[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39875-39882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14529]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID: ED-2015-OESE-0129; CFDA Number: 84.371C.]
RIN 1810-AB25


Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education (Assistant Secretary) proposes priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Striving 
Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) program. These proposed 
priorities, requirements,

[[Page 39876]]

definitions, and selection criteria would replace the priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the SRCL notice 
inviting applications for new awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, 
published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13143). The 
Assistant Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in FY 2016 and 
later years. We take this action to address an area of national need by 
providing competitive grant awards to State educational agencies (SEAs) 
to advance literacy skills, including pre-literacy skills, reading, and 
writing, for children from birth through grade 12, including English 
learners and children with disabilities.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before July 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``How to use Regulations.gov.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Rosemary Fennell, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E228, 
Washington, DC 20202-6450.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemary Fennell, (202) 401-2425 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: 

Executive Summary

    Purpose of this Regulatory Action: The Department plans to make 
competitive grant awards under the SRCL program to eligible SEAs for 
the purpose of advancing literacy skills, including pre-literacy 
skills, reading, and writing, for children from birth through grade 12, 
with an emphasis on disadvantaged children, including English learners 
and children with disabilities.
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: In this 
notice, we propose to establish priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria that we may require eligible SEAs to address in 
order to receive funds under the SRCL program. We have made an effort 
to align these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria with certain new statutory requirements, which will 
apply to any future programs, in accordance with the Department's 
authority to ensure an orderly transition to the ESEA, as amended by 
the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
    In this notice, we propose three priorities. The first priority 
would focus on how SEAs will ensure that (a) the comprehensive literacy 
instruction programs funded under this grant are supported by moderate 
evidence of effectiveness or strong evidence of effectiveness and (b) 
local literacy plans are aligned with the State comprehensive literacy 
plan. Under the second priority, SEAs would be required to have a high-
quality plan that describes the methodology that will be used to ensure 
that local projects serve the greatest numbers or percentages of 
disadvantaged children. Finally, the third priority would encourage 
SEAs to prioritize local literacy plans that align pre-literacy 
strategies for children aged birth through five with pre-literacy and 
literacy strategies for students from kindergarten through grade five.
    We are also proposing requirements intended to ensure that State 
literacy teams assess the State comprehensive literacy plans on a 
regular basis and that these plans include continuous improvement 
activities. We propose a number of definitions that clarify terms used 
in the SRCL program. We believe that these terms are important to 
understanding the complexity of the SRCL program as it relates to 
comprehensive literacy instruction.
    We are proposing selection criteria intended to help identify high-
quality applications. These selection criteria would assist the 
Department in determining the extent to which eligible SEAs submitting 
applications under the SRCL program will: (1) Provide support and 
technical assistance, based on an assessment of local needs, to SRCL 
subgrantees to ensure improvement in the literacy and pre-literacy 
achievement of children from birth to grade 12 and ensure effectiveness 
in addressing the needs of disadvantaged children; (2) establish an 
independent peer review process for awarding subgrants to prioritize 
awards to eligible subgrantees that propose a high-quality 
comprehensive literacy instruction program and are supported by 
moderate or strong evidence of effectiveness; (3) monitor subgrantees' 
implementation of interventions and practices to ensure fidelity to the 
local plan, as well as alignment between the SEA's State comprehensive 
literacy plan and local literacy plan; and (4) award subgrants of 
sufficient size that target the greatest numbers or percentages of 
disadvantaged children, to fully and effectively implement the local 
literacy plan.
    Costs and Benefits: We have determined that these proposed 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would not 
impose significant costs on eligible SEAs. Program participation is 
voluntary, and the costs imposed on applicants by these proposed 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would be 
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The 
potential benefits of implementing the programs would outweigh any 
costs incurred by applicants, and the costs of actually carrying out 
activities associated with the application would be paid for with 
program funds. For these reasons, we have determined that the costs of 
implementation would not be excessively burdensome for eligible 
applicants, including small entities.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific 
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion your 
comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13536 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. 
Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to 
reduce potential costs or increase

[[Page 39877]]

potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient 
administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria in Room 3E228, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, 
Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the SCRL program is to advance 
literacy skills, including pre-literacy skills, reading, and writing, 
for all children from birth through grade 12, with a special emphasis 
on disadvantaged children, including English learners and children with 
disabilities. Through this program, the Department awards competitive 
grants to SEAs to support subgrants to local educational agencies 
(LEAs) or other eligible subgrantees, including early learning 
providers.

    Program Authority:  Section 1502 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 
2001 (ESEA), and Title III of Division H of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113).

Proposed Priorities

    This notice contains three proposed priorities.
    Proposed Priority 1--Interventions and Practices Supported by 
Moderate or Strong Evidence of Effectiveness.
    Background: In recent years, the Department has emphasized 
evidence-based practices in grant competitions.\1\ We believe that 
encouraging applicants to focus on proven comprehensive literacy 
instruction practices enhances the quality of programs funded through 
our competitions, improves outcomes for participating children, and 
generates a better return on investment for taxpayer funds. In the 
previous SRCL competition conducted in 2011, the Department scored 
applications on the extent to which SEAs gave priority to eligible 
subgrantees that submitted applications supported by the strongest 
available evidence. With this proposed priority, we intend to clarify 
and expand upon those efforts by further promoting comprehensive 
literacy instruction, in the local literacy plans submitted by eligible 
subgrantees, by ensuring that those plans have been carefully and 
rigorously evaluated and will have positive impacts on literacy 
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In October 2015, the National Center for Education 
Statistics released a summary of the evidence generated by grants 
under the Striving Readers program awarded in 2006 and 2009 to raise 
the literacy levels of middle and high school students reading below 
grade level. Fifteen of the 17 evaluations of the interventions met 
WWC evidence standards with or without reservations. This body of 
evidence substantially increases the amount of credible information 
available to district administrators trying to decide how to best 
meet the needs of struggling adolescent readers. Institute of 
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and 
Regional Assistance USED, Striving Readers on the Effectiveness of 
Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers, available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164001/pdf/20164001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority: Under this proposed priority, a State 
educational agency (SEA) must ensure that evidence plays a central role 
in the SRCL subgrants. Specifically, in its high-quality plan, an SEA 
must assure (1) that it will use an independent peer review process to 
prioritize awards to eligible subgrantees that propose a high-quality 
comprehensive literacy instruction program, and that meet the 
conditions set forth in the definition of moderate evidence of 
effectiveness or strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 
77.1), where evidence is applicable and available, and (2) that the 
comprehensive literacy instruction program proposed by eligible 
subgrantees will align with the State's comprehensive literacy plan as 
well as local needs.
    Proposed Priority 2--Serving Disadvantaged Children.
    Background: Developing and improving the literacy skills of 
disadvantaged children is essential to improving children's academic 
achievement in all subjects and for ensuring that children are ready 
for college and career. Disadvantaged children often struggle in grades 
as early as kindergarten to develop necessary reading skills,\2\ and 
literacy gaps between these children and other children often persist 
in later grades.\3\ Because the literacy skills of young children in 
grades as early as third grade have been connected to later outcomes, 
such as high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment,\4\ we 
believe that an important focus of this program should be investing in 
the pre-literacy and literacy skills of disadvantaged children, 
including English learners and children with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Mulligan, G.M., Hastedt, S., and McCarroll, J.C. (2012). 
First-Time Kindergartners in 2010-11: First Findings From the 
Kindergarten Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 
Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011) (NCES 2012-049). U.S. 
Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 
Education Statistics. Retrieved September 9, 2015 from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012049.
    \3\ In 2013, results from the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress (NAEP) Reading Assessment in the 4th and 8th grade show 
that a higher percentage of the following student groups performed 
``Below Basic'' compared to other student groups in the same 
category: (1) Students who are eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price 
Lunch; (2) black and Hispanic students; (3) English learners; and 
(4) students with disabilities. U.S. Department of Education, 
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2013 
Reading Assessment. Retrieved September 3, 2015, from the Main NAEP 
Data Explorer (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
    \4\ Lesnick, J., Goerge, R., Smithgall, C., & Gwynne J. (2010). 
Reading on Grade Level in Third Grade: How Is It Related to High 
School Performance and College Enrollment? Chicago: Chapin Hall at 
the University of Chicago. Retrieved September 9, 2015 from 
www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-ReadingonGradeLevelLongAnal-2010.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority: To meet this priority, an SEA must describe in 
its application a high-quality plan to award subgrants that will serve 
the greatest numbers or percentages of disadvantaged children, 
including English learners and children with disabilities.
    Proposed Priority 3--Alignment within a Birth through Fifth Grade 
Continuum.
    Background: The Department is interested in ensuring that the gains 
children make in early learning programs supported by SRCL funds are 
sustained throughout their education, particularly the elementary 
years. Meeting this objective necessitates close alignment at a State 
and local level between preschool and elementary education programs; 
building a preschool through fifth grade system will help to sustain 
student success, which is especially important in the context of 
literacy development for disadvantaged children, including English 
learners and children with disabilities.
    Proposed Priority: Under this proposed priority, an SEA must 
describe in its application a high-quality plan to align literacy 
projects supported by this grant that serve children from birth to age 
five with programs and systems that serve students in kindergarten 
through grade five to improve school readiness and transitions for 
children across this continuum.
    Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition 
using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as 
absolute, competitive

[[Page 39878]]

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)).
    Proposed Requirements:
    Background: Because the purpose of this program is to advance 
literacy and pre-literacy skills for all children, we propose that SEAs 
must ensure that their State literacy teams assess the State 
comprehensive literacy plans on a regular basis and that these plans 
include continuous improvement activities. Additionally, to ensure that 
the comprehensive literacy instruction programs at the local level are 
supported by the most recent, up-to-date research, we propose that SEAs 
require eligible subgrantees to submit local literacy plans.
    This NPP adds the statutory supplement-not-supplant requirement 
found in section 2301 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, to SRCL.
    Proposed Requirements: The Assistant Secretary proposes 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.
    State Comprehensive Literacy Plan: To be considered for an award 
under this program, an SEA must submit a State comprehensive literacy 
plan developed with the assistance of its State literacy team. 
Additionally, the plan must be reviewed by the State literacy team and 
updated annually if an SEA receives an award under this program.
    Local Literacy Plan: Grantees must ensure that they will only fund 
subgrantees that submit a local literacy plan that: (1) Is informed by 
a comprehensive needs assessment; (2) provides for professional 
development that is aligned with the State comprehensive literacy plan; 
(3) includes interventions and practices that are supported by moderate 
evidence of effectiveness or strong evidence of effectiveness (as 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1), where evidence is applicable and available; 
and (4) includes a plan to track children's outcomes consistent with 
all applicable privacy requirements.
    Prioritization of Subgrants: In selecting among eligible 
subgrantees, an SEA must give priority to eligible subgrantees serving 
greater numbers or percentages of disadvantaged children.
    Continuous Program Improvement: Grantees must use data, including 
the results of monitoring and evaluations, and other administrative 
data, to inform the program's continuous improvement and decision-
making, to improve program participant outcomes, and to ensure that 
disadvantaged children are served. Additionally, grantees must ensure 
that subgrantees, educators, families, and other key stakeholders 
receive the results of the evaluations conducted on the effectiveness 
of the program in a timely fashion, consistent with all applicable 
Federal, State, and other privacy requirements.
    Supplement not Supplant: Grantees must use funds under this program 
to supplement, and not supplant, any non-Federal funds that would be 
used to advance literacy skills for children from birth through grade 
12.
    Proposed Definitions:
    Background: There are several terms associated with the SRCL 
program. These terms are not defined in section 1502 of the ESEA, the 
Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), or 
other general regulations that apply to this program.
    Proposed Definitions: The Assistant Secretary proposes 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.
    Comprehensive literacy instruction means instruction that--
    (a) Includes developmentally appropriate, contextually explicit, 
and systematic instruction, and frequent practice, in reading and 
writing across content areas;
    (b) Includes age-appropriate, explicit, systematic, and intentional 
instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, 
language structure, reading fluency, and reading comprehension;
    (c) Includes age-appropriate, explicit instruction in writing, 
including opportunities for children to write with clear purposes, with 
critical reasoning appropriate to the topic and purpose, and with 
specific instruction and feedback from instructional staff;
    (d) Makes available and uses diverse, high-quality print materials 
that reflect the reading and development levels, and interests, of 
children;
    (e) Uses differentiated instructional approaches, including 
individual and small group instruction and discussion;
    (f) Provides opportunities for children to use language with peers 
and adults in order to develop language skills, including developing 
vocabulary;
    (g) Includes frequent practice of reading and writing strategies;
    (h) Uses age-appropriate, valid, and reliable screening 
assessments, diagnostic assessments, formative assessment processes, 
and summative assessments to identify a child's learning needs, to 
inform instruction, and to monitor the child's progress and the effects 
of instruction;
    (i) Uses strategies to enhance children's motivation to read and 
write and children's engagement in self-directed learning;
    (j) Incorporates the principles of universal design for learning;
    (k) Depends on teachers' collaboration in planning, instruction, 
and assessing a child's progress and on continuous professional 
learning; and
    (l) Links literacy instruction to the State's challenging academic 
standards, including standards relating to the ability to navigate, 
understand, and write about complex subject matters in print and 
digital formats.
    Disadvantaged child means a child from birth to grade 12 who is at 
risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance 
and support, including a child with a disability or who is an English 
learner. This term may also include a child who is living in poverty, 
who is far below grade level, who has left school before receiving a 
regular high school diploma, who is at risk of not graduating with a 
diploma on time, who is homeless, who is in foster care, or who has 
been incarcerated.
    Eligible subgrantee means one or more local educational agencies 
(LEAs) or, in the case of early literacy, one or more LEAs or nonprofit 
providers of early childhood education with a demonstrated record of 
effectiveness in improving early literacy development of children from 
birth through kindergarten entry and in providing professional 
development in early literacy.
    High-quality plan means any plan developed by the State educational 
agency (SEA) that is feasible and has a high probability of successful 
implementation and, at a minimum, includes--

[[Page 39879]]

    (a) The key goals of the plan;
    (b) The key activities to be undertaken and the rationale for how 
the activities support the key goals;
    (c) A realistic timeline, including key milestones, for 
implementing each key activity;
    (d) The party or parties responsible for implementing each activity 
and other key personnel assigned to each activity;
    (e) A strong theory, including a rationale for the plan and a 
corresponding logic model as defined in 34 CFR 77.1;
    (f) Performance measures at the State and local levels; and
    (g) Appropriate financial resources to support successful 
implementation of the plan.
    Independent peer review means a high-quality, transparent review 
process informed by outside individuals with expertise in literacy 
development and education for children from birth through grade 12.
    Professional development means activities that--
    (a) Are an integral part of school and LEA strategies for providing 
educators (including teachers, principals, other school leaders, 
specialized instructional support personnel, paraprofessionals, and, as 
applicable, early childhood educators) with the knowledge and skills 
necessary to enable students to succeed in a well-rounded education and 
to meet the State's challenging academic standards;
    (b) Are sustained (not stand-alone, one-day, or short term 
workshops), intensive, collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven, and 
classroom-focused; and
    (c) May include activities that--
    (1) Improve and increase teachers'--
    (i) Knowledge of the academic subjects the teachers teach;
    (ii) Understanding of how students learn; or
    (iii) Ability to analyze student work and achievement from multiple 
sources, including how to adjust instructional strategies, assessments, 
and materials based on such analysis;
    (2) Are an integral part of broad schoolwide and districtwide 
educational improvement plans;
    (3) Allow personalized plans for each educator to address the 
educator's specific needs identified in observation or other feedback;
    (4) Improve classroom management skills;
    (5) Support the recruitment, hiring, and training of effective 
teachers, including teachers who became certified through State and 
local alternative routes to certification;
    (6) Advance teacher understanding of--
    (i) Effective instructional strategies that are evidence-based; or
    (ii) Strategies for improving student academic achievement or 
substantially increasing the knowledge and teaching skills of teachers;
    (7) Are aligned with, and directly related to, academic goals of 
the school or LEA;
    (8) Are developed with extensive participation of teachers, 
principals, other school leaders, parents, representatives of Indian 
tribes (as applicable), and administrators of schools to be served 
under this program;
    (9) Are designed to give teachers of English learners, and other 
teachers and instructional staff, the knowledge and skills to provide 
instruction and appropriate language and academic support services to 
those children, including the appropriate use of curricula and 
assessments;
    (10) To the extent appropriate, provide training for teachers, 
principals, and other school leaders in the use of technology 
(including education about the harms of copyright piracy), so that 
technology and technology applications are effectively used in the 
classroom to improve teaching and learning in the curricula and 
academic subjects in which the teachers teach;
    (11) As a whole, are regularly evaluated for their impact on 
teacher effectiveness and student academic achievement, with the 
findings of the evaluations used to improve the quality of professional 
development;
    (12) Are designed to give teachers of children with disabilities or 
children with developmental delays, and other teachers and 
instructional staff, the knowledge and skills to provide instruction 
and academic support services to those children, including positive 
behavioral interventions and supports, multi-tier system of supports, 
and use of accommodations;
    (13) Provide instruction in the use of data and assessments to 
inform and instruct classroom practice;
    (14) Provide instruction in ways that teachers, principals, other 
school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, and school 
administrators may work more effectively with parents and families;
    (15) Involve the forming of partnerships with institutions of 
higher education, including, as applicable, Tribal Colleges and 
Universities as defined in section 316(b) of the Higher Education Act 
of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)), to establish school-based 
teacher, principal, and other school leader training programs that 
provide prospective teachers, novice teachers, principals, and other 
school leaders with an opportunity to work under the guidance of 
experienced teachers, principals, other school leaders, and faculty of 
such institutions;
    (16) Create programs to enable paraprofessionals (assisting 
teachers employed by a local educational agency receiving assistance 
under part A of title I) to obtain the education necessary for those 
paraprofessionals to become certified and licensed teachers;
    (17) Provide follow-up training to teachers who have participated 
in activities described in this paragraph that are designed to ensure 
that the knowledge and skills learned by the teachers are implemented 
in the classroom; or
    (18) Where practicable, provide for school staff and other early 
childhood education program providers to address jointly the transition 
to elementary school, including issues related to school readiness.
    State comprehensive literacy plan means a plan that addresses the 
pre-literacy and literacy needs of children from birth through grade 
12, with special emphasis on disadvantaged children. A State 
comprehensive literacy plan aligns policies, resources, and practices; 
contains clear instructional goals; sets high expectations for all 
children and subgroups of children; and provides for professional 
development for all teachers in effective literacy instruction.
    State literacy team means a team comprised of individuals with 
expertise in literacy development and education for children from birth 
through grade 12. The State literacy team must include individuals with 
expertise in the following areas:
    (a) Implementing literacy development practices and instruction for 
children in the following age/grade levels: Birth to school entry, 
kindergarten through grade 5, grades 6 through 8, and grades 9 through 
12;
    (b) Managing and implementing evidence-based literacy programs;
    (c) Evaluating literacy programs;
    (d) Planning for and implementing effective literacy interventions 
and practices, particularly for disadvantaged children, struggling 
readers, English learners, and children with disabilities;
    (e) Implementing assessments in the areas of phonological 
awareness, word recognition, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, 
fluency, and writing; and
    (f) Implementing professional development on literacy development 
and instruction.
    A literacy team member may have expertise in more than one area. 
Team members may also include: Library/

[[Page 39880]]

media specialists; parents; literacy coaches; instructors of adult 
education; representatives of community-based organizations providing 
educational services to disadvantaged children and families; family 
literacy service providers; representatives from local or State school 
boards; and representatives from related child services agencies.
    Universal design for learning, as defined under section 103 of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, means a scientifically valid 
framework for guiding educational practice that--
    (A) Provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in 
the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in 
the ways students are engaged; and
    (B) Reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate 
accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high 
achievement expectations for all students, including students with 
disabilities and students who are limited English proficient.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ English learner and limited English proficient have the same 
meaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Selection Criteria:
    Background: We believe the following proposed selection criteria 
would contribute to our efforts to fund high-quality applications that 
will promote comprehensive literacy instruction programs under this 
grant.
    Proposed Selection Criteria: The Assistant Secretary proposes the 
following selection criteria for evaluating an application under this 
program. We may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in 
which this program is in effect. In the notice inviting applications, 
the application package, or both, we will announce the maximum possible 
points assigned to each criterion.
    (a) State-level activities.
    (1) The extent to which the SEA will support and provide technical 
assistance to its SRCL program subgrantees to ensure they implement a 
high-quality comprehensive literacy instruction program that will 
improve student achievement, including technical assistance on 
identifying and implementing with fidelity, interventions and practices 
that are supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness or strong 
evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), and align with 
local needs.
    (2) The extent to which the SEA will collect data and other 
information to inform the continuous improvement, and evaluate the 
effectiveness and impact, of local projects.
    (b) SEA plan for subgrants.
    The extent to which the SEA has a high-quality plan to use an 
independent peer review process to award subgrants that propose a high-
quality comprehensive literacy instruction program, including:
    (1) A plan to prioritize projects that will use interventions and 
practices that are supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness or 
strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1); and
    (2) A process to determine--
    (i) The alignment of the local project to the State's comprehensive 
literacy plan and local needs;
    (ii) The relevance of cited studies to the project proposed and 
identified needs; and
    (iii) The extent to which the intervention or practice is supported 
by moderate evidence of effectiveness or strong evidence of 
effectiveness, as defined in 34 CFR 77.1.
    (c) SEA monitoring plan.
    (1) The extent to which the SEA describes a high-quality plan for 
monitoring local projects, including how it will ensure that: (i) The 
interventions and practices that are part of the comprehensive literacy 
instruction program are aligned with the SEA's State comprehensive 
literacy plan and; (ii) the interventions and practices that 
subgrantees implement are supported by moderate evidence of 
effectiveness or strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 
77.1), to the extent appropriate and available; and (iii) these 
interventions and practices are implemented with fidelity and aligned 
with the SEA's State comprehensive literacy plan and local needs.
    (d) Alignment of Resources.
    The extent to which the SEA will: (1) Target subgrants supporting 
projects that will improve instruction for the greatest numbers or 
percentages of disadvantaged children; and (2) award subgrants of 
sufficient size to fully and effectively implement the local plan while 
also ensuring that at least--
    (i) 15 percent of the subgranted funds serve children from birth 
through age five;
    (ii) 40 percent of the subgranted funds serve students in 
kindergarten through grade five; and
    (iii) 40 percent of the subgranted funds serve students in middle 
and high school, through grade 12, including an equitable distribution 
of funds between middle and high schools.
    Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria: We will announce the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria after considering responses to this 
notice and other information available to the Department. This notice 
does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, 
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting 
applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, 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 proposed regulatory action would have an annual effect on the 
economy of more than $100 million because the amount of government 
transfers through the SRCL program exceeds that amount. Therefore, this 
proposed action is ``economically significant'' and subject to review 
by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding 
this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits, 
both quantitative and qualitative, of this proposed regulatory action 
and have determined that the benefits would justify the costs.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles,

[[Page 39881]]

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 proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that 
would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the 
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the 
principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this proposed regulatory action would 
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the need for 
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, net budget 
impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as 
regulatory alternatives we considered.

Need for Regulatory Action

    These proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are needed to implement the SRCL program award process in the 
manner that the Department believes will best enable the program to 
achieve its objectives of implementing effective literacy and pre-
literacy interventions and practices, at the local level, for 
disadvantaged children.

Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria would not impose significant costs 
on SEAs. Program participation is voluntary, and the costs imposed on 
applicants by the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria would be limited to paperwork burden related to 
preparing an application. The potential benefits of implementing the 
program using the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria would outweigh any costs incurred by applicants, and 
the costs of actually carrying out activities associated with the 
application would be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, 
the Department has determined that the costs of implementation would 
not be an undue burden for eligible applicants, including small 
entities.

Accounting Statement

    As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a&-4.pdf), in the 
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the 
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of 
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the 
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory 
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal 
Government to SEAs.

      Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
                              [In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                             Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers............  $190M.
 From Whom To Whom?                         From Federal Government to
                                             SEAs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SRCL program would provide approximately $190,000,000 in 
competitive grants to eligible SEAs.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections 
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public 
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can 
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden 
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are 
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact 
of collection requirements on respondents.
    We estimate that each applicant would spend approximately 240 hours 
of staff time to address the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria, prepare the application, and 
obtain necessary clearances. We expect to receive approximately 52 
applications. Therefore, for the 52 States (including the District of 
Columbia and Puerto Rico), the total burden for completing this grant 
application is 12,480 burden hours. The respondent cost is estimated at 
$40 per hour for each application. The total cost for approximately 52 
respondents is $499,200 (52 respondents x 240 hours x $40/hour = 
$499,200).
    We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) for this 
collection (1810-NEW). If you want to review and comment on the ICR, 
please follow the instructions listed under the ADDRESSES section of 
this notice.
    Note: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB and 
the Department of Education review all comments posted at 
www.regulations.gov.
    In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR, 
including the supporting materials, in www.regulations.gov by using the 
Docket ID number specified in this notice. This proposed collection is 
identified as proposed collection 1810-AB25.
    We consider your comments on this proposed collection of 
information in--
     Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for 
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the 
information will have practical use;
     Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and 
assumptions;

[[Page 39882]]

     Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information we collect; and
     Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This 
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
    Between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the 
Federal Register, OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
collection of information contained in these proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Therefore, to ensure 
that OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that 
OMB receives your comments on this ICR by July 20, 2016. This does not 
affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
    If your comments relate to the ICR for these proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, please specify the 
Docket ID number and indicate ``Information Collection Comments'' on 
the top of your comments.
    Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal 
mail or delivery related to the information collection requirements 
should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection 
Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue 
SW., Mailstop L-OM-2E319LBJ, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202-4537.
    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 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.

    Dated: June 15, 2016.
Ann Whalen,
Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of 
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2016-14529 Filed 6-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P