[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13122-13132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06583]
[[Page 13122]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2018-OESE-0069: CFDA Number: 84.283B]
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Performance
Measures--Comprehensive Centers Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance
measures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
(Assistant Secretary) announces priorities, requirements, definitions,
and performance measures under the Comprehensive Centers (CC) program.
The Assistant Secretary may use these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and performance measures for competitions in FY 2019 and
subsequent years. We take this action to focus Federal technical
assistance to address State-defined needs. We intend these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and performance measures to increase the
effectivess and efficiency of service delivery to all States.
DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance
measures are effective May 6, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Okahara, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E106, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-6930. 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: The CC program supports the establishment of
not less than 20 CCs to provide capacity-building services to State
educational agencies (SEAs), regional educational agencies (REAs),
local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools that improve educational
outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and improve the
quality of instruction.
Program Authority: Section 203 of the Educational Technical
Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and performance measures (NPP) for this program in the
Federal Register on September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49031). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance
measures.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, we
received 26 comments on the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and performance measures.
We group major issues according to subject matter. Generally, we do
not address technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: There are differences between the
NPP and this notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
performance measures (NFP). An analysis of the comments and of any
changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance
measures since publication of the NPP follows.
Proposed Priority and Program Requirements--Regional Centers
Comment: One commenter suggested that the CCs should support States
in the effective application of research in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student
Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESEA), Title III-funded initiatives involving
English learners and immigrant students.
Discussion: Although we have not chosen to require Regional Centers
or the National Center to support States in the implementation of ESEA
Title III, nothing in this NFP precludes Centers from working with
States on specific initiatives related to English learners. While we
would encourage this work, we believe it is important to allow Centers
the flexibility to be responsive to State needs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that we define the terms
``intensive'' and ``targeted'' capacity-building services. Another
commenter recommended inclusion of definitions for short-, medium-, and
long-term outcomes. Another commenter supported the proposed definition
of ``capacity building.''
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support and requests for
clarification. We defined ``intensive'' and ``targeted'' capacity-
building services and ``outcomes'' in the NPP, and clarify and finalize
them in this NFP. We agree that expanding the definitions of short-,
medium-, and long-term outcomes to include estimated timeframes can aid
applicants in systematically planning, monitoring, and evaluating
services. We expect applicants to use these definitions to drive
decisions on proposed resources (e.g., staff) and proposed types of
services (e.g., coaching). Furthermore, we expect applicants to develop
clear, specific, and actionable evaluation questions that address the
components, interrelationships, and timeframes (short-, medium-, and
long-term) in the FY 2019 CC Logic Model. We also clarify ``intensive''
and seek to align the definition with the FY 2019 CC Logic Model.
Changes: We have revised the definition of ``outcome'' to include
differentiation of ``short-term, ``medium-term,'' and ``long-term''
outcomes. ``Short-term outcomes'' means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after one year. ``Medium-term outcomes'' means
effects of receiving capacity-building services after two to three
years. ``Long-term outcomes'' means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after four or more years. We have revised the
definition of ``intensive'' to clarify that the term means assistance,
as well as ``periodic reflection, continuous feedback, and use of
evidence-based improvement strategies.'' We have also revised the
definition of ``intensive'' to clarify that this category of capacity-
building services should ``result in medium-term and long-term
outcomes.''
Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about CCs assisting
States in addressing audit findings and corrective actions as a result
of the Department's monitoring. A few commenters stated that Centers
should not be required to ensure that States comply with Department
regulations or enforce the Department's corrective actions as a result
of monitoring and recommended clarifying the scope of the requirement.
Some commenters also indicated that this requirement may negatively
impact trust and working relationships between CCs and their respective
clients and recipients. One commenter sought clarification on whether
the requirement specified certain monitoring or audit findings.
Discussion: We agree that CCs should not enforce, and are
prohibited from enforcing, compliance with Department-issued corrective
actions or resolve audit findings as a result of the Department's
monitoring. Further, we agree that it is outside the scope of the CC
program for CCs to provide technical assistance on non-programmatic or
repayment issues that arise in audits and other oversight reports.
However, we believe CCs can, at the request of the client, identify and
carry out capacity-building services that help States address
corrective actions or audit findings that are programmatic in nature
(e.g., developing policies and
[[Page 13123]]
procedures to improve equitable resource allocation).
Changes: We have revised Priority 1--Regional Centers to clarify
that CCs are permitted to provide, in response to a request from a
client, capacity-building services designed to to help States address
corrective actions resulting from audit findings and monitoring
conducted by the Department.
Comment: Multiple commenters raised concerns about the Program
Requirements for Regional Centers (6) for a full-time Project Director.
One commenter agreed with the full-time Project Director requirement.
Several commenters stated a full-time Project Director would reduce the
budget available to hire qualified experts or consultants. Some
commenters also emphasized that having a full-time Project Director may
limit the Project Director from engaging in other work that might
benefit the clients and recipients to be served. One commenter stated
that some of the most talented and qualified individuals may not be
available full-time and therefore could not serve as Project Directors.
Multiple commenters recommended changing the full-time Project
Director requirement to 0.6-0.75 full-time equivalency (FTE) or to
reduce the requirement significantly. Alternatively, one commenter
recommended splitting the full-time Project Director requirement with a
deputy director or senior advisor, noting the management structure in
the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) program as an example.
Discussion: We recognize the important role that Project Directors
play in carrying out the priorities and requirements of the CC program.
We appreciate the commenters' concerns and recognize that, in some
cases, a full-time Project Director may hamper a CC's ability to
recruit and retain experts to meet State needs. Accordingly, to allow
the Centers more flexibility, we are revising the requirement to
provide Centers the option to have one person serve as Project Director
on a nearly full-time basis or to have Co-Project Directors serving on
a half-time basis. An applicant must be able to demonstrate that the
proposed Project Director or proposed Co-Project Directors are able to
lead and manage all aspects of the Center's work.
Changes: We have revised the Program Requirements for Regional
Centers (6) Project Director requirement to give applicants two
options: (i) One at minimum 0.75 FTE Project Director or (ii) two at
minimum 0.5 FTE Co-Project Directors.
Comment: Multiple commenters requested to remove the requirement
that the Project Director be located in the Center's assigned region.
Several commenters expressed that qualified Project Directors may
not live in a State served by the Regional Center but may be physically
closer to clients served by that Regional Center. One commenter stated
that a Project Director may connect remotely to their respective
clients and recipients, and therefore does not need to reside in the
region.
Other commenters expressed support for the Department's requirement
to have Project Directors located in their assigned regions.
Discussion: We appreciate both the commenters who supported this
requirement and the commenters that believe the Department should
remove it.
Upon further examination of this issue, for maximum flexibility, we
are removing the Project Director residency requirement and revising
the Application Requirements for All Centers (6) regarding the Regional
Centers' communications plans. We believe these changes will provide
the flexibility that some commenters sought in the operation of their
Centers while continuing to emphasize our belief that cultivating in-
person relationships with clients, recipients, and partners that are
knowledgeable of the identified needs for that region is critical to
the successful operation of any Regional Center.
Changes: We have removed the Project Director residency requirement
under the Program Requirements for Regional Centers (6). In place of
the requirement, we have revised the Application Requirement for All
Centers (5) to request that an applicant describe its plan to
continuously cultivate in-person relationships with clients,
recipients, and partners that are knowledgeable of the identified needs
for that region.
Comment: One commenter stated that Regional Center staff should be
located in the region.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenter. To ensure maximum
flexibility in the successful operation of the Centers, we believe that
Regional Center staff should not be required to be located in the
region. To this end, we have also removed the residency requirement for
the Project Director. Key personnel must, however, be able to provide
on-site services at the intensity and duration appropriate to achieve
agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in State
service plans.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether the
applicant needs to be physically based in the region. A couple of
commenters supported the requirement that the entity be physically
located in the region.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters that supported the
requirement for the applicant to be physically located in the region.
We reaffirm the requirement that the applicant must be located in the
region to which it applies.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commentor sought clarification on who the client is
for the Regional Centers.
Discussion: We clarify that the client refers to the Chief State
School Officer (CSSO) or his or her designee.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that, under the Proposed
Requirements for Regional Centers (2) and (4), LEAs could request
intensive services from Regional Centers without prior consultation or
approval from the CSSO or designees (clients). Some commenters agreed
with providing capacity-building services to LEAs, in collaboration
with SEAs, to implement programs funded under ESEA.
Discussion: We appreciate this concern and clarify that Regional
Centers, consistent with Program Requirements for Regional Centers (1),
must demonstrate that they have consulted and garnered commitment from
CSSOs or their designees prior to carrying out capacity-building
services. CSSOs or their designees are the Regional Centers' clients
and will work with their respective Center to identify recipients of
services (i.e., teams at the SEA-, REA-, LEA-, or school-level).
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the Department should
preserve the FY 2012 Regional Center configuration outlined in the CC
notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2013, published in
the Federal Register on June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33564).
Discussion: While we appreciate the commenters' request to preserve
the FY 2012 regional configuration, we believe that by reducing the
number of States assigned to each Regional Center, Regional Centers can
more effectively support their assigned States in implementing and
scaling-up of evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters expressed that the proposed FY 2019
regional configuration of State
[[Page 13124]]
assignments would be detrimental to their States' ability to implement
State and Federal programs because they have built long-standing,
collaborative relationships with other States.
Similarly, two State commenters requested to stay in their existing
FY 2012 regional configuration in order to limit disruption to working
relationships among SEAs.
Discussion: We recognize the importance of positive, collaborative
working relationships among States. However, nothing in the priority or
the requirements precludes any State from partnering with another
State, or from working with the National Center to request capacity-
building services involving another State regardless of regional
assignment. Nevertheless, we understand the commenters' concern and
believe that should a State determine, after earnest negotiation with
its assigned Regional Center, that the Regional Center is not able to
meet its needs (e.g., the Regional Center is not able to secure
appropriate experts to meet a State's needs), a State should have
flexibility to request to be assigned to a different Regional Center.
To that end, the Department intends to include in the FY 2019 notice
inviting applications for this program the provisions under Flexibility
and Requirements for Regional Center Assignments established in the
notice of final priorities, requirements, and selection criteria-
Comprehensive Centers Program published in the Federal Register on June
6, 2012 (77 FR 33573), which allow an SEA, in any fiscal year, to
indicate to the Department its desire to affiliate with a different
Regional Center, regardless of the geographic location of that Center.
A State could exercise this option once in any two-year period.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters submitted alternative regional
configurations. Some commenters recommended grouping States that have
similar characteristics, such as school-age populations, proportion of
economically disadvantaged students, and comparable increased costs to
service rural areas. Other commenters expressed support for the FY 2019
regional configuration.
Discussion: We appreciate the expressions of support for the
proposed FY 2019 regional configuration. We believe that such regional
configurations would increase administrative and travel costs,
ultimately resulting in reduced services to States. Furthermore, the
National Center will have the responsibility to convene States--
including, as appropriate, those States that share similar
characteristics so that such States can discuss common high-leverage
problems (e.g., addressing educator shortages in sparsely populated
areas). For these reasons, we decline to revise our proposed
configuration to assign Regional Centers to non-contiguous States that
share similar characteristics.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters stated that Regional Centers that serve
sparsely populated States will not have adequate funding, resulting in
limited access to resources. The same commenters requested that we
provide adequate funding to those Regional Centers to account for the
increased costs of service delivery in areas of sparse population.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters' request to ensure that
Regional Centers that serve rural populations are funded at an adequate
level. In order to ensure that Regional Centers can meet the unique
needs of clients and recipients in their assigned region, we plan to
institute a minimum award amount of $1,000,000 for each Regional Center
contingent on CC funding. This award amount should enable Regional
Centers that serve rural areas to account for the increased cost
burdens of service delivery. In addition, and consistent with section
203 of the ETAA (20 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), we consider the school-age
population, proportion of economically disadvantaged students, and the
increased costs of service delivery in areas of sparse population when
determining the amount of funds to make available to each Regional
Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed a concern that Regional Centers
serving sparsely populated States may not have access to appropriate
experts needed to carry out effective capacity-building services.
Discussion: Consistent with the Application Requirements for All
Centers (3), all entities must be able to demonstrate in their
application and throughout the grant period that they can effectively
secure the services of experts and other consultants to address
identified and emerging State needs. Nothing in Priority 1--Regional
Centers or the Program Requirements for Regional Centers precludes
Regional Centers from securing appropriate expertise, such as through
subgrants or contracts, with entities or individuals in order to carry
out capacity-building services.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that Regional Centers should be
aligned with the RELs.
Discussion: Consistent with the ETAA, in establishing CC regions,
the Department considers their alignment with the 10 geographic regions
served by the RELs established under section 941(h) of the Educational
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994 (see
section 203(a)(2)(A) of the ETAA). To facilitate collaboration among
RELs and CCs, we believe further alignment between the Regional Centers
configuration will increase the likelihood that coordination among
capacity-building services occurs.
Changes: We have revised Region 3 to serve Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands. We have revised Region 7 to serve Alabama, Florida, and
Mississippi. We have revised Region 11 to serve Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wyoming. We have revised Region 12 to serve Colorado,
Kansas, and Missouri. We have revised Region 13 to serve Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE), New Mexico, and Oklahoma. We have revised
Region 15 to serve Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that, in addition to providing
intensive capacity-building services, Regional Centers should also
provide targeted capacity-building services.
Discussion: We believe allowing Regional Centers to provide
targeted capacity-building services could result in duplication of
efforts and that the National Center is best positioned to provide
targeted capacity-building services to eligible recipients with like
needs. States also have the option to request services directly from
the National Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters supported the Department in directing CCs
to provide assistance in the areas of evidence-based practices,
professional development models, and unique issues facing rural and
remote districts and schools.
Discussion: We appreciate and share the commenters' interest in
assisting States in the implementation of evidence-based practices,
professional development models, and support to sparsely populated
areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that although the proposed priorities
may decrease duplication of services provided by the Regional Centers
and the National Center (e.g., the National Center, by providing
learning opportunities on English language learners nationally in
comparison to
[[Page 13125]]
multiple Regional Centers providing similar learning opportunities for
their respective States), they may also increase bureaucracy,
explaining that if the Content Centers established by the FY 2012
Comprehensive Centers competition were preserved, such services could
be provided to address State issues.
Discussion: We maintain that the FY 2019 configuration enables
greater flexibility for Centers to provide differentiated and
coordinated supports to all States. By eliminating the seven Content
Centers, we believe that we will minimize duplication of resource
development and learning opportunities to States.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asserted that Regional Centers must have
appropriate expertise, including, but not limited to, expertise in
balancing budgets.
Discussion: We agree that Regional Centers should have this
expertise. Pursuant to Application Requirements for All Centers (3)(i)-
(iv), applicants must demonstrate expertise in the following areas:
Managing budgets, performance management processes, root-cause
analysis, and monitoring and evaluation.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters sought clarification on the differences
between the REL program and the CC program.
Discussion: The CC program emphasizes the delivery of capacity-
building services that support implementation of State-identified
initiatives (i.e., conducting a needs assessment, developing a logic
model, identifying evidence-based strategies, practices, and
interventions, planning for implementation and implementing evidence-
based strategies, practices, and interventions, and monitoring for
continous improvement). In contrast to the CC program, the REL program
emphasizes applied research, development, and dissemination of
educational innovations, and evaluation of the effectiveness of
educational innovations. REL services assist States, districts, and
other stakeholders in conducting applied research, providing support
and training for the application of research to education problems, and
disseminating credible, up[hyphen]to[hyphen]date research on the
efficacy of educational innovations. For more information, visit
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns that requiring, as part
of the application, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with entities
that operate RELs in the region to which they are applying may unfairly
advantage those entities that currently operate an REL or introduce
conflicts of interest, such as an entity not agreeing to execute MOUs
for competing entities prior to award.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that expressed concern
that requiring an entity to submit an MOU as part of its application
may introduce conflicts of interest for any entity that currently
operates an REL.
Changes: We have removed Application Requirements for All Centers
(4). We have revised the Program Requirements for Regional Centers (5)
to include submission of copies of MOU(s) with REL(s) and other
Department-funded technical assistance providers within 90 days of
receiving an award.
Comment: Another commenter sought clarification on how the
Department or CCs would conduct needs assessments to determine State
priorities.
Discussion: We clarify that the Department will not be conducting
needs assessments. Rather, as outlined in Application Requirements for
All Centers (3)(iii) and Program Requirements for Regional Centers (1),
Regional Centers must work with their assigned States to conduct needs
assessments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Another commenter expressed that the CCs may have a
significant positive impact for small businesses and their employees.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that small businesses and
their employees may benefit from this program. Consistent with Program
Requirements for Regional Centers (5), Regional Centers are required to
identify and enter into partnership agreements with, among other
entities, businesses and industry with the purpose of supporting States
in the implementation and scale-up of evidence-based programs,
practices, and interventions, as well as reducing duplication of
services to States.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters asked if Regional Centers could make
resources or staff available to all States should Regional Centers or
their staff have expertise in a specific area.
Discussion: Nothing precludes a State from requesting that its
assigned Regional Center procure experts that may be affiliated with
another Regional Center or National Center. The National Center,
however, has the sole responsibility to develop and widely disseminate
resources to all States.
Changes: None.
Proposed Priority and Program Requirements--National Center
Comment: One commenter supported the Department's emphasis on
helping States serve students from low-income families.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support on emphasizing
services to States that serve students from low-income families.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters contended that the services to be offered
by the National Center are duplicative and would not add significant
value. One commenter added that the education field does not lack the
types of resources or services that the National Center may provide.
Other commenters expressed support for the types of services the
National Center would provide.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the types of
services the National Center would provide. We further note that,
contrary to the assertion of some commenters, the National Center is
specifically designed to minimize duplication of services in the CC
program and to provide demand-driven resources, that, by definition,
are unlikely to be available elsewhere and thus will be of significant
value to State clients. The National Center will deliver services to
State clients and identified recipients to address common high-leverage
programs, implementation challenges, and emerging needs, such as but
not limited to expanding school choice. Accordingly, the National
Center will only create resources that address common client needs,
identified in coordination with Regional Centers. The National Center
will also be responsible for coordinating experts, internal and
external to the CC network, to provide targeted capacity-building
services to States, as defined in this notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters sought clarification on whether there will
be a centralized place that displays upcoming events and opportunities
from Regional Centers and if any State or Regional Center may
participate in events or opportunities carried out by the National
Center.
Discussion: The Department is always trying to disseminate
information more widely. We note that the Program Requirements for the
National Center (2), (4), and (5) outline requirements to maintain the
CC network website and disseminate information. This website will
provide all States and Regional Centers with access to upcoming events
and State service plans, as appropriate.
[[Page 13126]]
Regional Centers may participate in National Center activities, at the
request of the client or Department.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter sought clarification on Regional and
National Center collaboration.
Discussion: Program Requirements for Regional Centers (4) requires
Regional Centers to collaborate with the National Center to support
client and recipient participation in learning opportunities (e.g.,
communities of practices, leadership academies, and convenings). The
cooperative agreement will outline specific requirements regarding
collaboration between Regional Centers and the National Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the National Center should not
be charged with addressing audit findings.
Discussion: We agree that the National Center should not be
responsible for addressing or enforcing the resolution of corrective
actions or audit findings as a result of the Department's monitoring.
Further, we agree that it is outside the scope of the CC program for
CC's to provide technical assistance on non-programmatic or repayment
issues that arise in audits and other oversight reports. However, we
believe that identifying common services to help address findings from
finalized Department monitoring reports or audit findings related to
programmatic issues is an appropriate role for the National Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: Another commenter stated that the National Center is
counterintuitive and not useful for States that believe strongly in
States' rights and local control.
Discussion: We agree that State and local control are important in
our Nation's education system. While the National Center is intended to
provide targeted and universal capacity-building services to all
States, participation in those opportunities and events is entirely
voluntary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested a second National Center that
would focus exclusively on evidence-based programs and practices.
Discussion: While we appreciate the suggestion, we reject the
commenter's recommendation to create a second National Center. All
Regional Centers must work with States to identify, implement, and
sustain evidence-based practices that support improved educator and
student outcomes. To that end, the National Center will help develop
and disseminate resources that support the use of evidence-based
practices. Therefore, we believe a second National Center focused
exclusively on evidence-based practices would be duplicative.
Changes: None.
Proposed Program Logic Model
Comment: Several commenters suggested revisions to the proposed
logic model, including: Adding increased equity and reduction of
disproportionalities; changing improved educational opportunities to
include access to current and future learning experiences for the
child's developmental stage and back-filling learning opportunities;
including that learning relies on funds of knowledge; modifying
disadvantaged student to consider hindrances to excelling at school;
and modifying improved learning outcomes to include expanded outcomes
beyond academics.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions. The FY 2019
CC Logic Model places a renewed focus on economically disadvantaged
students and schools and implementing comprehensive support and
improvement activities and targeted support and improvement activities
under section 1111(d) of the ESEA as required by the ETAA. Nothing
precludes CCs, however, from providing capacity-building services to
support the administration and implementation of programs authorized
under the ESEA for all students. Accordingly, we reject the
recommendations to modify the logic model in order to account for all
potential services the CCs may provide for States and clients.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters stated that there is a disconnect in the
logic model target population of disadvantaged and low-income students
and the requirements language, such as mentioning students from low-
income families and disadvantaged students in the FY 2019 CC Logic
Model and only mentioning students from low-income families in Priority
1--Regional Centers.
Discussion: We share the commenters' concern to align the FY 2019
CC Logic Model with the appropriate target populations and seek to
align the FY 2019 CC Logic Model with the priorities described in this
notice. If Centers provide appropriate capacity-building services to
SEAs, LEAs, REAs, and schools, then individual and organizational
capacity to implement school improvement programs may improve. If SEAs,
LEAs, REAs, and schools improve the implementation of school
improvement programs (medium-term outcomes), then educational
opportunities for all students may improve (long-term outcomes). In
order to clarify and align target populations, we are revising Priority
1--Regional Centers to include ``disadvantaged students.'' The revision
makes the Priority 1Regional Centers consistent with the mid- and long-
term outcome target populations of ``disadvantaged and low-income
students'' described in the FY 2019 CC Logic Model.
Changes: We have modified Priority 1--Regional Centers (1) to
include ``disadvantaged students.''
Final Priorities
This notice contains two priorities. The Assistant Secretary may
use one or both of these priorities for the FY 2019 CC program
competition or for any subsequent competitions.
Priority 1--Regional Centers
Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate the following--
Regional Centers must provide high-quality intensive capacity-
building services to State clients and recipients to identify,
implement, and sustain effective evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR
77.1) programs, practices, and interventions that support improved
educator and student outcomes. As appropriate, capacity-building
services must assist clients and recipients in: (1) Carrying out
Consolidated State Plans approved under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of
2015 (ESEA), with preference given to the implementation and scaling up
of evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that directly
benefit recipients that have disadvantaged students or high percentages
or numbers of students from low-income families as referenced in Title
I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA secs. 1113(a)(5) and 1111(d)) and
recipients that are implementing comprehensive support and improvement
activities or targeted support and improvement activities as referenced
in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)); (2) implementing
and scaling-up evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions
that address the unique educational obstacles faced by rural
populations; (3) identifying and carrying out capacity-building
services to clients that help States address corrective actions or
results from audit findings and monitoring, conducted by the
Department, that are programmatic in nature, at the request of the
client; and (4) working with the National Center to identify trends and
best practices, and develop cost-effective strategies to make their
work available to as many REAs,
[[Page 13127]]
LEAs, and schools in need of support as possible.
Applicants must propose to operate a Regional Center in one of the
following regions:
Region 1: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont
Region 2: Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island
Region 3: Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Region 4: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania
Region 5: Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia
Region 6: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Region 7: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi
Region 8: Indiana, Michigan, Ohio
Region 9: Illinois, Iowa
Region 10: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Region 11: Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming
Region 12: Colorado, Kansas, Missouri
Region 13: Bureau of Indian Education, New Mexico, Oklahoma
Region 14: Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas
Region 15: Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah
Region 16: Alaska, Oregon, Washington
Region 17: Idaho, Montana
Region 18: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated
States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau
Region 19: American Samoa, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands
Priority 2--National Center
Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate the following--
The National Center must provide high-quality universal (e.g.,
policy briefs) and targeted (e.g., peer-to-peer exchanges and
communities of practice that convene SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools on a
particular topic) capacity-building services to address the following:
Common high-leverage problems identified in Regional Center State
service plans (as outlined in the Program Requirements for the National
Center (1)), common services to help address findings from finalized
Department monitoring reports or audit findings, common implementation
challenges faced by States and Regional Centers, and emerging national
education trends.
As appropriate, universal and targeted capacity-building services
must assist Regional Center clients and recipients to: (1) Implement
approved ESEA Consolidated State Plans, with preference given to
implementing and scaling evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions that directly benefit entities that have high percentages
or numbers of students from low-income families as referenced in Title
I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5) and 1111(d)) and recipients
that are implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities
or targeted support and improvement activities as referenced in Title
I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)); and (2) implement and scale
up evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that address
the unique educational obstacles faced by rural populations. The work
of the National Center must include the implementation of effective
strategies for reaching and supporting as many SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and
schools in need of services as possible.
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 establishes the following requirements for
the Comprehensive Centers program.
Program Requirements for Regional Centers: Applicants that receive
grants under this program must:
(1) Develop State service plans annually in consultation with each
State's Chief State School Officers that includes the following
elements: High-leverage problems to be addressed, phase of
implementation (e.g., needs assessment), capacity-building services to
be delivered, key personnel responsible, key Department-funded
technical assistance partners, milestones, outputs, outcomes, and, if
appropriate, fidelity measures. The annual State service plans must be
an update to the Regional Center's five-year plan submitted as part of
the Regional Center's application. The annual State service plan
elements must also correspond to the relevant sections of the FY 2019
CC Logic Model.
(2) Develop and implement an effective personnel management system
that enables the Regional Center to efficiently obtain and retain the
services of nationally recognized content experts and other consultants
with direct experience working with SEAs, REAs, and LEAs. Personnel
must demonstrate that they have the appropriate expertise to deliver
quality, intensive services that meet client and recipient needs
similar to those in the region to be served.
(3) Develop and implement an effective communications system that
enables routine and ongoing exploration of client and recipient needs
as well as feedback on services provided. The system must enable
routine monitoring of progress toward agreed-upon outcomes, outputs,
and milestones; periodic assessment of client satisfaction; and timely
identification of changes in State contexts that may impact the success
of the project. The communications system must include processes for
outreach activities (e.g., regular promotion of services and products
to clients and potential and current recipients, particularly at the
local level), regular engagement and coordination with the National
Center and partner organizations (e.g., other federally funded
technical assistance providers), use of feedback loops across
organizational levels (Federal, State, and local), and regular
engagement of stakeholders involved in or impacted by proposed
services.
(4) Collaborate with the National Center to support client and
recipient participation in learning opportunities (e.g., multi-State
and cross-regional peer-to-peer exchanges on high-leverage problems)
and support participation of Regional Center staff in learning
opportunities (e.g., peer-to-peer exchanges on effective coaching
systems), with the goal of reaching as many REAs, LEAs, and schools in
need of services as possible while also providing high-quality
services.
(5) Identify and enter into partnership agreements with national
organizations, businesses, and industry for the purpose of supporting
States in the implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based programs,
practices, and interventions, as well as reducing duplication of
services to States. Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award,
provide copies of MOU(s) with the REL(s) in the region that the Center
serves and Department-funded technical assistance providers that are
charged
[[Page 13128]]
with supporting comprehensive, systemic changes in States or
Department-funded technical assistance providers with particular
expertise (e.g., early learning or instruction for English language
learners).
(6) Be located in the region the Center serves. The Project
Director must be capable of managing all aspects of the Center and be
either at minimum 0.75 FTE or there must be two Co-Project Directors
each at minimum 0.5 FTE. The Project Director or Co-Project Directors
and key personnel must also be able to provide on-site services at the
intensity, duration, and modality appropriate to achieving agreed-upon
milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in annual State service
plans.
(7) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, demonstrate
that it has secured client and partner commitments to carry out
proposed State service plans.
Program Requirements for the National Center
(1) Develop a national service plan annually in consultation with
the Department and Regional Centers. The national service plan must
take into account commonalities in identified high-leverage problems in
State service plans, finalized Department monitoring and audit
findings, implementation challenges faced by Regional Centers and
States, and emerging national education trends. The annual national
service plan must be an update to the Center's five-year plan submitted
as part of the Center's application. The annual national service plan
must include, at a minimum, the following elements: High-leverage
problems to be addressed, capacity-building services to be delivered,
key personnel responsible, milestones, outputs, and outcome measures.
The annual national service plan must also include evidence that the
Center involved Regional Centers in identifying targeted and universal
services that complement Regional Center services to improve client and
recipient capacity.
(2) Maintain the CC network website with an easy-to-navigate design
that meets government or industry-recognized standards for
accessibility.
(3) Develop and implement an effective personnel management system
that enables the Center to retain and efficiently obtain the services
of education practitioners, researchers, policy professionals, and
other consultants with direct experience with SEAs, REAs, and LEAs.
Personnel must have a proven record of publishing in peer-reviewed
journals, presenting at national conferences, and/or delivering quality
adult learning experiences that meet client and recipient needs.
(4) Disseminate information (e.g., instructional videos, toolkits,
and briefs) and evidence-based practices to a variety of education
stakeholders, including the general public, via multiple mechanisms
such as the CC network website, social media, and other channels as
appropriate.
(5) Disseminate State service plans, Center annual performance
reports, and other materials through the CC network website and other
channels as appropriate.
(6) Collaborate with Regional Centers to implement learning
opportunities for recipients (e.g., multi-State and cross-regional
peer-to-peer exchanges on high-leverage problems) and develop learning
opportunities for Regional Center staff to address implementation
challenges (e.g., peer-to-peer exchanges on effective coaching systems
for English language learners).
(7) Develop and implement an effective communications system that
enables routine and ongoing exploration of Regional Center client and
recipient needs. The system must enable routine monitoring of progress
toward agreed-upon outcomes, outputs, and milestones; periodic
assessment of client satisfaction; and timely identification of changes
in Federal or State contexts that may impact success of the project.
The communications system must include processes for outreach
activities (e.g., regular promotion of services and products to clients
and potential and current recipients), use of feedback loops across
organizational levels (Federal, State, and local), regular engagement
and coordination with the Department, Regional Centers, and partner
organizations (e.g., federally funded technical assistance providers),
and engagement of stakeholders involved in or impacted by proposed
school improvement activities.
(8) Identify potential partners and enter into partnership
agreements with other federally funded technical assistance providers,
industry, national associations, and other organizations to support the
implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based programs, practices,
and interventions.
(9) Identify a Project Director that is either at minimum 0.75 FTE
or two Co-Project Directors at minimum 0.5 FTE capable of managing all
aspects of the CC.
(10) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, demonstrate
that it has secured client and partner commitments to carry out the
proposed national service plan.
Final Application Requirements
All Centers
(1) Present applicable State, regional, and local data
demonstrating the current needs related to building capacity to
implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions. Reference, as appropriate, information related to the
Department's finalized monitoring and audit findings.
(2) Demonstrate expert knowledge of statutory requirements,
regulations, and policies related to programs authorized under ESEA and
current education issues and policy initiatives for supporting the
implementation and scaling up of evidence-based programs, practices,
and interventions.
(3) Consistent with the priorities and requirements for this
program, demonstrate expertise and experience in the following areas:
(i) Managing budgets; selecting, coordinating, and overseeing
multiple consultant and sub-contractor teams; and leading large-scale
projects to deliver tools, training, and other services to governments,
agencies, communities, businesses, schools, or other organizations.
(ii) Designing and implementing performance management processes
with staff, subcontractors, and consultants that enable effective
hiring, developing, supervising, and retaining a team of subject-matter
experts and professional staff.
(iii) Identifying problems and conducting root-cause analysis;
developing and implementing logic models, organizational assessments,
strategic plans, and process improvements; and sustaining the use of
evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions.
(iv) Monitoring and evaluating activities, including, but not
limited to: Compiling data, conducting interviews, developing tools to
enhance capacity-building approaches, conducting data analysis using
statistical software, interpreting results from data using widely
acceptable quantitative and qualitative methods, and developing
evaluation reports.
(4) Describe the current research on adult learning principles,
coaching, and implementation science that will inform the applicant's
capacity-building services, including how the applicant will promote
self-sufficiency and sustainability of State-led school improvement
activities.
(5) Present a proposed communications plan for working with
appropriate levels of the education system (e.g., SEAs, REAs, LEAs,
and/or schools) to ensure there is
[[Page 13129]]
communication between each level and that there are processes in place
to support, and continuously assess, the implementation of evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions. The applicant must
describe how it will engage in meaningful consultation with a broad
range of stakeholders (e.g., principals, teachers, families, community
members). The ideal applicant will propose effective strategies for
receiving ongoing and timely input on the needs of its clients and the
usefulness of its services and describe how it will continuously
cultivate in-person relationships with clients, recipients, and
partners that are knowledgeable of the identified needs for that
region.
(6) Present a proposed evaluation plan for the project. The
evaluation plan must describe the criteria for determining the extent
to which: Milestones were met; outputs were met; recipient outcomes
(short-term, mid-term, and long-term) were met; and capacity-building
services proposed in State service plans were implemented as intended.
(7) Present a logic model informed by research or evaluation
findings that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1)
explaining how the project is likely to improve or achieve relevant and
expected outcomes. This logic model must align with the FY 2019 CC
Logic Model, communicate how the project will achieve its expected
outcomes (short-term, mid-term, and long-term), and provide a framework
for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project
consistent with the applicant's evaluation plan. Include a description
of underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and
theories, as well as the relationships and linkages among these
variables, and any empirical support for this framework.
(8) Include an assurance that, if awarded a grant, the applicant
will assist the Department with the transfer of pertinent resources and
products and maintain the continuity of services to States during the
transition to this new award period, as appropriate, including by
working with the FY 2012 Comprehensive Center on Building State
Capacity and Productivity to migrate products, resources, and other
relevant project information to the National Center's Comprehensive
Center network website.
Regional Centers
In addition to meeting the Application Requirements for All
Centers, a Regional Center applicant must--
(1) describe the proposed approach to intensive capacity-building
services, including identification of intended recipients and alignment
of proposed capacity-building services to meet client needs. The
applicant must also describe how it intends to measure the readiness of
clients and recipients to work with the applicant; measure client and
recipient capacity across the four capacity-building dimensions,
including available resources; and measure the ability of the client
and recipients to build capacity at the local level.
National Center
In addition to meeting the application requirements for all
Centers, a National Center applicant must--
(1) Demonstrate expertise and experience in leading digital
engagement strategies to attract and sustain involvement of education
stakeholders, including, but not limited to: Implementing a robust web
and social media presence, overseeing customer relations management,
providing editorial support, and collecting and analyzing web
analytics.
(2) Describe the intended recipients of and the proposed approach
to targeted capacity-building services, including how the applicant
intends to collaborate with Regional Centers to identify potential
recipients and how many it has the capacity to reach; measure the
readiness and capacity of potential recipients across the four
dimensions of capacity-building services; and continuously engage
potential recipients over the five-year period.
(3) Describe the intended recipients of and the proposed approach
to universal capacity-building services, including how many recipients
it plans to reach and how the applicant intends to: Measure the quality
of the products and services developed to address common high-leverage
problems; support recipients in the selection, implementation, and
monitoring of evidence-based practices and interventions; and improve
knowledge of emerging national education trends.
Final Definitions
The Assistant Secretary establishes the following definitions for
the purposes of the Comprehensive Centers program. We may apply one or
more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in
effect.
Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous
improvement and achieve expected outcomes.
The four dimensions of capacity-building services are:
(1) Human capacity means development or improvement of individual
knowledge, skills, technical expertise, and ability to adapt and be
resilient to policy and leadership changes.
(2) Organizational capacity means structures that support clear
communication and a shared understanding of an organization's visions
and goals, and delineated individual roles and responsibilities in
functional areas.
(3) Policy capacity means structures that support alignment,
differentiation, or enactment of local, State, and Federal policies and
initiatives.
(4) Resource capacity means tangible materials and assets that
support alignment and use of Federal, State, private, and local funds.
The three tiers of capacity-building services are:
(1) Intensive means assistance often provided on-site and requiring
a stable, ongoing relationship between the Regional Center and its
clients and recipients, as well as periodic reflection, continuous
feedback, and use of evidence-based improvement strategies. This
category of capacity-building services should support increased
recipient capacity in more than one capacity dimension and result in
medium-term and long-term outcomes at one or more system levels.
(2) Targeted means assistance based on needs common to multiple
clients and recipients and not extensively individualized. A
relationship is established between the recipient(s), the National
Center, and Regional Center(s) as appropriate. This category of
capacity-building services includes one-time, labor-intensive events,
such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting national or regional
conferences. It can also include less labor-intensive events that
extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of
conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around
the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted capacity-building services.
(3) Universal means assistance and information provided to
independent users through their own initiative, involving minimal
interaction with National Center staff and including one-time, invited
or offered conference presentations by National Center staff. This
category of capacity-building services also includes information or
products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, policy briefs, or research
syntheses, downloaded from the Center's website by independent users.
Brief communications by National
[[Page 13130]]
Center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal services.
High-leverage problems means problems that (1) if addressed could
result in substantial improvements for many students or for key
subgroups of students as defined in ESEA sections 1111(c) and (d); (2)
are priorities for education policymakers, particularly at the State
level; and (3) require intensive capacity-building services to achieve
outcomes that address the problem.
Milestone means an activity that must be completed. Examples
include: Identifying key district administrators responsible for
professional development, sharing key observations from needs
assessment with district administrators and identified stakeholders,
preparing a logic model, planning for State-wide professional
development, identifying subject matter experts, and conducting train-
the-trainer sessions.
Outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-building services.
Examples include: 95 percent of district administrators reported
increased knowledge; two districts reported improved cross-agency
coordination; and three districts reported identification of 2.0 FTE
responsible for professional development.
(1) Short-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 1 year consistent with the FY 2019 CC Logic
Model.
(2) Medium-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 2 to 3 years consistent with the FY 2019 CC
Logic Model.
(3) Long-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-building
services after 4 or more years consistent with the FY 2019 CC Logic
Model.
Outputs means products and services that must be completed.
Examples include: Needs assessment, logic model, training modules,
evaluation plan, and 12 workshop presentations.
Note: A product output under this program would be considered a
deliverable under the open licensing regulations at 2 CFR 3474.20.
Regional educational agency, for the purposes of the Comprehensive
Centers program, means ``Tribal Educational Agency'' as defined in ESEA
section 6132(b)(3), as well as other educational agencies that serve
regional areas.
Service plan project means a series of interconnected capacity-
building services designed to achieve recipient outcomes and outputs. A
service plan project includes, but is not limited to, a well-defined
high-leverage problem, an approach to capacity-building services,
intended recipients, key personnel, expected outcomes, expected
outputs, and milestones.
Final Performance Measures
Background: We are issuing these final performance measures after
providing the public with an opportunity to comment on them through the
NPP. Although we are not required to use notice and comment rulemaking
to develop or change performance measures, we believed receiving public
input on the FY 2019 performance measures may result in better informed
performance measures.
Final Performance Measures
Measure 1: The extent to which Comprehensive Center clients are
satisfied with the quality, usefulness, and relevance of services
provided.
Measure 2: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers provide
services and products to a wide range of recipients.
Measure 3: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate
that capacity-building services were implemented as intended.
Measure 4: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate
recipient outcomes were met.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year
in which we choose to use these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and performance measures, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
FY 2019 Comprehensive Centers Program Logic Model
Figure 1 is a diagram of the FY 2019 CC Logic Model. A logic model
refers to a framework that identifies key project components, inputs,
processes, outputs, and short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes and
impacts and describes the theoretical and operational relationships
among the key project components and relevant outcomes. The FY 2019 CC
Logic Model inputs include but are not limited to SEA and LEA staff,
implementation and organizational expertise, content area expertise,
and Federal funding, staff, and regulations. Processes include
capacity-building services that help recipients to develop needs
assessments and logic models, select evidence-based practices, and plan
for and assist in the implementation of evidence-based practices.
Outputs include products, data, and information to assist in the
implementation and evaluation of evidence-based practices, such as
needs assessments and logic models. Short-term outcomes include
increased individual and organizational capacity in four dimensions:
Human, organizational, policy, and resource. Mid-term outcomes include
improving SEA and LEA capacity to plan, implement, and evaluate school
improvement programs in order to improve policies, practices, and
systems to implement and evaluate school improvement programs. Long-
term outcomes include improved educational opportunities and academic
outcomes for disadvantaged and low-income students.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[[Page 13131]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AP19.021
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined 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
[[Page 13132]]
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.
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866,
and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two
deregulatory actions. For FY 2019, any new incremental costs associated
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of
existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because the proposed
regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of Executive
Order 13771 do not apply.
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, definitions,
and performance measures 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 final regulatory action does not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
These final priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance
measures are needed to implement the CC program award process in the
manner that the Department believes will best enable the program to
achieve its objectives of providing capacity-building services to SEAs,
REAs, LEAs, and schools that help improve educational outcomes for all
students, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of
instruction.
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. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. 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: April 1, 2019.
Frank Brogan,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2019-06583 Filed 4-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P