of this requirement would disadvantage smaller nonprofits
and university-based centers, limit the pool of high-quality
applicants, and slow implementation. One commenter noted that caps such
as an 8 percent limit would prevent applicants from recovering actual
costs, create inequitable barriers, and conflict with the program's
goals of providing high-quality, State-responsive technical assistance.
Commenters also emphasized practical concerns, including rate-approval
backlogs at cognizant agencies and administrative burden associated
with negotiating rates--and urged the Department to instead rely on
each applicant's existing negotiated indirect cost rate, to the extent
existing applicants had one. Many commenters recommended that the
Department remove the restricted indirect cost rate requirement
entirely to preserve competition and program effectiveness.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters feedback
regarding the use of a restricted indirect cost rate for this program.
To begin, the Department notes that indirect cost rates for all of its
grant and cooperative agreement programs are established through
regulations issued via notice and comment rulemaking, including program
specific regulations such as those proposed in the NPP. Accordingly,
commenters' assertions that the Department is prohibited from setting
an appropriate indirect cost rate for a program through rulemaking are
incorrect. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify how restricted
indirect cost rate requirements work. For example, restricted indirect
cost rates may exceed eight percent of modified total direct costs
(MTDC) under 34 CFR 75.564. The difference between restricted and
unrestricted rates is not a fixed percentage; rather, it depends on
which organizational expenses are permitted in the underlying
calculation. As a result, grantees using a restricted rate may still
recover general management costs, as permitted under 34 CFR 76.565. The
primary general administrative costs excluded from a restricted
indirect cost
[[Page 25464]]
rate are expenditures related to governing bodies, salaries of chief
executive officers, and reimbursing organizational components that are
unrelated to the specific work of the grant or pertain solely to the
office of the organization's chief executive (see 34 CFR 76.565(c)),
which we believe would be appropriate restrictions for this program.
The Department agrees that grantees without an approved restricted
indirect cost rate would need to obtain one in order to recover
indirect costs. However, the Department disagrees that these existing
grantees or applicants would be disadvantaged. Grantees and applicants
are generally permitted to recover indirect costs from either the date
they submit their initial request or back to the start of the project
period for the grant (see 34 CFR 75.560(e)(3)). Moreover, any applicant
without a current negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with the
Federal Government is already in the position of needing to negotiate
one unless the applicant elects to use the de minimis rate permitted
under 2 CFR 200.414(f). In other words, to the extent there is any
disadvantage, it would only place current CC grantees in the same
position as organizations that apply for the CC competition that lack a
current negotiated indirect cost rate agreement.
However, the Department acknowledges some commenters' suggestions
that, given the burdens and expenses associated with operating CCs,
maintaining the unrestricted indirect cost rate would best support
effective program implementation. Particularly, comments suggesting
that adopting a restricted indirect cost rate may unfairly limit the
range of eligible applicants who would be interested in applying to the
program, and may in fact exclude some new applicants that the
Department may want to encourage to participate, suggest that adopting
a restricted rate may result in undesirable impacts on a future
competition. The Department finds these arguments regarding the nature
and operation of the CC program persuasive at this time. As such, given
these concerns, the Department is removing the requirement applying the
restricted indirect rate from this notice. The Department remains
interested in management approaches that will maximize the use of grant
funds for direct program services while allowing flexibility to account
for differences in applicant context and cost structure and will
consider regulatory and non-regulatory alternative approaches in the
future.
Changes: The Department removes the program requirement that all
Centers be subject to, and all subgrantees subject to, a negotiated
restricted indirect cost rate.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the program requirement
for the National Center cadre of subject matter experts should include
speech and language professionals, including speech-language
pathologists and audiologists.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestion
and agrees that speech and language professionals would be appropriate
professionals to include in the national subject matter expert cadre.
The Department notes that this program requirement includes that the
National Center recruit and retain an expansive and comprehensive cadre
of national subject matter experts that includes qualified education
practitioners, researchers, policy professionals, and other
implementation consultants. We decline the recommendation to add these
specific professions, as we believe the current program requirement
does not restrict the inclusion of speech and language professionals.
We additionally note that there are a wide range of specializations
that would likely be beneficial to support State and local needs for
support, and that the language of the program requirement is intended
to be broad so as to include any types of professionals who may be
needed to assist CC clients with needs aligned to this program's
statutory purpose.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested clarification on how CC Advisory
and REL Governing Boards would function under the proposed structure,
specifically whether existing REL Governing Boards would satisfy the
requirements for CC Advisory Boards or if new boards would be required.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the opportunity to clarify
the intent behind the program requirement for Regional Centers to
establish joint advisory boards with the REL serving their region. The
Department proposes the establishment of jointly constructed boards
that meet requirements under both ESRA Sec. 174 (h) (20 U.S.C. 9564)
and ETAA Sec. 203 (g) (20 U.S.C. 9602), with both RELs and CCs
contributing to their composition and operation. The Department intends
that participation on joint boards would reduce burden and make most
efficient use of time for State agencies and other member categories
that are duplicative across the REL and CC program requirements.
Additionally, we believe that joint advisory boards will promote more
strategic use of program resources, improved service delivery and
coordination of REL and CCs, and greater clarity in the distinct roles
of RELs and CCs to support regional priorities. Both RELs and CCs would
be expected to share in the costs associated with operating these
jointly constructed boards. The Department notes that REL and CCs
regularly constitute new boards in each funding cycle and would be
expected to jointly constitute new boards in the next funding cycle.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters raised concerns about the proposed FTE
requirements for Project Directors, noting that high director FTE
levels could reduce resources available for technical assistance,
create challenges for smaller centers with limited budgets, and
restrict flexibility in staffing models. One commenter suggested that
it may be important and beneficial for Project Directors to have time
available to participate in other research and evidence-building
activities to remain abreast of the latest trends and best practices in
the field. A few commenters recommended lowering the minimum FTE
requirements for Project Directors of Regional and Content Centers from
0.75 to 0.50 FTE to better allow for shared Co-Director structures. One
commenter suggested aligning the National Center's FTE expectations
with those of Regional and Content Centers from collective 1.5 FTE to
1.0 FTE to promote consistency across the program. One commenter
suggested the Department could encourage clear delineation of
responsibilities between the Director and Co-Director, succession
planning, and sufficient administrative support for grant operations.
Discussion: We appreciate commenters' input on appropriate FTE
requirements for Center leadership. We believe the FTE requirements for
both the National Center and Regional Centers are reasonable as the
proposed structure provides flexible staffing options while ensuring
sufficient leadership capacity required for the depth and intensity of
the work. The Department declines to changes these requirements.
However, specifically for Content Centers, we do agree with the
commenters that there may be valuable reasons for Project Directors to
dedicate a portion of their time engaged in related research and work
that supports their ability to serve effectively in their roles as
national experts. We also agree that the FTE requirement for Content
Centers should be reduced to ensure Centers have sufficient resources
for service provision. Therefore, to allow for greater flexibility in
the allocation of resources for Content Centers, we have amended the
Program Requirement 4 for
[[Page 25465]]
Content Centers to reduce the minimum FTE levels for project
leadership.
With the updates to the minimum levels for Content Centers, we
believe the flexibility for all Centers to distribute FTE across a
leadership team below the individual FTE requirement accommodates any
Director to participate in activities outside the CCNetwork while
maintaining an appropriate level of leadership dedicated to the
project,; however, the Department believes it is important for
applicants to further explain how they are allocating their leadership
capacity across roles (e.g. Director, Co-Director, or Deputies) to meet
program needs. Therefore, we are adding an application requirement for
all applicants to specify their proposed leadership structure and
describe how their organizational leadership will effectively manage
the project according to the needs of the program.
Changes: We have amended the program requirement for Content Center
to reduce the required minimum FTE for a Content Center Project
Director from 0.75 FTE to 0.50 FTE, or, when more than one Project
Director is proposed, the cumulative total must meet or exceed 0.75 FTE
collectively. In addition, we have added an application requirement for
all centers directing applicants to describe their leadership structure
and organizational capacity to assess, manage, and strategically
utilize program resources.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department make State
feedback mechanisms explicit and embed continuous feedback loops into
program design to support ongoing service refinement. The commenter
also urged the Department to provide grantees with timely CC
performance data to enable real-time adjustment and improvements in
program implementation.
Discussion: We agree that developing and implementing an effective
performance management system that integrates client feedback and
continuous improvement is an essential component of effective program
implementation. Accordingly, the Department will retain the FY 2024
Program Requirement for All Centers to ``Develop and implement an
effective performance management system that integrates continuous
improvement to promote effective achievement of client outcomes. The
system must include methods to measure and monitor progress towards
agreed upon outcomes, outputs, and milestones and to measure the reach,
use, and impact of the services being delivered to ensure capacity-
building services are implemented as intended, reaching intended
clients and recipients, and achieving desired results. Progress
monitoring must include periodic assessment of client satisfaction and
timely identification of changes in State contexts that may impact the
project's success. The performance management system must include
strategies to report on defined program performance measures.''
Retaining this requirement ensures that Centers have the structures
needed to maintain accountability, support continuous improvement, and
advance the achievement of meaningful client outcomes.
Changes: The Department is adding the performance management system
program requirement from the 2024 NFP to the Program Requirements for
All Centers.
Comments: One commenter shared feedback on ways in which the
program could present risks to national security given the potential
for involvement of adversary nation individuals in the program as
subject matter experts or partners or through exposure of program data
or products to adversary nation audiences. The commenter also raised
concerns with other ways in which the program may be vulnerable to
financial or administrative risk, such as through fraud or
anticompetitive behavior. The commenter suggested several program
requirements for additional coordination or oversight activities
related to national and financial security concerns, such as
coordination activities with additional government agencies for centers
conducting work related to STEM or manufacturing or other industries
with national security connections; required briefings with government
agencies on topics of national and financial security, such as related
to fraud prevention or screening partners for foreign influence; and
required safeguards related to the development and dissemination of any
curriculum products developed through the CC program.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's perspective
on ensuring the security of the CC program. The Department conducts
routine risk evaluations of applicants before award, and of grantees
over the course of the grant period, as well as ongoing monitoring of
and communication with grantees regarding risk, compliance, and
performance, aligned with the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance
in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of ED in 2 CFR
part 3474, and the Education Department General Administrative
Regulations in 34 CFR part 75. We believe these processes are
sufficient to address the potential risks relevant to this program and
decline to introduce additional program requirements. Additionally, the
Department clarifies that the CC program, through these priorities,
requirements, and definitions, does not develop, require, nor endorse
any particular curriculum, program, or intervention. Furthermore, under
the Department of Education Organization Act, the Secretary is not
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 priorities, requirements,
and definitions in the document further the purpose of the CC program
to support State and local educational systems to implement activities
described in the ESEA to improve academic opportunities and outcomes
for students.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department impose
additional requirements to ensure products and services are 508-
compliant, accessible to educators with disabilities, and aligned to
other industry standards for accessibility identified by the commenter.
Additionally, the commenter recommended that the Department implement
additional requirements mandating CCs are compliant with privacy and
security laws such as Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
and the Privacy Act of 1974.
Discussion: We note that projects funded through discretionary
grants using these priorities must already be consistent with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act) and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, where applicable, as well as
requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and civil rights and other
laws, where applicable, and does not believe that changes are
necessary. Therefore, the Department declines to add accessibility or
privacy requirements to these priorities because they would be
duplicative of existing law.
Changes: None.
Application Requirements
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department set a firm
maximum limit on the number of pages that could be submitted as part of
an application narrative under this program in order to provide clear
expectations for potential applicants around the level of detail that
[[Page 25466]]
is needed for an application to be considered competitive.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback. The Department
establishes any page limits on the application narrative, if
applicable, in the ANI for a given competition. We believe it is
appropriate to maintain the flexibility to establish any maximums or
recommended maximums for each competition and therefore decline to
identify a specific maximum or recommendation in the application
requirements in this NFP.
Changes: None.
Definitions
Comments: One commenter identified a need for clarity on who the
Department considered to be primary clients of the CC program. The
commenter expressed concern related to the potential inclusion of
students, families, REAs, and LEAs as primary clients of CC services,
noting that these entities may be the ultimate beneficiaries of
services but that they are best served through plans developed with
SEAs and TEAs as primary clients.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's feedback.
The Department clarifies that the priorities and requirements
incorporate a definition of ``client'' that was established in the 2024
NFP and that focuses on the ``organization with which the Center enters
into agreement for negotiated capacity-building services.'' This
definition was established to align to Section 9602(e) of the ETAA,
which notes that each CC ``shall work with State educational agencies,
local educational agencies, regional educational agencies, and schools
in the region where such center is located . . .'' on school
improvement activities. The Department further clarifies that families
are included as primary clients of the NCIL, based on the statutory
focus on families for that center, and that students are not included
in the definition of clients for any center, though both students and
families may be beneficiaries of any CC services. The Department agrees
with the commenter on the importance of SEA and TEA coordination to
ensure coherence across CC services. We believe this focus is supported
both by the requirements in the ETAA for State service plans under
9602(c)(2) and for coordination and collaboration under 9602(f)(2), as
well as through the emphasis on coordination throughout the priorities,
requirements, and definitions. However, we believe it is aligned with
statutory intent to allow the definition of clients to be open to the
other types of organizations identified in the ETAA.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted concern with the use of the term
``evidence'' in Program Requirement #1 for all centers, in the context
of the requirement for centers to provide evidence that services
reflect State-identified needs. The commenter recommended that the
Department establish a clear definition of evidence for this element of
the requirement, including what qualifies as evidence of State needs,
how such evidence must be documented, and how it will be used to assess
whether proposed services meet the identified needs.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's feedback. We
agree that this requirement could be clarified to better capture the
Department's intent for this requirement to convey that centers must be
able to demonstrate how their proposed services align to State needs.
As such, we have amended the language in this requirement to remove the
reference to evidence and provide more clarity regarding the
Department's expectations for the requirement.
Changes: We have amended Program Requirement 1 for All Centers to
remove the reference to providing ``evidence'' and include additional
language clarifying the requirement related to demonstrating how
service plans reflect State priorities such as through documentation of
State approval of services or alignment to State learning agendas.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department provide
definitions of several terms or concepts included throughout the
priorities, requirements, and definitions, including: students with the
greatest need; intensive and targeted projects, including the duration
and intensity of each; and short, medium, and long-term outcomes,
including the timeframes of each.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback. The Department
clarifies that, where the phrase ``students with the greatest need'' is
used in Application Requirement 1 for All Centers, we refer in the
requirement to Section 9602(e) of the ETAA, which discusses the scope
of work for centers and how such work should be prioritized according
to need. This also aligns with the reference to ``students with the
greatest need'' incorporated into the definition of ``high-leverage
problems'' established in the 2024 NFP and incorporated into the
priorities, requirements, and definitions. This definition provides
specific language that such students include students from low-income
families and students attending schools implementing comprehensive
support and improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and
improvement activities under ESEA section 1111(d). Given these
references where the term is used, we do not believe a specific
definition of ``students with the greatest need'' is needed.
Additionally, the Department notes that the priorities, requirements,
and definitions already incorporate definitions from the 2024 NFP for
the following terms: ``intensive capacity-building services'',
``targeted capacity-building services'', and ``outcomes,'' which
includes definitions of short-term, medium-term, and long-term
outcomes, including time frames for each type of outcome. We believe
these existing definitions provide sufficient guidance as to the
Department's understanding of these terms and do not believe additions
or edits are needed. The full definitions of these terms can be
reviewed in Appendix I.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
The Department establishes the following priorities for use in this
program. We may use one or more of these priorities in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Priority 1: National Center
Projects that propose to establish and operate a National Center to
coordinate client-driven technical assistance to address SEA, REA, TEA,
and LEA priorities related to evidence use and implementation of
evidence-based practices to improve student outcomes. The National
Center will serve as a lead coordinator across the CC program to
promote overall alignment and coherence of CCNetwork services, reduce
burdens and barriers to service for States and beneficiaries, support
coordination, dissemination, knowledge sharing, and connection across
Centers where multi-provider engagement is needed, and facilitate
efficient use of program resources. The Center must conduct and share
annual analyses of high-leverage problems identified by States; develop
tools and resources that support delivery of high-quality, high-impact,
differentiated technical assistance and capacity-building services
across the CCNetwork, including common tools and resources to align
capacity assessment, tracking, and reporting, support for State
Learning Agendas, and quality assurance processes.
The Center must also procure expertise to provide high-quality,
high-impact technical assistance to address
[[Page 25467]]
common multi-State needs through targeted and universal capacity-
building services through avenues such as State-to-State learning
communities, in coordination with Regional and Content Centers; RELs;
and other Department technical assistance providers, as applicable, to
promote State engagement and avoid duplication.
Services must be designed to improve educational opportunities,
educator practice, and student outcomes as described in section 9602(f)
of the ETAA. Services shall address evidence-based national needs not
already addressed by other federal investments, in consultation with
the Center's Advisory Board, including: priorities identified through
the analysis of high-leverage problems across the entire CCNetwork;
priorities publicly established by clients and potential clients, such
as those identified in State Learning Agendas; common high-leverage
problems identified in Regional Center service plans; findings from
finalized Department monitoring reports or audit findings;
implementation challenges faced by States and LEAs related to teaching,
learning, and development; needs of schools designated for improvement;
needs to improve core academic instruction; needs to address unique
educational obstacles faced by rural and tribal students; and emerging
education topics of national importance.
The Center will streamline access to qualified technical assistance
providers by serving as a concierge-style support to intake technical
assistance requests from SEAs, REAs, TEAs, and LEAs and facilitate
access to Department technical assistance services within and beyond
the CC program. In this capacity, the Center will design and implement
a system to review inquiries and voluntary requests for technical
assistance; identify technical assistance providers with relevant
expertise, which may include Regional Centers and Content Centers
within the CCNetwork, other Department technical assistance providers,
and providers from a maintained registry cadre of qualified national
subject matter experts to meet client needs; and coordinate support as
needed for clients to access services from identified TA providers.
Priority 2: Regional Centers
Projects that propose to establish Regional Centers to provide
intensive, client-driven technical assistance aligned to State and
local priorities and needs related to selecting, implementing, and
sustaining evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions in
support of improved educator practice and student outcomes, especially
in math and literacy.
Regional Centers must effectively work with the National Center,
the REL in their region, federal technical assistance providers and
Content Centers, as relevant and needed, to assist clients, reduce
burdens and barriers to service for States and other clients, and avoid
duplicative efforts and interventions. Regional Centers must develop
cost-effective strategies to make their services available to as many
SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools within the region in need of
support as possible. Services must be designed to improve educational
opportunities, educator practice, and student outcomes as described in
section 9602(f) of the ETAA.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 9602(a)(2) of the
ETAA, the Department intends to establish through this priority a
minimum of 10 Regional Centers that will each serve a subset of States,
with at least one Regional Center per REL region. For FY 2026 or any
year in which this priority is used, the Department will publish the
list of Regional Centers to be established in an application notice and
instructions. To determine the configuration of Regional Centers for
any given competition, the Department will consider the factors
outlined in the ETAA, including the school-age population, proportion
of economically disadvantaged students, the increased cost burdens of
service delivery in areas of sparse population, and the number of
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities
and targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the population
served by the local entity or consortium of such entities.
Priority 3: Content Centers
Projects that propose to establish and implement a Content Center
to provide technical assistance on a specific topic of national or
regional importance reflected across State and local needs and
priorities. Content Centers must provide high-quality, useful, and
relevant client-driven, targeted and universal capacity-building
services to SEA, REA, TEA, LEA, and, for the National Comprehensive
Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities, (NCIL),
family clients designed to build State and local capacity and improve
educational opportunities, educator practice, and student outcomes (as
described in section 9602(f) of the ETAA) related to their specified
topic area. Content Centers must support Regional Centers, as needed,
with subject matter expertise to enhance the intensive capacity-
building services provided by the Regional Centers or to design
universal or targeted capacity-building services to meet identified
client needs.
The project must be aligned to one of the following focus areas:
Focus Area 1: Field-Initiated: To meet this focus area, an
applicant must propose to establish and operate a Content Center to
provide technical assistance to CC clients on an education topic of
significant national or regional need, as identified by States and
other CC clients. Proposals for Field-Initiated Centers must clearly
identify the topic to be addressed and utilize applicable regional,
State, and local educational data and needs analyses to provide
evidence to demonstrate the national need for the proposed Center.
Field-initiated topics must be aligned to authorized purposes described
in section 9602(f) of the ETAA and may include, but are not limited to,
proposals that focus on specific educational needs, such as improving
math and literacy achievement, college and career readiness, closing
achievement gaps, or encouraging and sustaining school improvement.
Applicants must propose priority topics based on national or cross-
regional needs expressed in State Learning Agendas or another similar
identification of needs and priorities set forth by SEAs, REAs, TEAs or
LEAs from more than one region.
Field-Initiated Centers must provide high-quality, useful, and
relevant targeted and universal capacity-building services in the
designated content area of expertise to SEA, REA, TEA, and LEA clients.
Services must be designed to improve educational opportunities,
educator practice, and student outcomes as described in section 9602(f)
of the ETAA. Content Centers must identify, synthesize, and disseminate
evidence-based practices to build the capacity of practitioners,
education system leaders, schools, LEAs, and SEAs to use evidence in
the designated content area.
Focus Area 2: Emerging Need Centers: To meet this focus area, an
applicant must propose to establish and operate a Content Center to
provide technical assistance to CC clients on an education topic of
significant national or regional need. For FY 2026 or any year in which
this priority is used, the Department will identify specific topics of
emerging national or regional need for the Center; topics will be
aligned to the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities, areas of need
identified in the Regional Advisory Committee reports, the technical
assistance topics identified in the
[[Page 25468]]
ETAA, or other critical aspects of need related to quality
implementation of programs under the ESEA. Applicants will be required
to address the identified topic areas in order to be considered for
funding under this focus area.
Proposals for Emerging Need Centers must clearly demonstrate how
the Center will address the established topic, provide data and
evidence to illustrate the technical assistance needs of CC clients
related to the topic and propose an approach to capacity-building
services that meet these technical assistance needs in the established
topic area.
Emerging Need Centers must provide high-quality, useful, and
relevant targeted and universal capacity-building services in the
designated content area of expertise to SEA, REA, TEA, and LEA clients.
Services must be designed to improve educational opportunities,
educator practice, and student outcomes as described in section 9602(f)
of the ETAA. Content Centers must identify, synthesize, and disseminate
evidence-based practices to build the capacity of practitioners,
education system leaders, schools, LEAs, and SEAs to use evidence in
the designated content area.
Focus Area 3: National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy
for Students with Disabilities (ALN 84.283D): To meet this priority, an
applicant under this focus area must propose to establish and operate a
National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with
Disabilities (NCIL) focused on children in early childhood education
programs through high school at risk of not attaining full literacy
skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or
writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language
processing, comprehension, or executive functioning.
The Center must:
(a) Identify or develop free or low-cost evidence-based literacy
assessment tools for identifying students at risk of not attaining full
literacy skills due to a disability,
(b) Identify evidence-based literacy instruction, strategies, and
accommodations, including assistive technology, designed to meet the
specific needs of such students;
(c) Provide families of such students with information to assist
such students;
(d) Identify or develop evidence-based professional development for
teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and
specialized instructional support personnel to: understand early
indicators of students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills
due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing,
or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing,
comprehension, or executive functioning; use evidence-based screening
assessments for early identification of such students beginning not
later than kindergarten; and implement evidence-based instruction
designed to meet the specific needs of such students; and
(e) disseminate the products of the Comprehensive Center to
regionally diverse SEAs, LEAs, REAs, and schools, including, as
appropriate, through partnerships with other CCs established under
section 9602 of this title, and RELs established under section 9564 of
this title.
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 an application notice
and instructions document. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Department establishes the following application and program
requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these
requirements in any year in which the program is in effect.
Program Requirements
Program Requirements for All Centers: National, Regional, and
Content Center grantees under this program must:
(1) Create client driven service plans annually for carrying out
the technical assistance and capacity-building services to be delivered
by the Center in response to identified educational challenges facing
students, practitioners, and education system leaders. In developing
the annual service plan, the Center must demonstrate that services
reflect State-identified needs and leadership priorities for
assistance, such as through documentation of State approval of services
and alignment to State Learning Agendas. Plans must include: High-
leverage problems to be addressed, including identified client needs,
capacity-building services to be delivered,\2\ time-based outcomes
(i.e., short-term, mid-term, long-term), responsible personnel, key
technical assistance partners, milestones, outputs, dissemination
plans, fidelity measures, if appropriate, and any other elements
specified by the Department. Additionally, plans must demonstrate how
services will prioritize support for students and communities with the
highest needs, as described in section 9602(e) of the ETAA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Services may include universal, targeted, and intensive
capacity-building services in any of the four dimensions of capacity
building services as defined by this program: human capacity,
organizational capacity, policy capacity, and resource capacity.
\3\ Section 9602(e) of the ETAA requires each CC to prioritize
school serving high percentages or number of students from low-
income families, including such schools in rural and urban areas and
those receiving assistance under Title I of the ESEA; LEAs with high
percentages or numbers of school-age children from low-income
families, including such LEAs in rural and urban areas; and schools
implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 [20 U.S.C.
6311(d)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Design and implement streamlined client-driven capacity-
building services in partnership with State and local beneficiaries to
reflect and address specific client needs and desired outcomes.
(3) Demonstrate to the Department that it has engaged clients in
defining proposed service projects and that it has secured client and
partner commitments to carry out proposed annual service plans.
(4) Develop and implement an effective performance management and
evaluation system that integrates continuous improvement to promote
effective achievement of client outcomes. The system must include
methods to measure and monitor progress towards agreed upon outcomes,
outputs, and milestones and to measure the reach, use, and impact of
the services being delivered to ensure capacity-building services are
implemented as intended, reaching
[[Page 25469]]
intended clients and recipients, and achieving desired results.
Progress monitoring must include periodic assessment of client
satisfaction and timely identification of changes in State contexts
that may impact the project's success. The performance management
system must include strategies to report on defined program performance
measures.
(5) Participate in a national evaluation of the CC Program.
Program Requirements for National Comprehensive Center: In addition
to the requirements for all Centers, National Center grantees under
this program must:
(1) Include in its service plan specifically in the first year, and
additionally in subsequent years, projects to develop the tools,
resources, services, and processes it will implement to adequately
support collaboration, coordination, continuous improvement,
dissemination and knowledge sharing across the CCNetwork, including
common tools and resources to align capacity assessment, tracking, and
reporting to deliver services that effectively build client capacity
for evidence use and implementation of evidence-based practices to
improve student outcomes.
(2) Coordinate and refine processes, tools, and resources to
support Regional Centers and RELs to work with individual States to
develop or refine, as appropriate, and implement a multi-year State
Learning Agenda to identify needs and set priorities for evidence
building and educational program implementation and that will serve as
a key input in annual service plans and capacity-building services.
(3) Design and implement a coordinated process to identify emerging
high-leverage problems that could be effectively addressed through
client driven annual service plans. Conduct and publish an annual
synthesis of common high-priority needs across States and consult with
and integrate ongoing feedback from its Advisory Board, the Department,
Regional Centers, and Content Centers to inform targeted and universal
support needs from the National Center, Content Centers, or other
Centers, as needed, and enable cross-regional peer learning on shared
challenges.
(4) Design effective services to meet demonstrated collective needs
with tangible, achievable capacity-building outcomes resulting from
beneficiary participation. Provide opportunities for beneficiaries,
including States, to learn from their peers and subject matter experts
through targeted and universal capacity-building services. Universal
services must be produced in a manner that beneficiaries are most
likely to use, be shared via multiple digital platforms, such as the
CCNetwork website, social media, and other channels as appropriate, and
be relevant for a variety of education stakeholders, including the
general public.
(5) Solicit, vet, and provide access to an expansive and
comprehensive cadre of national subject matter experts available to
support CC services, that includes qualified education practitioners,
researchers, policy professionals, and other implementation consultants
with (i) direct experience and demonstrated impact working in or with
SEAs, REAs, TEAs and LEAs to improve student outcomes and (ii) in-depth
expertise in specific subject areas available to support universal,
targeted and intensive services in a variety of content areas as
reflected by State and local priorities and other emerging needs to be
made available to support State needs for any National, Regional
Center, REL or Content Center projects. Make the cadre available
through a registry containing sufficient and transparent information
that clients may request in determining the most appropriate providers
to meet their needs, including client reviews of past performance,
demonstrated products and outcomes of services provided, and
transparent service pricing. The cadre should reflect client input and
be continually expanded to include new providers, as needed, to meet
client needs.
(6) Design and implement a concierge-style service to intake and
assess inquiries and voluntary technical assistance requests from CC
clients, including States, identify technical assistance providers with
relevant expertise, and direct client requests for technical assistance
to their Regional Center, REL, and other Department technical
assistance providers to streamline awareness and access to technical
assistance while maintaining client autonomy in selecting the technical
assistance services, provider(s), and supports received. This service
must encompass systems to review incoming inquiries and requests for
technical assistance from CC clients; to identify appropriate resources
and technical assistance providers, which may include Regional Centers
and Content Centers within the CCNetwork, other Department technical
assistance providers, and national subject matter experts as needed to
meet client needs; and to coordinate support for clients to access
services from identified TA providers. This service must encompass
Department technical assistance investments within and beyond the
CCNetwork.
(7) Design, operate and maintain communications and dissemination
vehicles for the CCNetwork, including maintaining the CCNetwork website
with an easy-to-navigate design that meets government or industry
recognized standards for accessibility, including compliance with
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and maintain a
consistent media presence, in collaboration with Regional and Content
Centers and the Department, utilizing effective media and dissemination
strategies that promote increased access and engagement with CCNetwork
resources.
(8) Create peer learning opportunities for CCNetwork staff (and
other partners, as appropriate) to address implementation challenges
and scale effective best practices to improve service delivery across
the CCNetwork.
(9) Ensure that the Project Director can manage all aspects of the
Center and is either staffed at 1 FTE or the Project Director and Co-
Director or Deputies are staffed at a minimum of 1.5 FTE collectively.
Dedicate sufficient resources within the Center's annual budget to meet
all aspects of the priority and program requirements, including
sufficient capacity for coordination responsibilities and direct
services, as needed.
Program Requirements for Regional Centers: In addition to the
requirements for all Centers, Regional Center grantees under this
program must:
(1) Actively coordinate and collaborate with the REL serving their
region to implement technical assistance in response to needs and
priorities of shared clients. Coordination must include annual joint
planning and establishment of a joint advisory board that meets the
requirements under the ETAA Sec 203(g) (20 U.S.C. 9602). The joint
advisory board must be designed to inform and improve service delivery
across both programs while reducing burden on State agencies.
(2) Partner with the REL serving their region, with support from
the National Center, as needed, to work with each State in the region
to develop or refine, as appropriate, and implement a multi-year State
Learning Agenda to identify needs and set priorities for evidence
building and educational program implementation. The Center must
develop the annual service plan from the priorities established by
States in their Learning Agendas, as well as other relevant feedback
from stakeholders, including Chief State School Officers and other SEA
leaders, TEAs, LEAs, educators, students, and parents, to
[[Page 25470]]
reflect the most pressing needs of all States (and to the extent
practicable, of LEAs) within the region to be served.
(3) Partner with clients to identify and select the subject matter
expertise needed to provide effective capacity building services for
all annual service plan projects, including utilizing the National
Center cadre of subject matter experts, to evaluate options and procure
expertise from a broad range of sources.
(4) Establish and provide the Department copies of partnership
agreements with the REL(s) in the region that the Center serves, the
National Center, and as appropriate, other Department-funded technical
assistance providers. Partnership agreements must define processes to
meet relevant program requirements.
(5) Be located in the region served. The Project Director must be
capable of managing all aspects of the Center and be either at a
minimum of 0.75 FTE or there must be two Co-Project Directors at a
minimum of 1.0 FTE collectively.
Program Requirements for Content Centers: In addition to the
requirements for all Centers, grantees under this program must:
(1) Consult and integrate feedback from States, CC clients
(including, for the NCIL, families), the Department, National and
Regional Centers, and other stakeholders and Department technical
assistance Centers, as relevant to the Center's content area in
developing the annual service plan to inform high-quality tools,
resources, and overall technical assistance in priority areas.
(2) Partner with the National Center and Regional Centers as needed
to directly support their States in the development and implementation
of State Learning Agendas; to address requests for assistance from
States within the regions; and to strengthen Regional Center staff
knowledge and expertise on the evidence base and effective practices as
appropriate based on the Content Center's specific focus area.
(3) Establish and provide copies to the Department of partnership
agreements with the National Center, Regional Centers, as needed, and
Department-funded technical assistance providers with expertise
relevant to the Center's area. Partnership agreements must define
processes to meet relevant CC program requirements.
(4) The Project Director must be capable of managing all aspects of
the Center and be either at a minimum of 0.5 FTE or there must be two
Co-Project Directors at a minimum of 0.75 FTE collectively.
Application Requirements
Application Requirements for All Centers
(1) Describe its proposed approach to capacity-building services.
This must include a logic model, as well as a description of the
evidence base and strategies that support its approach to capacity
building services; evidence of the applicant's ability to provide
effective capacity building services, such as relevant expertise and
demonstrated results from similar projects and demonstrated expertise
of key personnel; the impact the Center plans to achieve and how they
will measure that impact; and the proposed approach to providing
capacity-building services to students with the greatest need as
described in Sec. 9602(e) of the ETAA, to address the needs of all
SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and, as appropriate, schools served.
(2) Describe the proposed process to identify, in partnership with
CC clients, the most urgent educational challenges to be addressed,
including how the Center will ensure that the challenges to be
addressed are supported by data and evidence and reflected by State and
local needs and priorities.
(3) Describe the proposed approach to measure and monitor client
progress or success in overcoming the challenges to be addressed,
including how the Center will use data and evidence to demonstrate
outcomes of universal, targeted, and intensive capacity building
services, as applicable.
(4) Demonstrate expertise in providing highly relevant and highly
effective technical assistance, including by demonstrating expertise in
the current research on adult learning principles, coaching, and
implementation science.
(5) Include in the budget narrative explanation of and estimated
costs for intensive, targeted, and universal capacity-building
services. Describe how the Center will promote cost-effectiveness of
services, including ensuring that the estimated costs are aligned to
market expectations for similar services.
(6) Describe the proposed leadership structure for the Center and
how the organizational leadership will effectively manage the project
according to the needs of the program, including how the leadership
structure provides organizational capacity to assess, manage, and
strategically utilize program resources.
(7) Include in the budget a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes.
Application Requirements for the National Center: In addition to
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a National Center
applicant must:
(1) Propose an approach to leading coordination and collaboration
of the entire CCNetwork, including how the Center will fulfill the
requirements to serve as a concierge-level point of entry to Department
technical assistance for States and other CC clients; to develop and
administer access to a national cadre of subject matter experts with a
broad range of expertise, demonstrated impact, and proven satisfaction
serving CC clients; to coordinate and refine processes, tools, and
resources to support Regional Centers and RELs to develop or refine and
implement multi-year State Learning Agendas; and to identify emerging
high-leverage problems that could be effectively addressed through
client driven annual service plans.
(2) Demonstrate a high-level of expertise in leading communication
and digital engagement strategies to attract and sustain the
involvement of a wide range of education stakeholders. Provide an
approach to creating a robust web and social media presence, overseeing
customer relations management, providing editorial support to Regional
and Content Centers, and utilizing web analytics and other tools to
improve content engagement.
(3) Propose an approach to procuring expertise to provide targeted
and universal capacity-building services to support beneficiaries in
addressing common high-leverage problems, including how the applicant
intends to collaborate with Regional Centers to identify potential
beneficiaries, and to maximize how many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, and LEAs it
has the capacity to reach with available services.
Application Requirements for Regional Centers: In addition to
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a Regional Center
applicant must--
(1) Propose an approach to intensive capacity-building services,
including identification of intended beneficiaries based on available
data for specific regions, and details on how the Center will ensure
proposed capacity-building services are driven by client needs and co-
developed with client input.
Application Requirements for Content Centers: In addition to
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a Content Center
applicant must--
(1) Propose an approach to carry out capacity-building services
that address
[[Page 25471]]
client needs and priorities (to include those of families, for
applicants to NCIL) that amplify the use of evidence-based practices,
products or tools amongst practitioners, education system leaders,
elementary schools and secondary schools, LEAs, REAs and TEAs, and
SEAs.
(2) Propose an approach to providing universal capacity-building
services, including how the Center will develop and widely disseminate
evidence-based products or tools; outreach to practitioners, education
system leaders, and policymakers in formats that are high quality,
easily accessible, and understandable; identify intended beneficiaries;
and ensure that proposed capacity-building services are driven by
client needs and co-developed with client input.
(3) Describe the educational challenges to be addressed by the
project, including how the challenges to be addressed are aligned to
Section 9602(f)(1) of the ETAA and supported by data and evidence and
reflected by cross-regional State and local needs and priorities. The
description must utilize applicable national, regional, State, and
local educational data to demonstrate the identified needs that could
be addressed through the proposed capacity-building approach to
implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions.
Final Definitions
The Department establishes the following definition of
``beneficiary'' for use in this program in any year in which this
program is in effect. We may apply this definition in any year in which
this program is in effect.
We also use in the final priorities and requirements the following
terms, which are defined in the ESEA: ``evidence-based'' and ``tribal
educational agency'' and the term ``logic model'', which is defined in
CFR 77.1. The final priorities, requirements, and definitions also
incorporate definitions from a 2019 Notice of Final Priorities,
Requirements, Definition, and Performance Measures (2019 NFP) published
in the Federal Register on April 4, 2019 (84 FR 13122) and a 2024
Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria (2024 NFP) published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2024
(89 FR 41498). The terms from the 2019 NFP are: ``milestone'' and
``outputs.'' The terms from the 2024 NFP are: ``capacity-building
services,'' ``client,'' ``collaboration'', ``coordination'',
``educator'', ``four dimensions of capacity-building services,''
``high-leverage problems,'' ``intensive capacity-building services'',
``key personnel'', ``outcomes'', ``regional educational agency'',
``targeted capacity-building services,'' and ``universal capacity-
building services.'' We have included the definitions of those terms in
Appendix I to this document.
Beneficiary means organizations including, but not limited to,
SEAs, LEAs, REAs, TEAs, and schools that have received ``intensive''
and ``targeted'' capacity-building services and products from Regional
Centers, or that received ``targeted'' or ``universal'' capacity-
building services and products from the National Center or Content
Centers.
Evidence-based has the meaning ascribed in section 7801(21) of the
ESEA.
Logic model has the meaning ascribed in 34 CFR 77.1(c).
Tribal educational agency has the meaning ascribed in section
6132(b)(3) of the ESEA.
Note: This document does not solicit applications.
In any year in which we choose to use any of the final priorities,
requirements, and definitions, we invite applications through an ANI.
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.
Since this regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, it is not considered an
``Executive Order 14192 regulatory action.'' We have also reviewed this
regulatory action under Executive Order 13563. We are issuing the
priorities, requirements, 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 limited to those
resulting from statutory requirements; those we have determined are
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities;
or those routinely associated with the adoption of new program
priorities, including the potential early end of the prior cohort
project activities in favor of re-competition under the new priorities.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that
these priorities, requirements, and definitions would not impose
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this
program is voluntary, and whose costs can generally be covered with
grant funds. As addressed in part above, in response to certain
comments regarding the potential cessation of previously-funded CC
project activities, the Department recognizes that this rulemaking may
result in some economic impact to current CC grantees or future CC
applicants. For example, the Department anticipates that grantees
within the 2024 cohort will incur some costs if the Department makes a
determination to end their projects in FY2026. However, the Department
believes any reliance interests at issue in continued implementation of
the 2024 cohort project activities to not be significant for four
reasons: first, grantee funding in a multi-year project is never
guaranteed for a subsequent budget period, and eligibility for non-
competitive continuation funding is always contingent upon a number of
prospective factors, including grantee performance, the availability of
funding, the grantee continuing to meet all eligibility requirements,
and changing administration priorities . Second, if it is decided to
end projects early, as part of their orderly closeout, 2024 cohort
grantees would be able to charge reasonable and necessary closeout
costs to their respective grants under their current budget year,
thereby further limiting economic impact to previously-obligated
federal funds. Third, the benefits of aligning the CC and REL programs,
and the fact that resource sharing and reduced burden to States from
stronger coordination and alignment will be created with the REL cohort
scheduled to begin at approximately same time as a new CC cohort,
outweigh these costs. Finally, the Department anticipates that the
potential costs articulated for the 2024 cohort above will be minimal
for program beneficiaries, as the Department will be able to facilitate
in any transfer of services that could arise if there is a change in
providers resulting from a new competition, consistent with the
procedures the Department employed when winding down and transferring
work from prior CC grantees in 2019 and 2024. Overall, the priorities,
requirements, and definitions would not impose any particular burden,
except when an
[[Page 25472]]
entity voluntarily elects to apply for a grant. The priorities,
requirements, and definitions would help ensure that the grant program
selects high-quality applicants to implement activities that meet the
goals of the program. For the reasons described above, we believe these
benefits would outweigh any associated costs.
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 significant 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. Participation in
this program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priorities,
requirements, and definitions would impose no burden on small entities
unless they applied for funding under the program. We expect that in
determining whether to apply for any project under the CC program, an
eligible applicant would evaluate the requirements of preparing an
application and any associated costs and weigh them against the
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a CC grant. Eligible
applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the
likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The
likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as
other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of
an application.
Paperwork Reduction Act: The final priorities, requirements, and
definitions contain information collection requirements that are
approved by OMB under the Generic Application Package for Departmental
Generic Grant Programs (OMB control number 1894-0006). The priorities,
requirements, and definitions do not 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.
Kirsten Baesler,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
Appendix I
The priorities, requirements, and definitions incorporate the
following terms established for use in this program by the 2019 and
2024 NFPs:
Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous
improvement and achieve expected outcomes. (2024 NFP)
Client means the organization with which the Center enters into
agreement for negotiated capacity-building services. The client is
engaged in defining the high-leverage problems, capacity-building
services, and time-based outcomes for each project noted in the
Center's annual service plan. Representatives of clients include but
are not limited to Chief State School Officers or their designees,
LEA leaders, and other system leaders. (2024 NFP)
Collaboration means exchanging information, altering activities,
and sharing in the creation of ideas and resources to enhance the
capacity of one another for mutual benefit to accomplish a common
goal. (2024 NFP)
Coordination means exchanging information, altering activities,
and synchronizing efforts to make unique contributions to shared
goals. (2024 NFP) Educator means an individual who is a teacher
(including an early education teacher), principal or other school
leader, administrator, specialized instructional support personnel
(e.g., school psychologist, counselor, school social worker,
librarian, early intervention service personnel), paraprofessional,
faculty, and others. (2024 NFP)
Four dimensions of capacity-building services are:
(1) Human capacity means development or improvement of
individual knowledge, skills, technical expertise, and ability to
adapt and be resilient to policy and leadership changes.
(2) Organizational capacity means structures that support clear
communication and a shared understanding of an organization's
visions and goals and delineated individual roles and
responsibilities in functional areas.
(3) Policy capacity means structures that support alignment,
differentiation, or enactment of local, State, and Federal policies
and initiatives.
(4) Resource capacity means tangible materials and assets that
support alignment and use of Federal, State, private, and local
funds. (2024 NFP)
High-leverage problems means problems that (1) if addressed
could result in substantial improvements for groups of students with
the greatest need, including for students from low-income families
and for students attending schools implementing comprehensive
support and improvement or targeted or additional targeted support
and improvement activities under ESEA section 1111(d)); (2) are
priorities for education policymakers, particularly at the State
level; and (3) require intensive capacity-building services to
achieve outcomes that address the problem. (2024 NFP)
Intensive capacity-building services means assistance often
provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship
between the Comprehensive Center and its clients and recipients, as
well as periodic reflection, continuous feedback, and use of
evidence-based improvement strategies. This category of capacity-
building services should support increased recipient capacity in
more than one dimension of capacity-building services and result in
medium-term and long-term outcomes at one or more system levels.
(2024 NFP)
Key personnel means any personnel considered to be essential to
the work being performed on the project. (2024 NFP)
Milestone means an activity that must be completed. Examples
include: Identifying key district administrators responsible for
professional development, sharing key observations from needs
assessment with district administrators and identified stakeholders,
preparing a logic model, planning for State-wide professional
development, identifying subject matter experts, and conducting
train-the-trainer sessions. (2019 NFP)
Outcomes means demonstrable effects of receiving capacity-
building services and must reflect the result of capacity built in
at least one of the four dimensions of capacity building.
``Outcomes'' includes short-term outcomes, medium-term outcomes, and
long-term outcomes:
(1) Short-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 1 year.
(2) Medium-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 2 to 3 years.
(3) Long-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 4 or more years. (2024 NFP)
Outputs means products and services that must be completed.
Examples include: Needs assessment, logic model, training modules,
evaluation plan, and 12 workshop presentations. (2024 NFP)
Note: A product output under this program would be considered a
deliverable under the open licensing regulations at 2 CFR 3474.20.
Regional educational agency means educational agencies that
serve regional areas within a State. (2024 NFP)
Targeted capacity-building services means assistance based on
needs common to multiple clients and recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the
recipient(s), the National Center or Content Center, and
[[Page 25473]]
Regional Center(s), as appropriate. This category of capacity-
building services includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as
facilitating strategic planning or hosting national or regional
conferences. It can also include services that extend over a period
of time, such as facilitating a series of conference calls, virtual
or in-person meetings, or learning communities on single or multiple
topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients.
Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered targeted
capacity-building services. (2024 NFP)
Universal capacity-building services means assistance and
information provided to independent users through their own
initiative, involving minimal interaction with National or Content
Center staff. This category of capacity-building services includes
information or products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, policy
briefs, or research syntheses, downloaded from the Center's website
by independent users, and may include one-time, invited or offered
webinar or conference presentations by National or Content Center
staff. Brief communications or consultations by National or Content
Center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal services. (2024 NFP)
[FR Doc. 2026-09203 Filed 5-7-26; 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 May 8, 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.