[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27036-27049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11333]



[[Page 27035]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 90

May 11, 2015

Part III





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





34 CFR Chapter IV





 Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criterion--
First in the World Program; Applications for New Awards; Final Rule and 
Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 27036]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket No. ED-2015-OPE-0001; CFDA Numbers: 84.116F and 84.116X]


Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criterion--First in the World Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, selection criterion, and 
definitions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education announces 
priorities, requirements, a selection criterion, and definitions under 
the First in the World (FITW) program. The Assistant Secretary may use 
these priorities, requirements, selection criterion, and definitions 
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years.
    These priorities, requirements, selection criterion, and 
definitions will enable the Department to focus the FITW program on 
identified barriers to student success in postsecondary education and 
advance the program's purpose to build evidence for what works in 
postsecondary education through development, evaluation, and 
dissemination of innovative strategies to support students who are at 
risk of failure in persisting in and completing their postsecondary 
programs of study.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, selection criterion, and 
definitions are effective June 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Frankfort, U.S. Department of 
Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6166, Washington, DC 20006. 
Telephone: (202) 502-7513 or by email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Program: Earning a postsecondary degree or credential is 
a prerequisite for the growing jobs of the new economy and the clearest 
pathway to the middle class. The average earnings of college graduates 
are almost twice as high as those of workers with only a high school 
diploma and, over this decade, employment in jobs requiring education 
beyond a high school diploma will grow more rapidly than employment in 
jobs that do not.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Carnevale, A., Smith, N., Strohl, J., Help Wanted: 
Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018. 
Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, even though college enrollment has increased by 50 percent 
since 1990, and despite the importance of a postsecondary education to 
financial security for American families, only 40 percent of Americans 
hold a postsecondary degree.\2\ While the vast majority of high school 
graduates from the wealthiest American families continue on to higher 
education, only half of high school graduates from the poorest families 
attend college.\3\ About 60 percent of students at four-year 
institutions earn a bachelor's degree within six years.\4\ For low-
income students, the prospects are even worse, as only 40 percent reach 
completion.\5\ Almost 37 million Americans report ``some college, no 
degree'' as their highest level of education.\6\ Due to these outcomes, 
the United States has been outpaced internationally in higher 
education. In 1990, the United States ranked third in the world in 
degree attainment among 25-34 year olds \7\ (and ranked first in terms 
of university education \8\); in 2012, the United States ranked 
12th.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Census Bureau. ``Educational Attainment of the 
Population 18 Years and Over, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic 
Origin: 2014'' Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2014/tables.html.
    \3\ National Center for Education Statistics. ``Percentage of 
recent high school completers enrolled in 2-year and 4-year 
colleges, by income level: 1975 through 2012.'' Retrieved from: 
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_302.30.asp.
    \4\ National Center for Education Statistics. ``Percentage 
distribution of first-time postsecondary students starting at 2- and 
4-year institutions during the 2003-04 academic year, by highest 
degree attained, enrollment status, and selected characteristics: 
Spring 2009.'' Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_326.40.asp.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey.
    \7\ Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, 
Education at a Glance 2004 (Table A3.4b, showing data for 1991).
    \8\ Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, 
Education at a Glance 1993, Table S5.
    \9\ Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, 
Education at a Glance 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing these factors, President Obama set a goal for the 
country that America will once again have the highest proportion of 
college graduates in the world. To support this national effort, the 
Administration has outlined a comprehensive agenda that includes 
expanding opportunity and increasing quality at all levels of 
education, from early learning through higher education. The FITW 
program is a key part of this agenda.
    Unlike in previous generations, adult learners, working students, 
part-time students, students from low-income backgrounds, students of 
color, and first-generation students now make up the majority of 
students in college.\10\ Ensuring that these students persist in and 
complete their postsecondary education is essential to meeting our 
Nation's educational challenges. However, the traditional methods and 
practices of the country's higher education system have typically not 
been focused on ensuring successful outcomes for these students, and 
too little is known about what strategies are most effective for 
addressing key barriers that prevent these students from persisting and 
completing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. Department of Education. 2010. Profile of 
Undergraduate Students: 2007-08. National Center for Education 
Statistics: 2010-205. Washington DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A key element of the FITW program is its multi-tier structure that 
links the amount of funding that an applicant may receive to the 
quality of evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project and 
the scope of its potential impact. In this program, applicants 
proposing practices supported by limited evidence can receive smaller 
grants (Development grants) that support the development and initial 
evaluation of innovative but untested strategies. Applicants proposing 
practices supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations can receive 
larger grants (Validation and Scale-up grants), in amounts commensurate 
to the level of supporting evidence and intended scope, for 
implementation at greater scale to test whether initially successful 
strategies remain effective when adopted in varied locations and with 
large and diverse groups of students. This structure provides 
incentives for applicants to build evidence of the effectiveness of 
their proposed projects and to address the barriers to serving large 
numbers of students within institutions and across institutions, 
systems, States, regions, or the Nation.
    All FITW grantees are required to use part of their budgets to 
conduct independent evaluations (as defined in this notice) of their 
projects. This ensures that projects funded under the FITW program 
contribute significantly to increasing the amount of rigorous research 
available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work, 
for which types of students, and in what contexts.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d.
    We published the notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
selection criterion, and definitions (NPP) for this program in the 
Federal Register on February 23, 2015 (80 FR 9414). That

[[Page 27037]]

notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing 
the particular priorities, requirements, selection criterion, and 
definitions.
    There are some differences between the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criterion and these final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion. We 
discuss significant changes from the NPP in the Analysis of Comments 
and Changes. We do not discuss minor technical or editorial changes.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 38 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
selection criterion, and definitions. We group major issues according 
to subject.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, selection criterion, 
and definitions since publication of the NPP follows.

Priorities

Priorities--General

    Comment: Two commenters suggested additional priorities. One 
commenter recommended that the Department add a priority focused on 
improving the transition between secondary and postsecondary education. 
The commenter suggested that this priority could include elements of 
other priorities, such as developing alternatives to single measure 
placement strategies mentioned under Priority 1 (Improving Success in 
Developmental Education) and aligning assessments across secondary and 
postsecondary institutions mentioned under Priority 4 (Developing and 
Using Assessments of Learning). The proposed priority would also 
include setting clear expectations about college for high school 
seniors and providing data on first-year college students' performance 
to their high schools.
    Another commenter acknowledged that developmental education is a 
barrier for many students, but added that students encounter challenges 
even after they have progressed to credit-bearing coursework. The 
commenter recommended adding a priority to address removing barriers to 
credit accumulation and progression. As proposed by the commenter, this 
priority would focus on institutional policies and programs that could 
be improved to promote completion and could include subparts on 
redesigning gateway courses, particularly in mathematics, and academic 
mapping.
    Discussion: We agree with the importance of the issues and topics 
mentioned by the commenters, and believe that the existing priorities 
address these issues. Therefore, we decline to add additional 
priorities.
    As noted in the NPP, in any FITW competition, we may include 
priorities from the Department's notice of final supplemental 
priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs, published 
in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425) 
(Supplemental Priorities). The Supplemental Priorities include 
priorities on increasing postsecondary success, including academic 
preparation for and awareness of postsecondary education, and using 
assessment data to inform classroom practices. Therefore, we do not 
believe that it is necessary for the Department to develop new 
priorities to address these areas for the FITW program. In addition, 
the priorities we establish here would not preclude an eligible 
applicant from proposing projects that promote cross-sector 
collaboration, such as between secondary and postsecondary 
institutions, provided that the proposed project otherwise meets the 
requirements in the relevant priority. Further, because promoting 
student success aligns with many of the other priorities, we do not 
think it is necessary to add a priority to address this topic.
    We also do not consider it necessary to create a priority that 
focuses on barriers to credit accumulation because many of the final 
priorities encourage applicants to propose new models for promoting 
degree progression. For example, we include a subpart under Priority 5 
(Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer) that focuses on 
credentialing pathways.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested that applicants should be 
permitted to apply under more than one priority. One stated that an 
integrated approach to reform is needed to achieve substantial 
improvements in student outcomes and recommended that applicants be 
permitted to choose the priorities, or combination of priorities, which 
they wish to address. Another commenter argued that permitting 
applicants to address more than one priority would allow applicants to 
propose more comprehensive solutions to the challenges that inhibit 
student success.
    Discussion: We recognize that the priorities address a complex 
range of problems in postsecondary education that may necessitate 
complex and comprehensive solutions. However, the FITW program is 
designed to generate evidence regarding which interventions most 
effectively address these problems. In order to demonstrate 
effectiveness, a project must be evaluable, which may become more 
difficult as the complexity of the approach increases. Thus, we 
designed the program to focus on one identified challenge by requiring 
applicants to address only one of the priorities. Nonetheless, the 
priorities do not prescribe the intervention or practice that an 
applicant may propose. Accordingly, although an applicant may apply 
under only one priority and the application will be evaluated based on 
how well the applicant addresses that priority, an applicant may 
propose integrated solutions to the challenges identified in one or 
more of the priorities. We also note that the Department may choose to 
apply one or more absolute, competitive preference, or invitational 
priorities in any future competition in order to generate evidence of 
the effectiveness of innovative strategies.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that priority be given to 
projects focused on students who have already been served by college 
readiness programs, such as Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for 
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), so as to leverage the investment that 
has already been made in these students and increase the likelihood of 
success.
    Discussion: The Department is unable to give preference to grantees 
in other Federal programs, such as GEAR UP, and be consistent with the 
priorities which we have established. Nonetheless, applicants may be 
able to strengthen their proposals based on the other types of support 
they are providing through other resources to a particular student 
population before, during, or after the proposed FITW intervention.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the FITW program is too narrowly 
focused on completion, and that the Department should be concerned 
about affordability and financial aid. The commenter suggested that the 
FITW program specify outcomes such as indebtedness after college and 
labor market outcomes, including salary.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion, but believe 
the proposed priorities address these concerns. For example, Priority 6 
(Increasing the Effectiveness of Financial Aid) could include loan 
counseling projects. Priorities 4 (Developing and Using Assessments of 
Learning) and 5 (Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer) 
can be used to align curricula and credentials

[[Page 27038]]

to career pathways. Priorities 1 (Improving Success in Developmental 
Education), 2 (Improving Teaching and Learning), 3 (Improving Student 
Support Services), and 5 all address core issues affecting the cost of 
higher education. The primary aim of the FITW program is to support 
projects that will improve the rate of degree and credential 
completion, but student indebtedness and labor market outcomes may also 
be addressed.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter encouraged the solicitation of proposals 
aimed at building an institutional culture that supports scaled 
reforms, strategic partnerships, deep and broad engagement with 
faculty, staff, and other stakeholders, and constant attention to 
closing achievement gaps.
    Discussion: We believe the priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criterion that we establish here can be used to address 
these important goals. For instance, Priority 2 (Improving Teaching and 
Learning), subpart (iii) speaks specifically to institutional level 
strategies, and Priority 4 (Developing and Using Assessments of 
Learning), subpart (ii) speaks to professional development or training 
of faculty and staff. In addition, the tiers of FITW grants encourage 
institutional partnerships and provide a continuum for funding that 
span from initial, localized development to implementation on a 
national scale. In addition, Priority 9 (Systems and Consortia Focused 
on Large-Scale Impact) and the selection criterion (Collaboration) 
encourage applicants to focus on strategic partnerships.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department help make 
college affordable and accessible for students and their families by 
decreasing the price of textbooks and increasing financial aid.
    Discussion: We think it is important to specify here that FITW 
grantees may not disburse project funds to students as financial aid. 
We agree with the commenter that affordability is an important issue 
that merits attention. However, we think that this topic is addressed 
in the priorities announced in this document and in the Supplemental 
Priorities. In FITW Priority 6 (Increasing the Effectiveness of 
Financial Aid), we encourage projects that improve the effectiveness of 
existing financial aid funds through counseling, need-based aid, or 
other strategies. Supplemental Priority 5 (Increasing Postsecondary 
Access, Affordability, and Completion) includes a subpart for projects 
that reduce the net cost (e.g., total cost minus financial aid) of 
college. Open educational resources could additionally be a component 
of many proposed interventions.
    Changes: None.

Priority 1--Improving Success in Developmental Education

    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department revise 
this priority to include specific strategies that would support 
students in developmental education. One commenter recommended that the 
Department prioritize projects that blend academic with non-academic 
support systems to track low-income learners in developmental 
education. Another commenter suggested that younger students would 
benefit from having multiple teachers. A third commenter offered 
support for the priority overall and recommended that it include 
partnerships between adult education programs and institutions of 
higher education that can address learners' basic skills and English 
language needs. Finally, one commenter recommended that three 
particular strategies be given preference: (1) Identifying and treating 
academic needs prior to postsecondary enrollment; (2) accelerating 
students' progress by placing them into credit-bearing courses with 
proper support; and (3) integrating academic and other support for 
students in developmental education.
    Discussion: An applicant may propose any of these strategies to 
improve student success in developmental education. We expect 
applicants to consider the needs of their institution and available 
research from the field when designing an application to address this 
priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for Priority 1, but 
suggested that the Department allow grantees flexibility in complying 
with other regulations if this priority is selected for use in a 
competition. The commenter raised a concern that grantees could face 
penalties or barriers to implementing novel ideas and that implementing 
a project designed to address the priority would be unduly burdensome 
for support staff.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concerns, but do not 
believe that the priority creates barriers to implementation of 
interventions designed to address the challenges identified in the 
priority. We think it is important to clarify that these priorities 
correspond to what the Department believes are the greatest challenges 
in postsecondary education and the areas most in need of innovative 
ideas to address barriers to postsecondary student success. We also 
believe that clear communication, strong partnerships, and project 
leadership are important in order to successfully implement an 
intervention. While the Department encourages grantees to consider and 
address these issues, we do not include them specifically in the 
priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the heavy workload of 
developmental courses may direct time and energy away from students' 
other credit-bearing courses, particularly for high-need students. The 
commenter recommended that the Department calculate for each 
application the time or opportunity cost to students in developmental 
courses.
    Discussion: We agree that developmental coursework may pose 
barriers to student success in degree credit-bearing courses. We 
include a subpart under this priority for projects that redesign 
developmental courses together with occupational or college-content 
coursework.
    In addition, we note that Requirement 5 (Independent Evaluation) 
requires all grantees of the FITW program to use part of their budgets 
to conduct an independent evaluation of their projects. This ensures 
that projects contribute significantly to improving the information 
available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work, 
for which types of students, and in what contexts. The results of these 
evaluations will be available to the public. Additionally, two of the 
performance measures established for the FITW program are cost per 
participant and cost per successful outcome, so the Department will 
collect data from grantees on these measures.
    Finally, since the ultimate goal is student progress into credit-
bearing courses, many pathways could be proposed.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the mention of 
contextualized learning in a subpart under this priority. However, the 
commenter noted that variations in accreditation and reporting 
standards across institutions of higher education may inhibit their 
ability to offer more courses built around contextualized learning.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support and recognize 
that institutions must attend to a variety of accountability 
requirements and standards. The subpart mentions contextualized 
developmental

[[Page 27039]]

education as one example of a strategy to address this priority.
    Changes: None.

Priority 2--Improving Teaching and Learning

    Comment: One commenter expressed support for Priority 2. Another 
commenter echoed this support and suggested that the priority 
specifically emphasize team teaching and faculty professional 
development. This commenter pointed out that team teaching has been 
well researched in elementary and secondary schools and offered 
recommendations for particular evidence-based strategies to test in 
postsecondary education.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 2. 
We believe that Priority 2 allows considerable flexibility for 
applicants to propose innovative strategies to improve teaching and 
learning. We encourage applicants to use strategies that are based on 
the demonstrated needs of their institution and on available research 
in the field.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that Priority 2 include a focus on 
system-level or consortia-level projects that track learning among 
transfer students. The commenter argued that this is particularly 
important for non-traditional learners who are more mobile than 
traditional learners. According to the commenter, learning could be 
measured by proficiency development or value-added measures of learning 
associated with a general education curriculum.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation and agree 
that collaboration among institutions and other partners can lead to 
increased student success. We believe these approaches could be 
addressed in Priorities 4 (Developing and Using Assessments of 
Learning), 5 (Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer), and 
9 (Systems and Consortia Focused on Large-Scale Impact).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise Priority 2 to 
include references to hybrid and flipped teaching models as well as 
peer-supported learning models, such as supplemental learning and peer 
tutoring. The commenter suggested that these changes could be added to 
subpart (b)(ii) or as a new subpart.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. We note 
that subpart (b)(ii) of Priority 2 includes a focus on online or 
blended programs. We believe that Priority 2 allows considerable 
flexibility for applicants to propose innovative strategies to improve 
teaching and learning.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that under-resourced 
institutions may not have the means to implement innovative strategies. 
The commenter particularly highlighted the urgency of improving 
resources for existing programs for high-need students.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for raising this concern. An 
overall focus of FITW is to improve the resources available to, and the 
success of, high-need students. The Validation and Scale-up tiers of 
the competition have the specific goal of increasing the scale and 
quality of evidence that supports practices that have been demonstrated 
to work for these students. We also appreciate the commenter's concern 
regarding the ability of under-resourced institutions to implement 
innovative strategies. We note that a key feature of the program is an 
emphasis on encouraging cross-institutional collaborations in order to 
build on a variety of institutional resources and strengths.
    Changes: None.

Priority 3--Improving Student Support Services

    Comment: Several commenters expressed strong support for Priority 3 
and noted the urgency of expanding the range and number of students 
served by student support services. One commenter noted that the 
largest barrier to student success is adjusting to the difference 
between high school and college. Another commenter suggested that the 
evidence for student support services is so robust that Priority 3 
should be made an absolute priority in future competitions. A third 
commenter suggested that subpart (b)(iii) should be made an absolute 
priority.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support of Priority 
3. We agree that the transition to postsecondary education, whether 
students enter directly from high school or from the workforce, can be 
challenging. The goal of this priority is to develop, test, and bring 
to scale supports to help students through this transitional period as 
well as during other points along their postsecondary pathways.
    In response to the comments suggesting that this priority be used 
as an absolute priority, we note that the Department has the discretion 
to use any of these priorities in future FITW competitions. The 
Department may choose which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are 
appropriate for a particular competition. If the Department chooses to 
use these priorities, it also has discretion to decide how they should 
be designated (i.e., absolute or competitive preference).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department give priority 
to projects that propose new communication tools, including telephone 
consulting, well-staffed satellite locations, and extended in-person 
service hours. Another commenter recommended that technology used to 
automatically provide supports or services should also include 
predictive analytics and eligibility screening for multiple public 
benefits. A third commenter echoed the recommendation for the use of 
predictive analytics.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions for 
strategies to improve outreach about support services. We decline to 
make the proposed changes because we believe these suggestions are 
adequately addressed in Priority 3. Furthermore, we include predictive 
analytics as a possible strategy under subpart (b)(ii) of Priority 3.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department emphasize 
projects that connect students to a range of financial supports. One 
commenter encouraged the Department to include projects that integrate 
education and training, income and work supports, and financial 
services and asset building for low-income students. Another commenter 
suggested that resources and services should also include connecting 
students to financial counseling.
    Discussion: We agree that financial supports are an important type 
of student support service. We decline to include the proposed 
strategies in Priority 3, however, because we believe that the goal of 
connecting students to financial resources is adequately addressed in 
the priorities. Subpart (b)(iii) of Priority 3 mentions providing 
assistance in accessing government benefits and other resources. In 
addition, subpart (b)(i) of Priority 6 (Increasing the Effectiveness of 
Financial Aid) focuses on financial literacy counseling and resources.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that Priority 3 recognize that 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students face unique 
challenges. The commenter noted that LGBT students need specifically 
tailored supports both before and during their postsecondary education. 
The commenter strongly

[[Page 27040]]

urged the Department to prioritize proposals that include culturally 
competent services for LGBT students.
    Discussion: As mentioned in the NPP, Priority 3 is designed to 
support investments in strategies that are most likely to increase 
access to effective student services, particularly for individuals from 
groups that have been historically under-served in postsecondary 
education. These individuals may include, but are not limited to, adult 
learners, students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, and 
LGBT students. We further note that recipients of Department funding 
must comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Age 
Discrimination Act of 1975. For additional information and assistance 
on civil rights laws that may impose additional requirements on 
recipients and subrecipients of Federal financial assistance, please 
consult the ``Notice on Civil Rights Obligations Applicable to the 
Distribution of Funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009,'' which is available at www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/notices/civil-rights.html.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to include a focus 
on improving outcomes for high-achieving, low-income students as a 
subpart of Priority 3 or as a new priority. The commenter noted that 
low-income students are less likely to attend selective postsecondary 
institutions and that the majority of high-achieving, low-income 
students do not apply to any selective institutions.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and concur 
that strategies to support low-income students merit attention. We note 
that Requirement 1 (Innovations that Improve Outcomes for High-Need 
Students) focuses on students from low-income backgrounds, among other 
high-need student populations. Because this requirement would apply to 
all grantees, regardless of the priority to which they responded in 
their applications, we do not believe it is necessary to make the 
proposed change.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters offered suggestions for specific strategies 
to improve student advising services. One commenter requested that we 
revise subpart (b)(ii) to include holistic advising models that 
incorporate multiple factors for determining college readiness and 
academic placements. The commenter also suggested that we revise 
subpart (b)(ii) or (b)(iii) to include career advising to assist 
students in choosing a major or program of study.
    A second commenter also supported the addition of holistic advising 
models in Priority 3. This commenter recommended that the Department 
add a focus on collaboration with employers and other workforce 
partners, including an explicit mention of work-based learning 
opportunities. The commenter suggested that Priority 3 include the 
following strategies: Career counseling during initial advising 
sessions, student supports focused on non-cognitive factors and 
students' external responsibilities, the use of credential pathways or 
maps, peer-to-peer supports, cohort-based approaches, and case 
management approaches.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for their suggestions. There is 
a wide range of possible strategies to improve student support 
services. The aim of Priority 3 is to support projects that are subject 
to rigorous tests to determine which of these strategies effectively 
improve student outcomes, particularly outcomes related to access, 
persistence, and completion. We decline to make the proposed revisions 
because we do not believe it is appropriate for the Department to 
prescribe which strategies applicants should use to achieve these 
goals.
    Changes: None.

Priority 4--Developing and Using Assessments of Learning

    Comment: Two commenters expressed strong support for Priority 4. 
One commenter suggested that this priority could be made more inclusive 
by adding specific strategies to serve students with disabilities and 
students who are English learners. Another commenter emphasized the 
importance of using educational games for formative assessments. A 
third commenter recommended that we add assessments that measure co-
curricular learning, such as civic engagement and critical thinking 
skills, under subpart (b).
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 4. 
We agree that there are many innovative strategies to assess a variety 
of student learning outcomes and that strategies under this and all of 
the priorities should be inclusive of all students. We note that 
students who are English learners are explicitly included in the 
illustrative list of examples included in the definition of ``high-need 
student.'' Students with disabilities could also be considered high-
need, assuming the students are at risk of educational failure or 
otherwise in need of special assistance or support. We also note that 
all recipients of Department funds must comply with the 
nondiscrimination requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title IX of the 
Education Amendments of 1972, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested a definition of ``open-source 
assessments.''
    Discussion: Although the Department does not define open-source 
assessments, in the FITW program we may invite applicants to develop 
assessments of learning that are free and available for others to use 
and refine. We decline to further define the types of assessments that 
applicants may propose.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise 
subpart (b)(ii) to include additional stakeholders who may be 
responsible for student assessments and to elaborate on different 
assessment types. Specifically, the commenter suggested that the 
priority include student services personnel and mention diagnostic, 
formative, and summative assessments.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. While faculty 
are primarily responsible for assessing student learning in the 
classroom, staff may also take part in assessing student learning in 
other settings, such as knowledge and competencies gained through prior 
work experience. We do not wish to impose limitations on applicants by 
specifying the types of allowable assessments, but we have revised the 
priority to refer to the roles of staff in assessment activities.
    Changes: We have revised Priority 4, subpart (b)(ii) to add a 
reference to professional development for staff, as well as faculty.

Priority 5--Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer

    Comment: Several commenters expressed strong support for Priority 5 
and its subparts. One commenter agreed that alternative credentialing 
and badging frameworks are needed. Another commenter noted that there 
is mounting support and evidence for credit for prior learning and 
opportunities for students to earn credits prior to enrolling in 
postsecondary education. Echoing this support for prior learning 
credits, a third commenter suggested that we could strengthen this 
priority by clarifying that prior learning

[[Page 27041]]

assessments and other similar strategies are included under this 
subpart.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support. We agree that 
alternative credentialing frameworks and credit for prior learning are 
promising strategies to recognize student learning and ensure that 
students reach completion. However, we decline to make the suggested 
changes because we believe that they are adequately addressed in the 
existing subparts of the priority. The Department does not wish to 
limit the types of interventions that applicants might propose through 
further specification.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A commenter requested that the Department include under 
subpart (b)(ii) the validation and transfer of credentialing or badging 
frameworks.
    Discussion: Projects designed to create or refine credentialing or 
badging frameworks could be proposed under this priority. We decline to 
make the requested change in order to avoid being overly prescriptive 
about how to improve pathways to credentialing and transfer.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Noting that many students pursue postsecondary education 
and training that prepares them for careers, one commenter recommended 
that Priority 5 explicitly mention strategies to improve career 
pathways. Such strategies could include embedding work-based learning 
in credentialing pathways and developing career pathways for high 
school students, disconnected youth, and adult learners.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. We agree 
that career preparation is indeed a motivating factor for many 
postsecondary students. The goal of this priority is to develop 
innovative strategies to accelerate completion of a wide range of 
credentials, including portable, stackable credentials aligned to 
career pathways, as well as specific pathways for individuals who have 
traditionally been underserved in postsecondary education. We believe 
the priority adequately reflects this goal.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we expand what we mean by 
seamless transfer of credits to include the transfer of postsecondary 
credits between all postsecondary institutions within and across 
States. The commenter also recommended that this priority emphasize 
that credits should be applicable at the receiving institution, and not 
simply transferrable. Furthermore, the commenter urged us to include 
strategies that track student mobility and performance across 
institutions.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions. We decline 
to make the proposed changes because several priorities already address 
the commenter's recommendations. For example, the transfer of credits 
between institutions is mentioned under subpart (b)(i) of Priority 5 
and is not restricted to institutions in the same State. In addition, 
multi-site strategies are addressed under Priority 9 (Systems and 
Consortia Focused on Large-Scale Impact).
    We are not certain what the commenter intends by referring to 
credits that are applicable rather than simply transferrable. However, 
the aim of Priority 5 is to ensure that students accelerate progress 
towards a degree or credential. Thus, we assume that strategies to 
improve credit transfer would address how credits would be applied 
towards this end.
    Changes: None.

Priority 6--Increasing the Effectiveness of Financial Aid

    Comment: Many commenters expressed support for Priority 6. Two 
commenters recommended focusing on this priority in future FITW 
competitions. Another commenter noted that there is a sufficient number 
of relevant evidence-based strategies to warrant making this an 
absolute priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' strong support for 
Priority 6. We agree that there is a substantial body of evidence on 
the effectiveness of financial aid, and we hope that this evidence will 
be useful to potential applicants. However, these priorities are 
intended as a menu of options for future FITW competitions. The 
Department may choose which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are 
appropriate for a particular competition. We note that the Department 
may choose to designate any of these priorities as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational in a given FITW competition, 
and that these designations may change in future competitions.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter urged the Department to create a competitive 
preference priority for historically black colleges and universities 
(HBCUs) that would apply to Priority 6 (``Increasing the Effectiveness 
of Financial Aid'').
    Discussion: We recognize the critical role that minority-serving 
institutions (MSIs), including HBCUs, play in helping our country meet 
the demand for more postsecondary degrees and credentials. Priority 8 
(Improving Postsecondary Student Outcomes at Minority-Serving 
Institutions) addresses issues at those institutions specifically, and 
this includes HBCUs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended specific strategies to 
increase the effectiveness of financial aid. One commenter suggested 
that the Department prioritize projects that use restricted access 
financial aid data or flexible need-based aid. A second commenter 
suggested one-stop shops for financial aid counseling and resources to 
access other public benefits. A third commenter recommended that the 
Department focus on projects that expand or restructure institutional 
aid programs. Finally, a fourth commenter recommended including 
projects that aim to simplify financial aid and test need-plus-merit 
aid.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for these suggestions. Because 
these projects are permissible under the priority as written, and 
because we want to ensure applicants have as much flexibility as 
possible in designing their proposed strategies, we decline to make the 
proposed changes.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that Priority 6 focus on 
students with the greatest financial need.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and concur 
that college affordability is a pressing problem for students with 
limited financial resources. This priority aims to simplify access to 
much needed financial supports, particularly those that will have a 
meaningful impact on completion. We do not specify the categories of 
students that must be served in this or in any other priority. However, 
Requirement 1 (Innovations that Improve Outcomes for High-Need 
Students) directs applicants to focus on ``high-need students,'' 
defined in this document to include students at risk of educational 
failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support. The 
Department has the discretion to select this and other requirements and 
priorities in future FITW competitions. If the Department applies this 
requirement in a future FITW competition, grantees would be required to 
indicate that they are focused on high-need students in response to all 
priorities that they choose to address. We believe that this 
requirement addresses the commenter's concerns and goals.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 27042]]

Priority 7--Implementing Low Cost-High Impact Strategies To Improve 
Student Outcomes

    Comment: Two commenters expressed support for Priority 7. The 
commenters recommended that the Department require all future grantees 
to use low cost-high impact strategies.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for this expression of support 
and concur that this is an important consideration. The Department has 
the discretion to decide which priorities to use in a given year, as 
well as how to designate those priorities (i.e., absolute, competitive 
preference, or invitational), and may consider the commenters' 
suggestion in the future.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters addressed strategies that use technology in 
Priority 7. One commenter recommended adding projects that examine 
whether access to technology is a barrier to effectively implementing 
low cost-high impact strategies. Another commenter noted that 
strategies that use technology are not always low cost, and recommended 
adding strategies that do not require technology, such as peer 
mentoring.
    Discussion: We appreciate these commenters' suggestions. We note 
that projects that use technology to minimize cost are just one example 
under Priority 7. We believe that applicants are best able to determine 
how to meet this priority and that the priority does not limit the way 
that applicants may propose to use technology, if they choose to do so.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require 
grantees to track both costs and benefits of their projects. This would 
allow grantees to calculate the return on investment (ROI) for their 
project, which could be included in their evaluation. The commenter 
noted that the Leveraging What Works program, proposed in the 
Department's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget, would require grantees to 
annually report per-pupil expenditures and student outcomes in order to 
calculate ROI for selected interventions.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this recommendation. A 
primary goal of the FITW program is to develop and replicate best 
practices in postsecondary education. As the commenter noted, FITW 
grantees are already required to conduct an independent evaluation of 
student outcomes, as described in Requirement 5 (Independent 
Evaluation) of this notice. We allow grantees and their independent 
evaluators to determine what should be included in this evaluation, 
provided that it is designed to meet relevant What Works Clearinghouse 
(WWC) Evidence Standards if well-implemented, as described in 
Requirement 6 (Evaluation Design). We also note that the Department 
establishes FITW performance measures, including cost per participant 
and cost per successful outcome.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that we include subparts under 
Priority 7. The commenter noted that this would help applicants 
understand the goal of the priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation. The goal 
of this priority is to solicit projects that make efficient use of 
resources. The Department could also choose to use this priority in 
combination with other priorities. To ensure that we do not limit or 
narrow the types of projects that could be submitted under this 
priority, we decline to provide a specific list of tools to meet this 
goal. We also note that, in a particular competition, we can use this 
priority in combination with other priorities established in this NFP.
    Changes: None.

Priority 8--Improving Postsecondary Student Outcomes at Minority-
Serving Institutions

    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for Priority 8. One 
commenter noted that the structure of the FITW program, in which awards 
can be made as Development, Validation, or Scale-up grants, makes it 
important for the Department to fund a diverse range of institutions, 
including two-year, four-year, public, and private non-profit 
institutions, and MSIs. Another commenter recommended that this 
priority be included as a competitive preference priority.
    Discussion: We thank these commenters for their support. MSIs play 
a critical role in the country's postsecondary education system and in 
meeting our goal of again becoming first in the world in postsecondary 
attainment. In future competitions, the Department may choose to 
designate this priority as an absolute or competitive preference 
priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department prioritize 
projects that define, operationalize, and measure outcomes for high-
need student subpopulations under this priority.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important to examine outcomes for 
high-need students, which is why the FITW program includes evaluation 
requirements (Requirements 5 and 6). The evaluation process helps 
grantees focus on which students are served by a particular 
intervention, as well as how they are served. We also include a 
definition of ``high-need student'' that illustrates specific student 
subpopulations that fall in this category. We believe that the 
requirement and definition meets the commenter's objectives, and that 
no further changes are necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we expand this priority to 
include institutions that serve large numbers of low-income students. 
The commenter suggested that these institutions could be defined by the 
percentage of students who receive Pell grants or other forms of 
Federal student financial aid.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important to support low-income 
students and aim to do so through other aspects of this program. 
Students from low-income backgrounds are included in the definition of 
``high-need students.'' Requirement 1 (Innovations that Improve 
Outcomes for High-Need Students) also addresses the needs of this 
group. In contrast to MSIs, which have a distinct mission and tradition 
of serving particular student populations, institutions that serve 
large numbers of students from low-income backgrounds fall into many 
different categories. Indeed, some MSIs might also meet the criteria 
the commenter has suggested. Nothing in this priority precludes these 
institutions from participating or disadvantages them in the 
competition. To make sure that this priority addresses the intended 
issues, we decline to further expand it.
    Changes: None.

Priority 9--Systems and Consortia Focused on Large-Scale Impact

    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department prioritize 
projects that track matriculation and transfer patterns within and 
between institutions within a postsecondary system or consortium.
    Discussion: The aim of this priority is to encourage institutions 
and systems to collaborate to address key barriers to completion. While 
transfer certainly can be a barrier for some students, we feel that 
this issue is addressed under Priority 5 (Facilitating Pathways to 
Credentialing and Transfer). Priority 9 does not suggest particular 
strategies that systems and consortia should address, but rather a 
particular method by which to strengthen any given

[[Page 27043]]

strategy or approach proposed by the applicant.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter encouraged us to give additional points to 
consortia of institutions that use robust learning communities to share 
knowledge and disseminate best practices.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. The purpose 
of the FITW program is to develop and disseminate best practices in 
postsecondary education. As the commenter noted, learning communities 
are a promising method for sharing knowledge with others. However, we 
decline to make the commenter's suggested change because we wish to 
provide applicants with the flexibility to determine which methods of 
developing strong consortia would be most appropriate.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Noting that applicants typically have between 30 and 60 
days to submit an application after a notice inviting applications 
(NIA) is published, one commenter expressed concern that the open 
application period is too short to create consortia-based projects. The 
commenter suggested that the Department announce the focus of the 
competition in advance of the NIA. Alternatively, the Department could 
provide information for several years' competitions at once. This would 
allow consortia time to develop applications that meet the necessary 
evidence and large-scale impact requirements.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the work that applicants put 
into developing high-quality projects for this and other grant 
programs. We strive to provide as much time as possible to allow 
applicants to prepare their submissions. Indeed, one of our goals in 
developing these priorities was to provide greater overall guidance to 
potential applicants. Unfortunately, the constraints and timing of the 
annual budget and appropriations cycle do not permit us to provide 
information about multiple years of a grant program at one time.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed strong support for Priority 9, 
noting that once an evidence base is established, large-scale reforms 
are most efficiently accomplished through systems. The commenter 
requested that we add a focus on State policy. Each grantee would be 
required to develop a policy work plan and identify several key levers 
needed to build support for and eliminate barriers to system redesign, 
scale, and student success.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support and suggestions. 
States are critical partners in postsecondary education, and although 
policy work is not within the scope of this program, we encourage 
grantees to consider ways to collaborate with State and local 
stakeholders in their work. Priorities 4 (Developing and Using 
Assessments of Learning) and 5 (Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing 
and Transfer) both include a focus on systemic approaches and building 
partnerships. We believe applicants are best positioned to determine 
how to build these relationships, and thus we decline to make the 
specific additions requested.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we give preference to 
consortia that include MSIs or institutions serving large numbers of 
students of color.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. The FITW 
program encourages the work of these institutions through Priority 8 
(Improving Postsecondary Student Outcomes at Minority-Serving 
Institutions) as well as through the definition of ``high-need 
student,'' which includes students of color. The Department does not 
believe that it is necessary to establish a priority for a particular 
kind of consortium because the Department could choose to combine 
Priority 9 with Priority 8 (Improving Postsecondary Student Outcomes at 
Minority-Serving Institutions). We believe such an approach would 
adequately address the commenter's concern.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that State agencies of higher 
education be included as eligible applicants. According to the 
commenter, consistent with the purposes of Priority 9, these agencies 
offer access to statewide data, can identify statewide areas of need, 
and are able to coordinate partnerships among institutions.
    Discussion: State higher education agencies have an important voice 
in postsecondary education systems and are eligible to apply for FITW 
grants. Eligible applicants for FITW, as described in this document, 
include an institution of higher education, combinations of such 
institutions, and other public and private nonprofit institutions and 
agencies.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for Priority 9 and 
recommended that the Department consider how it might be applied to 
Validation and Scale-up grants. The commenter pointed out that the NPP 
suggests that this priority would only apply to Development grants. 
However, the commenter suggested that partners and collaborators could 
also help in expanding and adapting evidence-based strategies.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for raising this point. To 
clarify, the Department may choose to use any of the priorities 
established in this notice in a competition for any type of FITW grant 
(Development, Validation, or Scale-up). Although the NPP included a 
background section for Priority 9 that mentioned differences between 
types of grants, this was not intended to suggest that one type of 
grant would be better suited for this priority.
    Changes: None.

Requirements

Requirements--General

    Comment: One commenter noted that we stated in the NPP that the 
Department may use requirements, selection criteria, and definitions 
from the Education Department General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR). This commenter encouraged us to use EDGAR's evidence 
definitions and regulations supporting the use of evidence, data, and 
evaluation.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. For FITW, the 
Department is permitted to use the evidence definitions and regulations 
in EDGAR as well as those established in this document. Thus, the 
Department may exercise the flexibility allowed by 34 CFR 75.226 (What 
procedures does the Secretary use if the Secretary decides to give 
special consideration to applications supported by strong evidence of 
effectiveness, moderate evidence of effectiveness, or evidence of 
promise?) to give competitive preference or establish a separate 
competition for applications supported by evidence of promise, moderate 
evidence of effectiveness, or strong evidence of effectiveness. The 
Department may also decide to use evidence-related selection criteria 
in 34 CFR 75.210. However, any use of those requirements, selection 
criteria, and definitions will be described in the notice inviting 
applications.
    Changes: None.

Requirement 1--Innovations That Improve Outcomes for High-Need Students

    Comment: Many commenters expressed strong support for this 
requirement. One commenter recommended that grantees be required to 
focus on low-income students and students of color. Two commenters

[[Page 27044]]

urged us to emphasize projects that enroll and graduate low-income, 
first-generation, and underprepared students. One commenter asked the 
Department to include this requirement in all FITW competitions.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support for this 
requirement. We concur that high-need students deserve better outcomes, 
and the FITW program aims to support the development and dissemination 
of tools that improve outcomes for these students in a variety of ways. 
The Department will consider whether to include this requirement in 
each year's competition. We also note that we allow applicants to 
determine which student subpopulations they will serve, and that low-
income students and students of color are included as examples of 
student subpopulations in the definition of ``high-need student.'' This 
definition also includes an illustrative list of groups that face 
unique challenges, such as adult learners, working students, part-time 
students, students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, 
first-generation students, students with disabilities, and students who 
are English learners. We are adding ``students with disabilities'' to 
the illustrative list in the definition of ``high-need student'' for 
consistency with other ED programs, as discussed under Definitions.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Stating that a focus on high-need students is timely, one 
commenter urged the Department to consider how these students are 
served by two-year institutions. These institutions vary in their size, 
location, and capacities, but many perform at the same level as their 
peers at four-year institutions.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the key role of two-year 
institutions in serving many of our country's high-need students. Two-
year institutions were among the FITW recipients in the FY 2014 
competition and we encourage such institutions to apply in future 
competitions. Because two-year institutions are eligible to apply for 
FITW grants, we do not believe it is necessary to revise this 
requirement to address them specifically.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide 
clarification on the definition of ``innovation'' in Requirement 1. For 
Validation and Scale-up grants, the commenter asked whether projects 
that make adjustments to proven programs in order to reduce costs would 
meet this requirement. In addition, the commenter asked whether the 
planned execution of an intervention constitutes an innovation.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for raising this issue for 
clarification. For the purposes of the FITW program, we define 
``innovation'' to mean a process, product, strategy, or practice that 
improves (or is expected to improve) significantly upon the outcomes 
reached with status quo options and that can ultimately reach 
widespread effective usage. This definition is consistent with the 
definition used in the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, which is 
FITW's elementary and secondary education counterpart.
    Changes: We have added a definition of the term ``innovation'' to 
the Definitions section of this notice.

Requirement 2--Eligibility

    Comment: One commenter expressed enthusiasm for the inclusion of 
public and private non-profit agencies as eligible applicants. Another 
commenter asked for clarification of the definition of ``non-profit 
agencies.''
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this support. We intend to 
use the EDGAR definition of ``nonprofit'' in 34 CFR 77.1: ``Nonprofit, 
as applied to an agency, organization, or institution, means that it is 
owned and operated by one or more corporations or associations whose 
net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any private 
shareholder or entity.'' This definition will be included in any NIA 
that includes this requirement.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked for State systems of higher education 
to be considered eligible applicants. The commenter noted that these 
systems have a unique advantage in conducting rigorous evaluations due 
to their access to large numbers of students and robust datasets.
    Discussion: State higher education agencies have an important voice 
in postsecondary education systems and are eligible to apply for FITW 
grants. Eligible applicants for FITW include an institution of higher 
education, combinations of such institutions, and other public and 
private nonprofit institutions and agencies.
    Changes: None.

Requirement 3--Types of FITW Grants

    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department specify that 
Scale-up grants include projects that use predictive analytics.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion, but decline 
to make this change. The purpose of this section is to identify types 
of grants, rather than define specific projects they could include. 
Several of the priorities could incorporate use of predictive 
analytics.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters questioned our description of Development 
grant projects in the background section of the NPP as ``novel.'' One 
commenter asked us to clarify that innovations included in Development 
grant projects may not always be novel, but rather best practices that 
are brought to scale. The commenter suggested that projects should be 
required to innovate significantly from current design. Another 
commenter asked for examples of projects that would be considered novel 
and yet are supported by empirical evidence.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for these suggestions. As 
discussed above, we have added a definition of ``innovation'' in order 
to clarify expectations for projects under all grant types. The 
rationale for adding this definition is discussed elsewhere in this 
document. We believe that this definition clarifies the Department's 
expectations for the ways in which projects should differ from current 
design and can help applicants determine which types of projects would 
be considered novel and are supported by empirical evidence
    Changes: We have added a definition of the term ``innovation'' to 
the Definitions section of this notice.
    Comment: One commenter asked us to clarify whether rigorous 
evaluations, such as the use of randomized controlled trials, are the 
preferred methodology for conducting independent evaluations of 
Development grant projects.
    Discussion: Requirements 4 (Evidence and Sample Size Standards) and 
5 (Independent Evaluation) address expectations for evaluations of all 
types of grants. Further, Requirement 6 (Evaluation Design) is designed 
to indicate that the Secretary announces in the NIA which evaluation 
standard applies to which grant type.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked us to further clarify the difference 
between Validation and Scale-up grants. The commenter asked whether 
projects that replicate and adapt proven programs in new locations (for 
example, throughout colleges in a State or at several colleges in a 
system) would qualify for a Validation or a Scale-up grant.
    Discussion: The primary difference between a Validation and a 
Scale-up grant lies in the level of evidence

[[Page 27045]]

supporting the proposed project. Validation grants must be supported by 
moderate evidence of effectiveness as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c) whereas 
Scale-up grants would likely be supported by strong evidence of 
effectiveness, as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c). Additionally, Scale-up 
grants would apply to projects with a larger number of sites, a greater 
variety of contexts, and a greater variety of students than Validation 
grants. These differences are explained in the Background section of 
the NPP.
    Changes: None.

Requirement 4--Evidence and Sample Size Standards

    Comment: One commenter asked us to clarify how the term ``multi-
site'' is defined for Scale-up grants. The commenter asked whether a 
project that includes multiple colleges within the same system or 
multiple campuses within the same institution would meet the multi-site 
requirement.
    Discussion: In 34 CFR 77.1, we define ``multi-site sample'' as 
``more than one site, where site can be defined as an LEA, locality, or 
State.'' Subpart (d) of Requirement 4 further clarifies that a multi-
site sample can include multiple institutions, while a scaled multi-
site sample can include sites across a system of institutions, or 
across institutions in a State, region, labor market sector, or 
nationwide. We will announce in the NIA for any given FITW competition 
which requirement will apply to the Scale-up tier.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked for further clarification on 
overlapping samples as used for Scale-up grants. The commenter asked to 
what extent and along what dimensions populations should be required to 
overlap with the sample in a supporting study.
    Discussion: We refer the commenter to subpart (e) of Requirement 4, 
which clarifies that projects must include the core aspects of a 
process, product, strategy, or practice from a supporting study as 
closely as possible. If the project proposes to adapt an intervention 
from a study, the applicant must provide justifications for these 
changes. It is the applicant's responsibility to determine whether and 
to what extent the population in the supporting study was a core aspect 
of its implementation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked the Department to consider expanding 
the evidence requirements beyond the WWC Evidence Standards. The 
commenter suggested that evidence could be based on rigorous 
assessments with strong designs conducted by reputable evaluators.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. We note 
that the evidence standards included in this program meet the 
commenter's objectives. These standards include rigorous assessments, 
strong designs, and reputable evaluators. The evidence standards we use 
in the FITW program are consistent with EDGAR and are used widely 
across the Department's discretionary grant programs. We choose to use 
the WWC Evidence Standards so that this program can produce evidence of 
the highest possible quality. The WWC Evidence Standards were developed 
based on years of interaction with leading experts in program 
evaluation in the education field.
    Changes: None.

Requirement 5--Evaluation

    Comment: One commenter requested that we require grantees to report 
disaggregated student outcome data. At a minimum, the commenter 
proposed that we require data to be disaggregated by outcomes for low-
income students and students of color. In addition, the commenter 
suggested that we require grantees to report outcomes for other high-
need student populations.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. We agree 
that useable data on outcomes for high-need student subpopulations are 
critical to improving programs and services. However, we decline to 
make the proposed changes because this may not be possible or 
appropriate for all projects. We also note that the Department has 
established performance measures for FITW, including cost per 
successful outcome.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Through the FITW program, the Department seeks to fund 
projects that can make a significant contribution to increasing 
knowledge about effective strategies for improving postsecondary 
education outcomes. For this reason, all FITW projects are required to 
use part of their budgets to conduct independent evaluations of their 
projects. Evaluation design is a significant consideration in ensuring 
that the independent evaluations help build evidence of effectiveness 
and generate replicable results. For that reason, we proposed in 
Requirement 5 that, in connection with the requirement that grantees 
conduct an independent evaluation, the evaluation design meet What 
Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards. Although we believe that 
meeting these evidence standards is the best way to ensure a rigorous 
evaluation, we also recognize that these evaluation and evidence 
requirements may be new to many potential FITW applicants. Furthermore, 
through the selection criteria established in EDGAR, we can encourage 
applicants to propose rigorous project evaluations through the What 
Works Clearinghouse selection factors. Such an approach, which enables 
the Department to rely on the judgment of non-Federal reviewers with 
expertise in evaluation design without imposing a pass-fail 
requirement, may be preferable in any given year, particularly in the 
early years of this program. Accordingly, we believe that it would 
benefit potential applicants for the Department to retain the authority 
to use the independent evaluation requirement without using the 
requirement relating to evaluation design. We have clarified this 
distinction in the requirements.
    Changes: We have separated proposed Requirement 5 into two 
requirements--Requirement 5, relating to the independent evaluation 
requirement, and Requirement 6, relating to evaluation design. We have 
renumbered the remaining requirements, accordingly.

Definitions

High-Need Student

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify the 
definition of ``high-need student'' to ensure that projects focus on 
low-income, first-generation, and academically underprepared students.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern that these 
students face unique challenges. However, we believe that the proposed 
definition of ``high-need student'' adequately includes the recommended 
student groups. The definition included in the NPP includes students 
who are at risk of educational failure, which could include students 
from low-income backgrounds and first-generation students. This 
definition also includes an illustrative list of groups that face 
unique challenges, such as adult learners, working students, part-time 
students, students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, 
first-generation students, students with disabilities, and students who 
are English learners. Very similar definitions are used in other 
Department programs, including i3 and Race to the Top, as well as in 
the Supplemental Priorities. We use the same definition in order to 
maintain consistency across multiple programs. We are adding ``students 
with disabilities'' to the

[[Page 27046]]

illustrative list in the definition of ``high-need student'' for 
consistency with other ED programs.
    Changes: We have added ``students with disabilities'' to this 
definition.

Minority-Serving Institution

    Comment: Two commenters addressed the definition of MSI. One 
commenter asserted that, similar to MSIs, community colleges enroll and 
serve a disproportionate number of high-need students. The commenter 
asked the Department to consider the unique operational issues of two-
year colleges, even though they may not have the requisite enrollments 
of students of color to qualify as MSIs.
    Another commenter proposed, in lieu of the definition for MSI, a 
new definition for Institutions with Large-Scale Impact for Minority 
Students. This proposed definition would refer to two-year or four-year 
institutions with sufficient capacity to affect large-scale change for 
Black, Latino, or American Indian students. The commenter proposed that 
an institution would be considered to have sufficient capacity under 
this definition if it enrolled at least 3,000 Black, Latino, or 
American Indian students.
    Discussion: The definition of MSI comes from the Higher Education 
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), and our intent is to be consistent with 
the law. We appreciate the commenters' interest in serving high-need 
students. We also agree that community colleges play a critical role in 
serving high-need students across the country. In addition, many 
community colleges are in fact MSIs. However, we decline to make the 
proposed changes to the definition of MSIs. Nothing in this definition, 
the priorities, or the authorizing statute prohibits eligible community 
colleges, regardless of MSI status, from applying to FITW programs, 
provided that the proposed project otherwise meets the requirements.
    Changes: None.

Selection Criterion--Collaborations

    Comment: One commenter supported this selection criterion. The 
commenter recommended that we include more specific emphasis on cross-
functional collaborations and holistic program design, to promote 
continuous improvement and foster institutional cultures that embrace 
feedback.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. We agree 
that these types of collaborations can foster success. However, we 
believe that applicants are best equipped to design the collaborative 
structures that meet their needs.
    Changes: None.

Final Priorities

Priority 1: Improving Success in Developmental Education

    The Secretary gives priority to:
    (a) Projects designed to improve student success in developmental 
education or accelerate student progress into credit-bearing 
postsecondary courses; or
    (b) Projects designed to improve student success in developmental 
education or accelerate student progress into credit-bearing 
postsecondary courses through one or more of the following:
    (i) Identifying and treating academic needs prior to postsecondary 
enrollment, including while in middle or high school, through 
strategies such as partnerships between K-12 and postsecondary 
institutions;
    (ii) Diagnosing students' developmental education needs at the time 
of or after postsecondary enrollment, such as by developing 
alternatives to single measure placement strategies, and identifying 
specific content gaps in order to customize instruction to an 
individual student's needs;
    (iii) Offering alternative pathways in mathematics, such as non-
Algebra based coursework for non-math and science fields;
    (iv) Accelerating students' progress in completing developmental 
education, through strategies such as modularized, fast-tracked, or 
self-paced courses or placing students whose academic performance is 
one or more levels below that required for credit-bearing courses into 
credit-bearing courses with academic supports;
    (v) Redesigning developmental education courses or programs through 
strategies such as contextualization of developmental coursework 
together with occupational or college-content coursework; and
    (vi) Integrating academic and other supports for students in 
developmental education.

Priority 2: Improving Teaching and Learning

    The Secretary gives priority to:
    (a) Projects designed to improve teaching and learning; or
    (b) Projects designed to improve teaching and learning through one 
or more of the following:
    (i) Instruction-level tools or strategies such as adaptive learning 
technology, educational games, personalized learning, active- or 
project-based learning, faculty-centered strategies that systematically 
improve the quality of teaching, or multi-disciplinary efforts focused 
on improving instructional experiences.
    (ii) Program-level strategies such as competency-based programs 
that are designed with faculty, industry, employer, and expert 
engagement, use rigorous methods to define competencies, and utilize 
externally validated assessments, online or blended programs, or joint 
offering of programs across institutions.
    (iii) Institution-level tools or strategies such as faculty-
centered strategies to improve teaching across an institution, use of 
open educational resources, or tailoring academic content and delivery 
to serve the needs of non-traditional students.

Priority 3: Improving Student Support Services

    The Secretary gives priority to:
    (a) Projects designed to improve the supports or services provided 
to students prior to or during the students' enrollment in 
postsecondary education; or
    (b) Projects designed to improve the supports or services provided 
to students prior to or during the students' enrollment in 
postsecondary education through one or more of the following:
    (i) Integrating student support services, including with academic 
advising and instruction.
    (ii) Individualizing or personalizing support services, such as 
advising, coaching, tutoring, or mentoring, to students and their 
identified needs using tools or strategies such as predictive analytics 
to identify students who may need specific supports, or behavioral 
interventions used to provide timely, relevant, and actionable 
information for students at critical points such as when they may be at 
risk of dropping out.
    (iii) Connecting students to resources or services other than those 
typically provided by postsecondary institutions, such as providing 
assistance in accessing government benefits, transportation assistance, 
medical, health, or nutritional resources and services, child care, 
housing, or legal services.
    (iv) Utilizing technology such as digital messaging to provide 
supports or services systematically.

Priority 4: Developing and Using Assessments of Learning

    The Secretary gives priority to:
    (a) Projects that support the development and use of externally 
validated assessments of student learning and stated learning goals; or

[[Page 27047]]

    (b) Projects that support the development and use of externally 
validated assessments of student learning and stated learning goals 
through one or more of the following:
    (i) Alternative assessment tools or strategies such as micro- or 
competency-based assessments, assessments embedded in curriculum, or 
simulations, games, or other technology-based assessment approaches.
    (ii) Professional development or training of faculty and staff on 
the approaches to developing, using, and interpreting assessments.
    (iii) Combining or sequencing assessments from multiple sources to 
strengthen diagnostic capabilities.
    (iv) Aligning assessments across sectors and institutions, such as 
across kindergarten through grade 12 and postsecondary education 
systems or across two-year and four-year institutions, to improve 
college readiness and content delivery.
    (v) Open-source assessments.

Priority 5: Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer

    The Secretary gives priority to:
    (a) Projects designed to develop and implement systems and 
practices to capture and aggregate credit or other evidence of 
knowledge and skills towards postsecondary degrees or credentials; or
    (b) Projects designed to develop and implement systems and 
practices to capture and aggregate credit or other evidence of 
knowledge and skills towards postsecondary degrees or credentials 
through one or more of the following:
    (i) Seamless transfer of credits between postsecondary 
institutions.
    (ii) Validation and transfer of credit for learning or learning 
experiences from non-institutional sources.
    (iii) Alternate credentialing or badging frameworks.
    (iv) Opportunities for students to earn college credits prior to 
postsecondary enrollment, such as through dual enrollment, dual degree, 
dual admission, or early college programs.

Priority 6: Increasing the Effectiveness of Financial Aid

    The Secretary gives priority to:
    (a) Projects designed to improve the effectiveness of financial 
aid; or
    (b) Projects designed to improve the effectiveness of financial aid 
through one or more of the following:
    (i) Counseling, advising, creation of information and resources, 
and other support activities on higher education financing and 
financial literacy delivered by financial aid offices or integrated 
with other support services provided by institutions, including on 
student loan repayment options such as income-driven repayment plans 
and public service loan forgiveness and debt management.
    (ii) Personalized approaches to financial aid delivery, counseling, 
advising, and other support activities, which may include early warning 
systems, use of predictive analytics, need-based aid, emergency aid, or 
bonuses or other incentives for successful outcomes such as on-time 
academic progress and completion.

Priority 7: Implementing Low Cost-High Impact Strategies to Improve 
Student Outcomes

    The Secretary gives priority to projects that use low-cost tools or 
strategies, such as those that use technology, that result in a high 
impact on student outcomes.

Priority 8: Improving Postsecondary Student Outcomes at Minority-
Serving Institutions

    The Secretary gives priority to projects designed to improve 
student outcomes at Minority-Serving Institutions (as defined in this 
notice).

Priority 9: Systems and Consortia Focused on Large-scale Impact

    The Secretary gives priority to projects that involve consortia of 
institutions, including across a college or university system, and 
partnerships with leading experts that are implemented at multiple 
sites with large sample sizes to allow for more rapid development, 
evaluation, and scaling of practices determined to be effective.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education establishes the 
following requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of 
these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
    1. Innovations that Improve Outcomes for High-Need Students: The 
Secretary may require that--
    (a) Grantees must implement projects designed to improve outcomes 
of high-need students (as defined in this notice) in postsecondary 
education; or
    (b) Grantees must implement projects designed to improve one or 
more of the following outcomes of high-need students (as defined in 
this notice) in postsecondary education:
    (i) Persistence.
    (ii) Academic progress.
    (iii) Time to degree.
    (iv) Completion.
    2. Eligibility: The Secretary may make grants to, or enter into 
contracts with, one or more of the following:
    An institution of higher education, combinations of such 
institutions, and other public and private nonprofit institutions and 
agencies.
    The Secretary will announce the eligible applicants in the NIA.
    3. Types of FITW Grants: Awards may be made for Development grants, 
Validation grants, and Scale-up grants. The Secretary will announce the 
type of grants that applicants may apply for in the NIA.
    4. Evidence and Sample Size Standards: To be eligible for an 
award--
    (a) An application for a Development grant must be supported by one 
of the following:
    (i) Evidence of promise (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
    (ii) Strong theory (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
    (iii) Evidence of promise or strong theory.
    The Secretary will announce in the NIA which evidence standard will 
apply to a Development grant in a given competition. Under (a)(iii), 
applicants must identify whether their application is supported by 
evidence of promise or strong theory.
    (b) An application for a Validation grant must be supported by 
moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
    (c) An application for a Scale-up grant must be supported by strong 
evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

[[Page 27048]]

    (d) The Secretary may require that an application for a Development 
grant, Validation grant, or Scale-up grant must be supported by one or 
more of the following levels of sample size:
    (i) Large sample (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
    (ii) Multi-site sample (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)), such as at 
multiple institutions.
    (iii) Scaled multi-site sample, such as across a system of 
institutions, across institutions in a State, a region, or nationally, 
or across institutions in a labor market sector.
    The Secretary will announce in the NIA which sample size standards 
will apply to each type of FITW grant (Development, Validation, or 
Scale-up) that is available.
    (e) Where evidence of promise, moderate evidence of effectiveness, 
or strong evidence of effectiveness is required to receive a grant, an 
applicant's project must propose to implement the core aspects of the 
process, product, strategy, or practice from the supporting study as 
closely as possible. Where modifications to a cited process, product, 
strategy, or practice will be made to account for student or 
institutional characteristics, resource limitations, or other special 
factors or to address deficiencies identified by the cited study, the 
applicant must provide a justification or basis for the modifications. 
Modifications may not be proposed to the core aspects of any cited 
process, product, strategy, or practice.
    5. Independent Evaluation:
    (a) The grantee must conduct an Independent Evaluation (as defined 
in this notice) of its project. The evaluation must estimate the impact 
of the FITW-supported practice (as implemented at the proposed level of 
scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
    (b) The grantee must make broadly available, digitally and free of 
charge, through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or informal 
(e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, the results of any evaluations it 
conducts of its funded activities. The grantee must also ensure that 
the data from its evaluation are made available to third-party 
researchers consistent with applicable privacy requirements.
    (c) The grantee and its independent evaluator must agree to 
cooperate on an ongoing basis with any technical assistance provided by 
the Department or its contractor, including any technical assistance 
provided to ensure that the evaluation design meets the required 
evaluation standards, and comply with the requirements of any 
evaluation of the program conducted by the Department. This includes 
providing to the Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an 
updated comprehensive evaluation plan in a format and using such tools 
as the Department may require. Grantees must update this evaluation 
plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation and 
provide the updated evaluation plan to the Department. All of these 
updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of the 
approved application.
    6. Evaluation Design: The evaluation design for a Development 
grant, Validation grant, or Scale-up grant must meet one or either of 
the following standards:
    (i) What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards (as defined in 34 
CFR 77.1(c)) without reservations; or
    (ii) What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards (as defined in 34 
CFR 77.1(c)) with reservations.
    The Secretary will announce in the NIA the evaluation standard(s) 
that will apply to each type of FITW grant (Development, Validation, or 
Scale-up) that is available.
    7. Funding Categories: An applicant will be considered for an award 
only for the type of FITW grant (Development, Validation, and Scale-up) 
for which it applies. An applicant may not submit an application for 
the same proposed project under more than one type of grant.
    8. Limit on Grant Awards: The Secretary may choose to deny the 
award of a grant to an applicant if the applicant already holds an 
active FITW grant from a previous FITW competition or, if awarded, 
would result in the applicant receiving more than one FITW grant in the 
same year.
    9. Management Plan: Within 100 days of a grant award, the grantee 
must provide an updated comprehensive management plan for the approved 
project in a format and using such tools as the Department may require. 
This management plan must include detailed information about 
implementation of the first year of the grant, including key 
milestones, staffing details, and other information that the Department 
may require. It must also include a complete list of performance 
metrics, including baseline measures and annual targets. The grantee 
must update this management plan at least annually to reflect 
implementation of subsequent years of the project and provide the 
updated management plan to the Department.

Final Selection Criterion

    The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education establishes the 
following selection criterion for evaluating an application under this 
program. We may apply this criterion or any of the selection criteria 
from 34 CFR part 75 in any year in which this program is in effect. In 
the NIA, the application package, or both, we will announce the maximum 
points assigned to each selection criteria.
    1. Collaborations: The extent to which the proposed project is 
designed to engage individuals or entities with expertise, experience, 
and knowledge regarding the project's activities, such as postsecondary 
institutions, non-profit organizations, experts, academics, and 
practitioners.

Final Definitions

    The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education establishes the 
following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of 
these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
    1. High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure 
or otherwise in need of special assistance and support such as adult 
learners, working students, part-time students, students from low-
income backgrounds, students of color, first-generation students, 
students with disabilities, and students who are English learners. 
Note: The Department acknowledges that the definition of high-need 
students is not limited to these categories. This definition is for 
illustrative purposes and may include other categories of high-need 
students.
    2. Independent evaluation means an evaluation that is designed and 
carried out independent of and external to the grantee, but in 
coordination with any employees of the grantee who develop a process, 
product, strategy, or practice and are implementing it.
    3. Innovation means a process, product, strategy, or practice that 
improves (or is expected to improve) significantly upon the outcomes 
reached with status quo options and that can ultimately reach 
widespread effective usage.
    4. Minority-serving institution means an institution that is 
eligible to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A 
of Title III, under part B of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA.
    This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note:  This notice of final priorities does not solicit 
applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of 
these priorities, requirements, selection criterion,

[[Page 27049]]

and definitions, we invite applications through a notice in the 
Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, selection 
criterion, and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their 
benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. 
Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this 
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 
13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    Summary of potential costs and benefits:
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    The benefits of the FITW program are the generation of a body of 
evidence for what works in postsecondary education through development, 
evaluation, and dissemination of innovative strategies to support 
students who are at risk of failure in persisting in and completing 
their postsecondary programs of study. The priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criterion announced in this notice will 
provide applicants a framework for achieving the goals and objectives 
of the FITW program.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.
    Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated 
authority to Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary, to perform 
the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 
Education.

    Dated: May 5, 2015.
Jamienne S. Studley,
Deputy Under Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11333 Filed 5-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P