[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 235 (Friday, December 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70612-70641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26615]



[[Page 70611]]

Vol. 86

Friday,

No. 235

December 10, 2021

Part II





Department of Education





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





34 CFR Part 75





Final Priorities and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental Priorities 
and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 235 / Friday, December 10, 2021 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 70612]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 75

[Docket ID ED-2021-OPEPD-0054]


Final Priorities and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental 
Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priorities and definitions.

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

SUMMARY: In order to support a comprehensive and ambitious education 
agenda, the Secretary issues six priorities and related definitions for 
use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs 
that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use 
an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or 
use one or more of the priority's subparts. These priorities and 
definitions replace the Supplemental Priorities published in the 
Federal Register on March 2, 2018, the Opportunity Zones final priority 
published on November 27, 2019, and the Remote Learning priority 
published on December 30, 2020. However, if a notice inviting 
applications (NIA) published before the effective date of this notice 
of final priorities and definitions included one or more of those 
priorities, the included priorities apply to that competition.

DATES: These priorities and definitions are effective January 10, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Nkemjika Ofodile-Carruthers, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W308, 
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 401-4389. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Secretary has outlined a 
comprehensive and ambitious education agenda that reflects the 
Secretary's vision for American education. This vision is based on a 
fundamental respect for the dignity and potential of every student and 
their access to educational opportunity. These final priorities are 
aligned with evidence-based (as defined in this document) and capacity-
building approaches to addressing various interconnected policy issues 
in the Nation's education system. These final priorities and 
definitions may be used across the Department of Education's (the 
Department) discretionary grant programs to further the Department's 
mission, which is ``to promote student achievement and preparation for 
global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring 
equal access.''
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: Through 
this regulatory action, we establish six supplemental priorities and 
associated definitions. Each major provision is discussed in the Public 
Comment section of this document.
    Costs and Benefits: The final priorities and definitions will 
impose minimal costs on entities that receive assistance through the 
Department's discretionary grant programs. Application submission and 
participation in a discretionary grant program are voluntary. The 
Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the final 
priorities are limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an 
application for a discretionary grant program that is using one or more 
of the final priorities in its competition. Because the costs of 
carrying out activities will be paid for with program funds, the costs 
of implementation will not be a burden for any eligible applicants, 
including small entities.
    We believe that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any 
associated costs because it will result in the submission of a greater 
number of high-quality discretionary grant applications and supporting 
activities that reflect the Administration's educational priorities.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
    We published a notice of proposed supplemental priorities and 
definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register on June 30, 2021 (86 FR 
34664). That document contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the priorities and definitions.
    There are differences between the proposed priorities and 
definitions and the final priorities and definitions established in 
this notice of final priorities and definitions (NFP), as discussed in 
the Analysis of Comments and Changes section in this document.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 100 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities and definitions.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under 
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general 
comments regarding concerns not directly related to the proposed 
priorities or definitions.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities and definitions since publication of 
the NPP follows.

General Comments

    Comments: Many commenters expressed general support for all the 
proposed priorities, and one commenter also expressed support for the 
definitions. We also recognize that it is important to engage broad 
stakeholders and have incorporated many of the comments throughout the 
priorities.
    Some of these commenters also expressed support in specific areas. 
For example, two commenters expressed appreciation for the emphasis on 
the needs of students and educators. A third commenter expressed 
similar support for the emphasis on the needs of students and added, 
more broadly, support for the focus on schools and families. Two 
commenters noted the importance of understanding the impact of the 
novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with one adding that it is 
critical to prioritize actions that will increase educational equity 
and create a more diverse education workforce. Other commenters 
supported the emphasis the priorities place on specific topic areas 
relating to, or subgroups of, children. For example, two commenters 
noted the emphasis these priorities have on students with disabilities. 
Another commenter noted, along with their support, that they thought it 
was important to focus Department grant programs on first-generation 
students from low-income backgrounds. A separate commenter supported 
the overall emphasis throughout the priorities on early learning, while 
another commenter expressed overall support for the focus on mental 
health. Another commenter expressed appreciation for the 
acknowledgement of the need to address staffing shortages and the use 
of universal design for learning. This same commenter specifically 
noted that students with disabilities, particularly students with Down 
syndrome, will only benefit from each of these priorities if grantees 
include such students. The commenter further indicated that students 
with significant cognitive disabilities have been frequently left out 
of key grant programs.
    Other commenters believed that the priorities could have a positive 
impact on education more broadly. For example, one commenter stated 
that these priorities are crucial to the immediate and ongoing work of 
recovery and transformation in our education system to meet the needs 
of all learners, while another commenter appreciated the thoughtful 
systems-level approach to equitably distribute

[[Page 70613]]

resources. Finally, one commenter expressed hope that the priorities 
bring noticeable change in education.
    Discussion: We appreciate the overwhelming support for the 
priorities and welcome the additional comments and suggestions. We 
agree with the commenters on the importance of focusing on the critical 
needs of educators, schools, families, and students, including students 
with disabilities, including those with significant cognitive 
disabilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested changes to the background section 
of the NPP where the Department discussed its intent that, where 
technology is referenced in the priorities and definition, the 
technology be accessible to English learners, and to individuals with 
disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 
of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as 
applicable. The commenter asked that we also specify that limited 
English proficient parents should have meaningful access to information 
about technology, including technology support and information on data 
collection, storage, and sharing. The commenter also requested that 
instructional technology be developed with English learners in mind and 
that teachers know how to select appropriate and high-quality digital 
tools that can be adapted for English learner instructional strategies 
in a virtual environment. For example, instructional technology could 
include embedded language support features and allow for verbal peer-
to-peer interaction.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation for changes to the 
background to include supports for limited English proficient parents 
and to ensure that instructional technology is developed with English 
learners in mind. We agree that Priority 1(e) should address this 
concern as technology supported learning experienced must be inclusive 
of English learners. We do not include a background section in the NFP, 
nor is the background section considered part of the final priorities.
    Changes: In priority 1(e), we have included language to specify 
that access to high-quality, technology supported learning experiences 
be accessible and usable by English learners.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that we require grantees to 
report on their progress in amplifying the voices and experiences of 
families, providers, and community partners. In addition, the commenter 
recommended requiring grantees to disaggregate data to the extent 
possible by race/ethnicity, language, and disability status.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment. Reporting requirements for 
grant programs are established separately for each grant program based 
on program requirements. The Secretary's supplemental priorities are 
not, by design, the place for establishing reporting requirements. For 
this reason, we are not making any changes in response to this comment.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested using the term ``early learning 
and education'' instead of ``education'' throughout the priorities to 
emphasize the birth through college model. The commenter also suggested 
using ``children and students'' instead of ``students,'' and ``Pre-K 
starting at birth'' instead of ``K-12.''
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter's interest in ensuring that 
the priorities are inclusive of young learners. We interpret the terms 
``education'' and ``students'' throughout the priorities to be, in 
general, inclusive of early learning and children, respectively. Where 
appropriate, we have specified specific groups of students. Further, 
``early learning'' is defined to include programs that provide early 
care and education for children from birth to kindergarten entry. 
Therefore, we decline to make any changes in response to this comment.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter stated that prioritizing vulnerable 
students in underserved school districts should be a top priority for 
the Department.
    Discussion: We agree that prioritizing vulnerable students in 
underserved school districts is important. The establishment of these 
priorities is one of many actions the Department is taking to focus on 
vulnerable students in underserved school districts. The priorities 
repeatedly reference ``underserved students,'' and the definition of 
``underserved students'' includes students who may be vulnerable for a 
variety of reasons.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended adding career and technical 
education centers to the listings of educational settings as these 
centers are often not included in funding conversations.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion and agree 
that a focus on career and technical education centers should be added 
to specific priorities to ensure that they are intentionally included 
in the discussion.
    Changes: We have added ``career and technical education programs'' 
to subpart (a) of Priority 2, subpart (h)(1)(ii) of Priority 3, and 
subpart (f) of Priority 4.
    Comments: Several commenters suggested adding additional 
priorities. One commenter suggested a priority focused on improving the 
effectiveness of principals. Another commenter suggested a science, 
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) priority. A third commenter 
proposed a priority to address other factors that impact educational 
attainment and outcomes, through a whole-child approach to young 
children's success. A fourth commenter recommended making school 
diversity its own priority. That commenter also suggested using more 
explicit language on ``school integration'' and ``desegregation'' 
throughout the priorities, in addition to the U.S. Supreme Court's 
terminology--``school diversity'' and ``reduction of racial 
isolation.''
    Discussion: We appreciate these thoughtful recommendations for 
additional priorities. The priorities, as proposed, address each of 
these topics. Priority 2 focuses on STEM by including a subpart that 
calls attention to the inequities related to access to and success in 
rigorous and engaging approaches to STEM coursework. In addition, the 
Department has funded and continues to fund many projects with a STEM 
focus.
    Regarding a new priority to address other factors that impact 
educational attainment and outcomes, projects that focus on whole-child 
strategies would be included under both Priority 1 and Priority 4. 
Priority 1 supports projects that address the impacts of COVID-19 by 
providing resources and supports to meet the basic health and safety 
needs of students and educators. Priority 4 is for projects designed 
specifically to improve students' social, emotional, academic, and 
career development.
    Finally, school diversity is addressed specifically in Priority 2. 
Overall, the Department is committed to equity and adequacy of 
resources for underserved students. One way we think this can be 
accomplished is by examining the sources of inequities. For this 
reason, proposed subpart (b)(13) of Priority 2 supports developing or 
implementing specific policies or practices to address racial and 
socioeconomic diversity by improving data collection methods to 
identify trends in and contributors to stratification and barriers to 
diversity.
    Given that each of the additional proposed topics are addressed in 
the existing priorities, including improving the effectiveness of 
principals and the use of school integration and

[[Page 70614]]

desegregation, we are not making any changes in response to these 
comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters made suggestions regarding the use of 
the term ``educator.'' These commenters highlighted the lack of clarity 
on who the term includes, with many concerned it might be construed to 
mean only teachers, pointing out inconsistencies in how the term was 
used in the proposed priorities. For example, if ``educators'' is meant 
to include persons who are not teachers, then the commenters argued 
that subpart (f)(3) of Priority 3, which uses the phrase ``educator and 
school leader,'' is confusing. As such, many commenters recommended 
including principals and other school leaders in addition to educators 
to highlight the important role school leaders play and noted that this 
would be consistent with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(ESEA). Additionally, other commenters recommended including early 
learning educators among the educators addressed in Priority 3, also 
citing consistency with the ESEA. One commenter requested that 
specialized instructional support personnel be included, and another 
commenter noted the importance of school psychologists. Lastly, a 
couple of commenters requested that when discussing diverse educators, 
Priority 3 specifically mention educators with disabilities, 
emphasizing the importance of students with disabilities seeing 
successful educators with disabilities and the abilities of those 
diverse educators.
    Discussion: We appreciate that the use of ``educator'' could cause 
confusion regarding who is included under this term. Our use of 
``educator'' is meant to include all professionals working to educate 
students and impact student learning, recognizing that all these 
professionals play important roles. Additionally, the term ``diverse 
educators'' is intended to include educators from all backgrounds that 
are underrepresented in the workforce, including educators with 
disabilities. As such, we are adding a definition of ``educator'' to 
explain more clearly what is meant by the term and to be inclusive of 
the groups that commenters noted, and we are clarifying usage of 
``educator'' throughout the priorities where it is unclear.
    Changes: We have added a definition of ``educator,'' which includes 
early childhood educators, teachers, principals and other school 
leaders, specialized instructional support personnel (e.g., school 
psychologists, counselors, school social workers), paraprofessionals, 
and faculty. Additionally, in Priority 2, subpart (a)(2),(b)(2)-(4), 
and throughout Priority 3, subpart (b), we have replaced the references 
to ``teachers'' with references to ``educators'' for consistency. In 
proposed subpart (f)(3) of Priority 3, we have removed ``and school 
leaders.''
    Although the Department did not propose definitions of ``teacher'' 
and ``principal'' in the NPP, we have revised the final definitions, 
based on this and other comments, to include a definition of 
``educator.'' While it was always our intent to include early learning 
professionals within the broader group of educators, we have added a 
definition of ``educator'' to the final definitions that includes 
``early learning educator.''
    Changes: We have added ``early learning educator'' to the new 
definition of ``educator.''
    Comments: One commenter suggested the Department define Pre-K 
students as a separate subgroup with specific needs outside of K-12 
education. More specifically, the commenter suggested that we clarify 
that each of the final priorities would support projects in the early 
learning context, to the extent applicable.
    Discussion: We appreciate this comment and agree with it, in part, 
as we agree with supporting projects that address early learning but do 
not think we need a separate subgroup definition. Priorities 2, 3, 4, 
and 6 share a focus on underserved students and the definition of 
``underserved student'' includes children in early learning 
environments as one of the groups of learners upon which a project may 
focus.
    Changes: We are revising the introductory paragraph within 
priorities 2, 3, 4, and 6 to include that the focus of the projects 
should include underserved students.
    Comments: One commenter asked that, through the priorities, we 
specifically promote certificate programs, such as programs that award 
licensed practical nursing or cybersecurity certificates, which could 
benefit students with disabilities who have individualized educational 
programs.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for the comment. We agree that 
certificate programs can provide important career pathways to students, 
including students with disabilities. Priority 5 addresses the types of 
programs described by the commenter and encourages projects designed to 
increase postsecondary access, affordability, success, and completion 
for underserved students, which may include under subpart (j) projects 
that connect children or students with disabilities, adults with 
disabilities, and disconnected youth to resources designed to improve 
independent living and the achievement of employment outcomes. 
Accordingly, no change is needed, as Priority 5 would allow the 
projects proposed by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter urged the Department to include student and 
educator voices in each of the topic areas to engage students in the 
overall education process.
    Discussion: We agree that students and educators, as applicable, 
should be included in the design, development, and implementation of 
projects proposed under these priorities. However, where appropriate to 
the program and the competition, the Department may include in the NIA 
the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, through which a proposed 
project will be evaluated on the extent to which the proposed project 
encourages participant or beneficiary involvement and to which the 
services to be provided by the proposed project involve the 
collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness 
of project services. We think this approach is a more tailored way to 
promote involvement by the relevant affected stakeholders, which may 
include students and educators, on a program-by-program basis. 
Therefore, we have not made any changes in response to this comment.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Five commenters suggested revising the introductory note 
about accessibility of technology to ensure it references all 
applicable Federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA) and the ESEA. The commenters also suggested adding 
language to reinforce the need for technology to be universally 
designed and fully accessible, as well as to be interoperable with 
assistive technology. A sixth commenter stated that the technology 
should be usable by English learners and individuals with disabilities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation for changes to the 
background to ensure it is consistent with all Federal requirements and 
for the suggested improvements. We do not include a background section 
in the NFP, nor is the background section considered part of the final 
priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes in response to 
these comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters suggested addressing rural education in 
the priorities. One urged caution in adding supplemental priorities to 
rural-serving programs without funding

[[Page 70615]]

increases; the other recommended maintaining the priority related to 
rural applicants in the Administrative Priorities for Discretionary 
Grant Programs published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85 
FR 13640) and requested that additional attention be given to rural 
education under each supplemental priority. These commenters also 
provided suggestions related to funding for rural education. One 
recommended providing additional funding to address the needs of rural 
education, particularly educator compensation and training; the other 
commenter requested the Department work to ensure that all districts 
have equal opportunities to apply for and receive funding and noted 
concerns that some school districts do not apply for discretionary 
grants because they believe the Department favors the largest school 
districts.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for their suggestions. In 
preparing for each program's grant competition, the Department takes 
care in deciding which priorities to apply and when, considering, in 
part, eligible entities' capacity for addressing the priorities. 
Nevertheless, we appreciate the commenter's caution about the use of 
supplemental priorities for rural-serving programs. Regarding the 
administrative priority for rural applicants (85 FR 13640), this 
priority remains in effect and will be available for use by the 
Department, as appropriate.
    Regarding the comment about additional funding for rural education, 
we consider these priorities to be one mechanism for generating 
additional funds for rural-serving programs. Rural-serving programs may 
apply for the Department's discretionary grants to which these 
priorities will apply. Finally, while the comment about ensuring that 
all districts have equal opportunities to apply for and receive funding 
is beyond the scope of the supplemental priorities, the Department's 
procedures for awarding discretionary grants include a variety of 
safeguards and technical assistance to ensure fair grant competitions. 
For example, for almost all the Department's grant competitions, 
program staff recruit application reviewers from outside the Federal 
Government. And, while Department staff screen applications to ensure 
that they meet all program requirements, the non-Federal reviewers read 
and independently score the applications assigned to them.
    Changes: None.

Priority 1--Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Students, Educators, 
and Faculty

    Comments: Several commenters expressed their support for Priority 
1, its focus on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and recognition 
of the challenges underserved students experienced before the pandemic. 
Commenters especially appreciated the focus on students' social, 
emotional, mental health, and academic needs; technology access for 
students and educators and how to best address the ``digital divide''; 
using an evidence base; and the background discussion of the priority 
that emphasized afterschool and summer programs, focus on the whole 
child, and community and family engagement. One commenter appreciated 
the alignment of this priority with the needs of community colleges. In 
its support for the priority, one commenter recommended prioritizing 
underserved students, while another commenter expressed that they would 
like to see a focus on all age groups from infants to young adults, as 
well as educators and families. Another commenter recommended 
prioritizing Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to 
provide resources for HBCUs to address the needs of their students.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the priority and that 
commenters found strong connections between the priority and the needs 
they are seeing in the field. Regarding prioritizing underserved 
students, Priority 1 focused on ``the students most impacted by the 
pandemic,'' but we believe that, as we did in the other priorities, we 
should include a focus on underserved students. We also define 
``underserved students'' to include age groups from infants to young 
adults, and the educators and families that support those students. We 
also agree that it is important that all institutions, especially 
institutions that work directly with underserved students, have the 
resources needed to address Priority 1 to address the needs of and 
fully support their students who are largely underserved populations 
impacted by the pandemic.
    Changes: We have added ``with a focus on underserved students'' to 
the lead-in paragraph of Priority 1. Additionally, to address this 
comment, in Priority 2, we have added new subpart (b) that allows the 
Department to prioritize community colleges, HBCUs, Tribal Colleges and 
Universities (TCUs), or Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). 
Accordingly, proposed subpart (b) of Priority 2 has been redesignated 
as final subpart (a)(2).
    Comments: A couple of commenters proposed that Priority 1 be used 
as a competitive preference priority, with one commenter recommending 
that this priority be used as a competitive preference priority in the 
FY 2022 Charter School Programs (CSP) competitions.
    Discussion: These priorities are intended to be a menu of options 
for use in our discretionary grant programs. The Department may choose 
which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are appropriate for a 
particular program competition, as well as the appropriate level of 
funding and selection criteria. If the Department chooses to use a 
supplemental priority, it also will designate in the notice inviting 
applications whether the priority will be used as an absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational priority in the grant 
competition.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended the addition of a new subpart 
to Priority 1 focused on comprehensive plans to address literacy gaps 
from the pandemic and remote learning.
    Discussion: We agree that the pandemic has had significant impacts 
on learning, including on literacy development. Although we appreciate 
the commenter's recommendations for how this priority could be expanded 
to include a focus on literacy, we want to clarify that the priority 
does not prohibit the projects described by the commenter, and that 
there are already elements that support such models, for example 
subpart 1(g). Applicants have the discretion to determine what approach 
or intervention will best address the priority and meet the needs of 
the targeted population.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters encouraged applicants to consider the 
views of students in addressing the issues under the priority, 
especially focusing on student engagement in decision-making and 
community asset-mapping. Another commenter suggested strengthening the 
priority by including family impacts from the pandemic, not just 
student- and educator-specific impacts, including opportunities to 
address the needs of families in addition to needs of students' and 
educators.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important to be able to reengage 
and support student learning to address COVID-19 impacts, and that 
students and educators, as applicable should be included in the design, 
development and implementation of projects

[[Page 70616]]

proposed under these priorities. Student engagement and voice can be a 
part of projects addressing this priority as proposed, and we believe 
that applicants are best suited to determine how to engage students to 
address the priority. Likewise, we recognize that the pandemic has had 
an impact on everyone, not only students and educators, but their 
families as well. We believe that addressing students' needs can 
include addressing the needs of the families that support those 
students but agree with the commenter's recommendation that the 
priority should explicitly refer to reengaging families.
    Changes: We have added ``and their families'' at the end of subpart 
(a) of Priority 1.
    Comments: Though Priority 1 is focused on addressing the impacts of 
COVID-19, one commenter encouraged the Department not to use this 
priority to support ``vouchers,'' citing the Education Stabilization 
Fund-Rethink K12 Education Models, which established microgrants for 
parents. The commenter noted the importance of this priority focusing 
on public school students.
    Discussion: We recognize that across the various COVID-19 relief 
programs established by Congress, there have been different 
requirements, priorities, and eligible applicants. This priority is 
designed to address the students most impacted by the pandemic, with a 
focus on underserved students. The priority does not include any 
reference to ``vouchers''; eligibility for a program, including whom a 
program may serve, is determined by a program's statutory authority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters recommended that Priority 1 
specifically address the needs of early learning programs, and 
recommended changes to the background section to reference these needs 
and the mental health needs of children in early learning programs 
related to the pandemic.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation for additions to the 
background for the priority to discuss early learning. We do not 
include background sections for priorities in the NFP, nor are the 
background sections considered part of the final priorities. Therefore, 
we are not making any changes in response to this comment. Regarding 
focusing on the mental health needs for children in early learning, 
since the proposed priority refers to ``underserved students,'' and the 
definition of ``underserved students'' includes ``children in early 
learning environments,'' the proposed priority's focus on students' 
mental health needs includes students in early learning programs. 
Accordingly, changes to the priority are not necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported subpart (a) of Priority 1, 
especially the emphasis on community asset-mapping, with one commenter 
recommending using U.S. Census data to look more specifically at 
household disparities from the pandemic. Additionally, commenters noted 
that this priority will help supplement the other funding States are 
receiving and will help minimize burden on educators, students, and 
families. While supportive of the priority, a few commenters 
recommended additions to this subpart. One commenter noted the 
significant impacts of the pandemic on English learners and requested 
that this subpart address learning and language needs of these 
students. This commenter also recommended a focus on reengaging 
``virtual drop-out'' students who disengaged because of remote 
learning. Other commenters recommended that we add language to the 
priority to ensure that State and district needs are assessed and 
measured, looking not only at academic indicators but also at student 
well-being, school culture, and broader indicators of reengagement, 
with one commenter suggesting a focus on reengagement at the early 
learning level. Given the varying impacts of the pandemic on students, 
one commenter proposed additional language focused on assessing the 
needs of specific subgroups of students, including children or students 
with disabilities, and the potential extension of eligibility for 
services for students with disabilities based on this assessment of 
needs. Finally, one commenter recommended that while full community 
engagement in community asset-mapping and the data generated are 
important, the asset-mapping does not need to be perfect and that 
funding under the priority be used to serve as many students as 
possible.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments supporting this subpart and 
the importance of community asset-mapping. We agree that there are a 
range of data points that can be used to assess needs, including U.S. 
Census data, State and local data, and data from community partners. We 
also agree that reengagement of all groups of students is important, 
including students attending school in-person and those participating 
in remote learning. The priority is focused on the students most 
impacted by the pandemic, and we agree that these include English 
learners and children or students with disabilities as discussed by 
commenters. Given the focus on students most affected by the pandemic, 
we do not think additional language identifying specific groups of 
students is necessary, but we agree that ensuring that the assessment 
considers subgroups of students is valuable. As a result, we have added 
language to clarify that the assessment may include an assessment of 
subgroups of students. We agree that States and districts need to work 
with students with disabilities and their families but do not think 
additional language in the priority is necessary for this work to be 
carried out. Lastly, the intent of the subpart is to reengage students 
and address the impacts of COVID-19, and applicants have the discretion 
to determine what approach or intervention will best address the 
priority and meet the needs of the targeted population.
    Changes: We have clarified in subpart (a) of Priority 1 that any 
assessment of student disengagement may include a focus on subgroups of 
students.
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported subpart (b) of Priority 1 
and appreciated the focus on health and safety needs, especially the 
inclusion of educators along with students. One commenter recommended a 
focus on underserved communities, given the impact of the pandemic on 
those communities. Another commenter encouraged inter-agency 
collaboration to address health and safety needs, including 
collaboration with State departments of education, food and nutrition 
agencies, public health departments, and other providers.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments in support of subpart (b) 
and agree that health and safety needs of both students and educators 
need to continually be assessed and addressed. We also agree that 
collaboration with relevant agencies and providers can help to 
successfully provide for the health and safety needs of students and 
educators, and such collaboration would be permitted under this 
subpart.
    This priority is focused on those most impacted by the pandemic, 
and as noted above, we have added ``underserved students'' to the lead-
in paragraph of Priority 1 to focus on those groups. In addition, 
Priority 6 addresses inter-agency collaboration and could be used in 
conjunction with this priority, so we do not think any changes to the 
subpart are necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A few commenters expressed support for subpart (c) of 
Priority 1 and suggested that mental health be maintained in this 
subpart.

[[Page 70617]]

One commenter recommended that funding be used to address shortages in 
mental health professionals and that the subpart include language 
allowing the use of multi-tiered systems of supports to address the 
social and emotional needs of students. One commenter requested that 
the approaches to addressing these needs be culturally and 
linguistically responsive. Another commenter recommended a new subpart 
focused on community engagement and the importance of partnerships to 
support emotional, physical and mental health, and academic needs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for this subpart 
of the priority and agree that addressing students' mental health needs 
is especially important given the impacts on mental health caused by 
the pandemic. Addressing mental health needs includes ensuring the 
appropriate mental health professionals are involved. We also recognize 
the potentially positive impacts of well-designed, well-executed multi-
tiered systems of supports, which we include in Priority 4. Such an 
approach to addressing mental health needs would be permitted under 
this subpart, so we do not think additional language is necessary in 
this subpart of Priority 1. We recognize the importance of addressing 
students' needs in culturally and linguistically inclusive ways, 
recognizing and valuing all students' identities, cultures, and 
potential, and are adding language to address this issue similar to 
that used in other priorities. Lastly, we agree that community 
engagement and partnerships can be beneficial to addressing students' 
social, emotional, mental health, and academic needs. Applicants have 
the discretion to determine what approach or intervention, including 
necessary partnerships, will best address the priority and meet the 
needs of the targeted population. In addition, Priority 6 addresses 
inter-agency collaboration and could be used in conjunction with this 
priority.
    Changes: We have specified in subpart (c) of Priority 1 that 
project approaches must be inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, 
culture, language, and disability status.
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported subpart (d) of Priority 1. 
One commenter recommended that this subpart emphasize the recruitment 
and retention of educators and educator preparation programs. Another 
commenter recommended that the subpart reference a specific report on 
teachers of color and include a focus on educators and staff of color.
    Discussion: We appreciate support for this subpart. We do not think 
the suggested additions to subpart (d) are necessary because Priority 
3--Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional Growth to 
Strengthen Student Learning--focuses on educator preparation, 
recruitment, and retention, as well as educator diversity and the needs 
of diverse educators. Applicants have the discretion to determine what 
approach or intervention will best address the priority and meet the 
needs of the targeted population, which may include specific groups of 
educators most impacted by COVID-19. Lastly, we do not cite specific 
reports in the text of the priorities and therefore decline to include 
the suggested references.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters noted their appreciation for subpart 
(e) of Priority 1 and the Department's recognition that those most 
impacted by the pandemic often have significant technology needs. 
Several commenters made recommendations for additional language related 
to technology for children or students with disabilities to ensure the 
technology complies with laws, such as the Children's Online Privacy 
Protection Act (COPPA), and is ``accessible,'' ``useable,'' and 
``interoperable.'' One commenter requested that district and school 
administrators ensure that any future technology schools and districts 
obtain is accessible for children or students with disabilities. 
Commenters recommended that English learners also be addressed in this 
subpart, noting that English learners similarly have unique needs. One 
commenter recommended that this subpart also ensure that families 
understand the technology being used. A couple of commenters suggested 
that the subpart require that the professional development educators 
receive is ``collaborative'' and ``sustained,'' and another commenter 
recommended that coaching be included along with professional 
development. Another commenter requested changes to the background 
section of the NPP where the Department discussed its intent that, 
where technology is referenced in the priorities and definition, the 
technology be accessible to English learners and to individuals with 
disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 
of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as 
applicable. Lastly, one commenter suggested that the subpart include 
language regarding the continued use of remote learning and service 
delivery, especially in the case of school psychologists.
    Discussion: We agree with commenters that technology access 
continues to be a barrier for many students, and we share commenters' 
concern about accessibility for all students, including children or 
students with disabilities and English learners. To address this issue, 
we have added language to this subpart to ensure that technology meets 
the accessibility needs of children or students with disabilities, and 
to also clarify that technology must support English learners. We do 
not think it is necessary to add language regarding future technology 
purchases by districts and schools because the subpart already requires 
that technology be accessible. Regarding professional development, we 
agree that professional development may benefit from being 
collaborative and sustained; however, the degree to which it need to be 
collaborative and sustained may depend on the type of technology and 
the educator's level of comfort and experience. As to maintaining 
remote learning and service delivery, applicants have the discretion to 
determine what approach or intervention will best address the priority 
and meet the needs of the targeted population.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (e) of Priority 1 to provide that 
technology-supported learning experiences must be useable and 
interoperable after in addition to accessible by children or students 
with disabilities, as well as English learners. We have also provided 
that related professional development should be sustained and 
collaborative, as appropriate.
    Comments: One commenter suggested including universal design for 
learning in subpart (f) of Priority 1 as an example of an evidence-
based intervention.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for the suggestion and agree 
that universal design for learning is an example of an evidence-based 
intervention. We do not believe that it needs to be specifically 
mentioned in this subpart for a prospective applicant to propose to use 
it and note that it is already included in the definitions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested decoupling personalized learning 
from extended learning time and technology as both can enhance 
learning, however, personalized learning is not dependent on extended 
learning time or technology. The commenter stated that applicants 
should enable evidence-based interventions, by leveraging technology 
where appropriate, to support personalized in-person student

[[Page 70618]]

learning as well as evidence-based supplemental activities and, where 
possible, to increase parent and community engagement.
    Discussion: We want the current language of the subpart to allow 
for personalized learning and extended learning time and technology, 
however, would agree that there are also other evidence-based 
interventions that could be used by potential grantees. We decline to 
make further changes to the language.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter noted that Priority 1 does not clearly 
include afterschool and summer learning options, and suggested 
splitting subpart (f) of Priority 1 into two subparts to highlight the 
importance of afterschool and summer learning programs. Specifically, 
the commenter proposed that subpart (f) refer to the use of technology 
to enable evidence-based interventions to support personalized in-
person student learning; and that we create a new subpart (g) focused 
on evidence-based supplemental activities that extend learning time and 
increase student engagement and, where possible, parent engagement. The 
commenter also recommended that the proposed subpart (g) contain 
examples of activities that extend learning time, such as comprehensive 
afterschool and summer programs and work with community partners.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and agree that 
afterschool and summer learning programs are important and should be 
explicitly mentioned. We have not adopted the commenter's suggestion to 
split subpart (f) into two subparts but modified the current subpart 
(f) to include comprehensive afterschool and summer learning and 
enrichment programs as examples of supplemental activities.
    Changes: We have added in subpart (f) of Priority 1 comprehensive 
afterschool and summer learning and enrichment programs as examples of 
supplemental activities that extend learning time and increase student 
and parent engagement.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department consider 
leveraging technology for strategies beyond traditional curriculum and 
instruction, to include work-based learning opportunities. The 
commenter noted that such strategies could expand opportunities for 
work-based learning and employer engagement, while ensuring equitable 
access to students of diverse backgrounds.
    Discussion: The requirement to use evidence-based supplemental 
activities do not preclude an applicant from proposing to use 
innovative strategies for work-based learning. Accordingly, we do not 
believe that changes are needed to subpart (f) to allow the activities 
proposed by the commenter. Other priorities reference career and 
technical education and work-based learning, and could be used in 
combination with this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested removing ``where possible'' from 
subpart (f) of Priority 1. The commenter advised that family engagement 
should be a top priority and made possible through all means. The 
commenter asked that we require that parents have access to devices, 
connectivity, and training in the use of the school's technology.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree that family 
engagement is a top priority. We included ``parent engagement'' in this 
priority to signal its importance, however, we realize that there may 
be limited instances where parental engagement may not be necessary and 
have included the ``where appropriate'' in recognition of those 
instances. Additionally, we will not include the requirement for access 
to devices as this may create additional burden for school systems who 
are at a minimum trying to ensure that their students all have access.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested that we use subpart (g) of 
Priority 1 to encourage States and districts to develop strategies 
related to accelerated learning, but another commenter expressed 
concerns about a lack of information on the effectiveness of certain 
accelerated learning approaches, especially for children or students 
with disabilities, and how retention and special education eligibility 
are being used in relation to lost instructional time. One commenter 
suggested that we add language related to professional development for 
educators to address lost instructional time. Another commenter 
recommended adding language related to career development and 
readiness.
    Discussion: We recognize that there are many different 
instructional approaches and supports to accelerate learning, and this 
priority is designed to support a variety of approaches to meet the 
needs of those most impacted by the pandemic, including children or 
students with disabilities. We carefully consider when and how to use 
any of the supplemental priorities, and in instances where we may use 
this priority and subpart (g), applicants will have the discretion to 
determine what approach or intervention will best address the priority 
and meet the needs of the targeted population. We agree that 
professional development is an important component in successful use of 
instructional approaches and supports to accelerate learning and think 
that support warrants adding language to the subpart. Lastly, given 
that this subpart is focused on accelerating learning, we do not think 
it necessary to add language related to career readiness.
    Changes: We have added professional development, coaching, and 
ongoing support for educators as examples of approaches and supports 
under subpart (g) of Priority 1.
    Comments: Multiple commenters proposed changes to subpart (h) of 
Priority 1 to expressly allow for a focus on children or students with 
disabilities, other credit-bearing courses not specifically addressed, 
and adult learners. A couple of commenters recommended including non-
credit-bearing coursework for comprehensive transition programs for 
children or students with disabilities. Another commenter recommended 
that dual enrollment and early college programs be referenced in the 
subpart. Regarding adult learning, one commenter recommended adding a 
reference to advancing the careers and skills for adults, and another 
suggested the addition of a reference to adult learning after 
postsecondary education.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments on subpart (h) of Priority 
1, as commenters seek to ensure all individuals are reflected in a 
discussion of postsecondary education or training programs. This 
priority is focused on supporting all students in earning a recognized 
postsecondary credential, prioritizing credit-bearing coursework, 
therefore we decline to include the addition of non-credit bearing 
coursework. We strongly support and encourage dual enrollment and early 
college programs and because such programs would be permitted under the 
subpart, we do not think it is necessary to add a specific reference to 
these programs. As to adult learners, we recognize the importance of 
lifelong learners and agree that proposed projects supporting these 
types of programs or approaches would be permitted under this subpart, 
and no further revisions are necessary. We are adding express reference 
to such programs in this subpart to underscore our interest in 
promoting their use.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 70619]]

Priority 2--Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational 
Resources, Opportunities, and Welcoming Environments

    Comments: Several commenters expressed their general support for 
Priority 2 and made additional comments. One commenter specifically 
noted the commitment to equity and strong education regardless of 
background expressed through the priority, as well as the importance of 
equitable access to meaningful summer learning opportunities. Some 
commenters, while expressing their support, also urged the Department 
to maintain its focus on student-centered and project-based learning 
and stated that deeply engaging families is essential to help ensure 
equitable access to resources. Another commenter appreciated the 
inclusion of out-of-school-time settings as one of the eight 
educational settings listed in the priority. Several commenters 
appreciated the focus on parent engagement. Another commenter supported 
continuing existing efforts to designate resources for evidence-based, 
school-wide policies and practices that reduce bullying and harassment 
of and, discrimination against, all students. Another commenter 
supported new measures of student discipline to ensure more equity and 
end the school-to-prison pipeline. An additional commenter noted the 
value of project-based learning for improving academic outcomes and the 
importance of teacher development that includes demonstration and 
rehearsal activities for ensuring equitable participation in 
classrooms. One commenter requested that the Department increase the 
frequency of the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) to ensure equity. 
A commenter agreed that equitable, systemic, and strategic early 
college credit is essential to driving student success in secondary and 
postsecondary education and beyond. Multiple commenters expressed 
support for all subparts of the priority. Several commenters expressed 
strong support for subpart (b) with specific support for the focus on 
identifying and remedying inequities in educational opportunities and 
toward making educational opportunities equal, equitable, and 
accessible. Another commenter stated that subpart (b) will help to 
increase equity by ensuring more students have access to well-prepared, 
effective, and diverse educators. Another commenter expressed support 
for equity in student access to educational resources. One commenter 
fully supported the Department's prioritization of community and family 
engagement while designing and administering discretionary grant 
programs. A final commenter expressed support for success in critical 
and high-need fields to address the systemic practices that have 
contributed to inequities.
    Discussion: We appreciate all the commenters' support for Priority 
2. We think that, overall, the priority allows flexibility for 
applicants to propose evidence-based, capacity-building, and systems-
level approaches designed to effect long-term change systemically and 
systematically for Department stakeholders. Although it is beyond the 
scope of this priority, we also appreciate the commenter's 
recommendation for enhancing the CRDC and agree that the CRDC is one 
resource available to identify inequity. Although it is beyond the 
scope of these priorities, we also recognize that the CRDC includes 
multiple data points that are currently collected that also capture 
gaps in educational equity.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters made recommendations related to the 
use of Priority 2, generally. Two commenters proposed that we use this 
priority as a competitive preference priority and recommended its use 
in specific grant programs such as Education Innovation and Research, 
Full-Service Community Schools, and CSP Developer. Another commenter 
stated that recipients of discretionary grants should be prioritized by 
demonstrated need, with another providing suggestions on how projects 
should be funded. One commenter suggested establishing structures to 
increase student engagement and voice, including student board members 
and youth-led town halls. The commenter also suggested partnerships 
with youth to deliver leadership training. The commenter suggested 
designing processes to ensure equity in access for marginalized 
students and lastly, the commenter also suggested individualized 
curriculum delivery and resources to support the self-actualization of 
students, as well as training educators to utilize restorative justice 
practices.
    Discussion: These priorities, as well as their subparts, are 
intended to be a menu of options for the Department to use in 
competitions for discretionary grant programs. The Department may 
choose which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are appropriate for 
a particular program competition, as well as the appropriate level of 
funding and selection criteria. If the Department chooses to use a 
supplemental priority, it also will decide whether the priority will be 
used as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority 
in the grant competition.
    We agree that the commenter's proposed tools, such as student-led 
engagement and partnerships and professional development, could help 
address inequities and establish, expand, and improve learning 
environments. The priority is designed to allow for a wide range of 
projects to advance educational equity and does not prohibit projects 
that incorporate these approaches. Therefore, we do not think it is 
necessary to include these specific examples.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Regarding Priority 2 generally, one commenter cited 
retention of principals in schools with high rates of poverty, as well 
as the lower income and less autonomy in decision-making principals may 
have, as an issue and proposed adding school leaders to some of the 
subparts to clarify who is included in the meaning of the term 
``educator.'' One commenter suggested that we clarify that the priority 
supports high-quality, non-traditional programs that include both 
accelerated pre-service training and classroom-based clinical training 
and support, particularly those programs with a track record of 
success. The commenter disagreed with using the word ``fully'' to 
modify ``certified educators''; the commenter argued that effective 
teachers are best identified by their performance in the classroom, not 
by their background or experience. Another commenter recommended 
acknowledging suspension and expulsion starting at the preschool years 
and the inequities in these practices in the background section of this 
priority and citing preschool school discipline data within the 
priority. The commenter noted the harmful implications such practices 
may have on students' well-being and longer-term school success. 
Another commenter asked that the priority require any State pre-
kindergarten enrollment portals to include Head Start and Early Head 
Start as options, as well as assist with transportation, mental health, 
and professional development programs. They also suggested that the 
priority require States to set and meet enrollment targets by income, 
family status, dual language status, and other criteria with a strong 
relationship to kindergarten readiness. One commenter suggested the 
Department consider the resources needed to enhance community capacity 
to analyze and use data, including funding professional development and 
intermediary organizations. Another commenter

[[Page 70620]]

suggested the Department facilitate and support peer-to-peer learning 
models that generate sustainable, integrated work-based learning models 
for employers and students.
    Discussion: We appreciate the information provided by the commenter 
about the challenges of retaining principals in schools with high rates 
of poverty. The definition of ``educator'' includes principals and 
other school leaders, so this priority also allows for projects that 
support principals.
    We recognize and appreciate the commenter's concern regarding the 
focus on fully certified educators in subpart (b). However, we think 
that all students, particularly underserved students, should have 
access to educators who are fully prepared on day one as is common 
practice in many high-performing nations, and who are not teaching, for 
example, on an emergency or substitute certification. Requiring 
teachers to meet State standards for full certification is one means of 
ensuring that all students have access to qualified educators. We agree 
that the focus on equity in the classroom should begin at the early 
learning stages. We specifically identify early learning programs as a 
setting that the Department may select under the priority. We have 
designed the priority to give applicants flexibility in promoting 
educational equity. We believe applicants could propose under the 
priority, without further revision, projects related to high-quality, 
non-traditional programs that include pre-service classroom-based 
clinical training and support; suspension and expulsion inequities in 
early learning settings; improvements to kindergarten readiness 
programs, including with respect to equitable access and accessibility 
generally; building capacity with respect to the analysis and use of 
data; and peer-to-peer work-based learning models. While we fully 
support Head Start and all avenues to kindergarten readiness, we are 
unable to make requirements that are not within the scope of the 
statutory authority for Department programs and therefore have not 
added the requested language to this priority. We appreciate the 
commenter's suggestion on how funds should be used. These priorities 
are intended as a menu of options for use in our discretionary grant 
programs. The Department may choose which, if any, of the priorities or 
subparts are appropriate for a particular program competition, as well 
as the appropriate level of funding and selection criteria. If the 
Department chooses to use one of these priorities, it will decide 
whether the priority will be used as an absolute, competitive 
preference, or invitational priority in the grant competition, as well 
as the appropriate level of funding and selection criteria.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters recommended adding additional 
educational settings to the list in subpart (a) of Priority 2 that 
would refer to schools that serve the highest-need students in an 
effort to support schools enrolling significant populations of students 
who have previously dropped out or who have a history of trauma, mental 
health challenges, and severe disengagement; and (2) provide for 
developing, implementing, and expanding access to programs that provide 
two-generational support for the whole family, a support that 
emphasizes education, economic supports, social capital, and health and 
well-being to create a legacy of economic security that passes from one 
generation to the next. Additionally, one commenter suggested that we 
include ``home and community'' in the list of educational settings in 
subpart (a). Regarding subpart (a)(6), one commenter recommended a 
definition for out-of-school-time settings that would explicitly 
include all kinds of programs that occur during the summer, before and 
after school, in the evenings, and on weekends; located in school 
buildings or community settings; managed or operated by schools, 
community organizations, parks, camps, faith-based organizations and 
other entities; and serving children and youth in grades K-12. A couple 
of commenters suggested adding alternative schools and programs and 
college and career education to the list of educational settings.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation to expand the list to 
include additional educational settings to ensure that more support is 
provided, and we agree that a focus on these settings is appropriate. 
Support for serving the highest-need students is captured through the 
priority's express focus on promoting educational equity and adequacy 
in resources and opportunity for ``underserved students,'' which is 
defined to include, as appropriate to the competition, several 
different subgroups of students who have high needs. We agree that home 
and community are important locations that encourage educational 
development. As we have included out-of-school-time settings in the 
list of educational settings under subpart (a)(6), which could include 
both the locations identified, we do not think it necessary to add 
additional language. We also do not think a definition for this term is 
needed, as we do not want to limit the context in which out-of-school 
time settings, such as before- and afterschool programs on a school 
campus or specialty programs that include enrichment activities, may 
occur. Applicants have discretion to determine out-of-school locations 
to meet the needs of their intended beneficiaries. We agree that 
alternative schools and career and technical education centers may be 
beneficial to add to the identified list of education settings because 
of the emphasis these settings put on technical skills and 
employability as well as academic skills that benefit students by 
ensuring real world applicability. For this reason, we are expanding 
the list in subpart (a).
    Changes: We have added alternative schools and programs and career 
and technical education programs to the list of educational settings in 
subpart (a).
    Comments: One commenter urged the Department to add to subpart 
(b)(1) of Priority 2 an explicit focus on identification of children 
who are dual language learners. One commenter suggested that we include 
in subpart (b)(1)(i) a reference to engaging students in human-centered 
learning experiences. One commenter recommended that we include 
experiential civics learning so that students can receive exposure to 
civic engagement outside of the classroom. One commenter agreed with 
the importance of early college programs in subpart (b)(1)(iii) in 
preparing students for success and promoting equity. This commenter 
suggested the use of Federal matching grants to incentivize States to 
implement early college programs that target first-generation students 
of color. This commenter also suggested including civics courses that 
reflect content from social civic engagement.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments on this subpart, as the 
commenters seek to ensure all individuals are reflected in a discussion 
of equity. Subpart (b)(9), which specifically mentions improving 
learning environments for multilanguage learners, addresses dual 
language learners, and we believe that adding additional language to 
the priority would be redundant. We agree that it is important to 
engage students thoroughly as well as utilize multiple tools to do so. 
Human-centered learning is one method that can be used, but it is not 
applicable in every learning environment or curriculum, nor is it an 
exhaustive approach to engagement. We believe that while it is not 
listed specifically within the subpart, an applicant would not be 
precluded from proposing a project that includes it. We also agree that 
real-world application in

[[Page 70621]]

all content areas is critical, and especially agree that there are 
benefits to an education that includes civic engagement. However, we do 
not believe a specific focus on such content is necessary, as 
applicants could address the preparation for a civic life, and thereby 
promote the quality of life in their community, in any number of ways; 
including such language may create an incorrect perception that the 
priority provides an exhaustive list of approaches.
    We appreciate the commenter's acknowledgement of the importance of 
early college programs and the importance of ensuring that 
traditionally underserved students have access to higher education. 
Priority 2 supports projects designed to promote educational equity and 
adequacy in resources and opportunity for underserved students. 
``Underserved students'' is defined to include, as appropriate, 
students of color and first-generation postsecondary education 
students. These priorities, and their subparts, are intended to be a 
menu of options for our discretionary grant programs. Accordingly, 
Priority 2 already allows the Department to include, as appropriate to 
a competition, a focus on improving access to early college programs 
for students of color and students who are the first in their families 
to attend a postsecondary institution.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended including vocational 
rehabilitation in final subpart (a)(2)(xii) of Priority 2, along with 
education and workforce training programs. The commenter asked that we 
acknowledge in the priorities that a disproportionate percentage of 
youth in juvenile justice systems have disabilities and that they 
should receive access to all services to which they are entitled. 
Another commenter recommended that the Department require schools to 
consider what policies are needed or what policies should be removed to 
make it easier for students involved with the criminal justice system 
to access and succeed in these education or workforce programs. The 
commenter noted that, in higher education especially, there are still 
many policies that inhibit students with criminal records from being 
admitted into postsecondary education and accessing financial aid and 
housing and that greater educational equity means removing these 
barriers.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation to include vocational 
rehabilitation and agree that there are equity issues for children or 
students with disabilities in juvenile justice facilities. We agree 
with the importance of removing barriers to support equity for students 
involved with the criminal justice system; however, this priority 
broadly addresses the educational settings for inclusion of these 
students as opposed to the specific methods which may vary by program.
    Changes: Vocational rehabilitation has been added within final 
subpart (a)(2)(xii).
    Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department consider 
how college and career pathways and work-based learning can be included 
in subpart (b)(1)(i) of Priority 2 as one of several student-centered 
approaches that develops skills and knowledge students need to succeed 
and encouraged the Department to support communities of practice, at 
the State and national levels, focused on innovative models for 
addressing systemic inequities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation and note 
that there are several references within this priority and subpart to 
college and career pathways and work-based learning. For example, 
proposed subpart (b)(1)(v) (now final subpart (a)(2)(i)(E)) focuses on 
high-quality career and technical education courses, pathways, and 
industry-recognized credentials. We also appreciate supporting 
communities of practice and continually engage with internal and 
external entities to ensure that inequities are consistently addressed.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended the Department consider how 
subpart (b) of Priority 2 can promote a broader focus on college and 
career pathways for all students and better align secondary-to-
postsecondary pathways strategies. Another commenter expressed the 
urgent need for STEM curriculum in underserved communities. One 
commenter suggested that the Department include strategies such as 
transitional instruction in subpart (b)(1)(iii) to help reduce the need 
for developmental education at the postsecondary level. The commenter 
also suggested promoting the senior year of high school as an 
opportunity to accelerate student progress toward early college credit 
or college readiness through transitional instruction by, in part, 
incentivizing automatic acceleration and placement policies. One 
commenter suggested we include a focus on educator training in subpart 
(b)(1)(v) to ensure educators possess the pedagogical skills to serve 
the needs of all students. The commenter stressed the need for a more 
diverse educator workforce, especially more diverse emergency-licensed 
teachers who possess bilingual skills, and the commenter believed they 
should be compensated like educators who receive stipends for special 
skills outside their regular duties.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations on 
subpart (b); subpart (b)(1)(v) was included for the purpose of ensuring 
a broader focus on college and career pathways. We agree that there is 
an identified need for STEM instruction in underserved communities; 
accordingly, in proposed subpart (b)(1)(vi) (now final (a)(2)(i)(F)) we 
provide for a focus on projects addressing the inequities in access to 
and success in rigorous and engaging approaches to STEM coursework. In 
addition, the Department previously funded and continues to fund many 
projects with a STEM focus. We agree that transitional instruction may 
help reduce the need for developmental education at the postsecondary 
level and note that proposed subpart (b)(1)(iii) (now final 
(a)(2)(i)(C)) has a focus on advanced courses and programs, including 
dual enrollment and early college programs; as a result, we believe 
that including additional language is unnecessary. We also agree that 
there should be a more diverse educator workforce and include that 
focus in proposed subpart (b)(2), which addresses educators from 
traditionally underrepresented backgrounds.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that in proposed subpart (b)(2) 
of Priority 2, the Department focus on non-novice educators, which are 
educators not in their first or second year of teaching, rather than 
inexperienced educators more broadly, and proposed additional language 
to ensure that schools serving underserved students do not have 
disproportionately high numbers of uncertified, out-of-field, and 
novice teachers. One commenter proposed clarifying that teachers must 
be fully certified, consistent with State law, in proposed subparts 
(b)(2) and (b)(4) to highlight that alternate pathways to certification 
may be offered under State law and often allow educators from 
underrepresented demographics to gain certification. The commenter 
articulated that this change would support fair and equitable treatment 
under Department competitions for schools subject to different 
requirements.
    Discussion: We agree that there is a need to ensure that there is 
an equitable distribution of experienced educators and are adding the 
language suggested by the commenter to clarify the focus of

[[Page 70622]]

this subpart. We recognize that there are different State requirements 
for certification and different pathways into the profession. The 
requirements for certification are determined by the State, and, 
therefore, in each place where we refer to certification, we are 
referring to certification under State law regardless of pathway into 
the profession.
    Changes: We have added language to proposed subpart (b)(2) to 
clarify that a project's objective under this subpart should be to 
ensure that underserved students are not taught at disproportionately 
higher rates by uncertified, out-of-field, and new teachers compared to 
their peers.
    Comments: One commenter recommended revising proposed subpart 
(b)(4) of Priority 2 to emphasize the need to support and retain 
teachers in the field of special education given the recent declines in 
teachers entering and staying within this field.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important to promote educational 
equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity in special education. 
Children or students with disabilities are an identified subgroup under 
the definition of ``underserved student.'' Furthermore, subparts (b)(3) 
and (b)(4) reference high-need fields, which may include special 
education educators. Accordingly, projects to promote equity in special 
education would be permitted under these subparts.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended adding the following specific 
programs to subpart (b)(5): Gender Spectrum's Gender-Inclusive 
Environment Training and Programming; National Association of School 
Psychologists' School Building Transgender and Gender Diverse Readiness 
Assessment; and the Family Acceptance Project's Training, Consultation 
and Program Development. Another commenter recommended that we include 
three specific programs in subpart (b)(5): Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs 
and Gender and Sexuality Alliances, LGBTQ-Specific Anti-Bullying 
Campaigns and Policies, and LGBTQ-Inclusive Sexual Education, citing 
the equity issues for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer 
(LGBTQ) students. Multiple commenters suggested adding ``ability'' as a 
category for pedagogical practices in subpart (b)(5) to ensure 
inclusion from the ability perspective. One commenter suggested 
modifying subpart (b)(5) to include projects that promote effective 
behavioral strategies and policies that create supportive school 
climates in the early learning years; partnering with parents; and 
providing supports for educators such as mental health consultants and 
training and technical assistance that help in addressing implicit 
bias.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' identification of 
specific programs and agree that the work of each could be relevant to 
Priority 2; however, we do not endorse specific programs within our 
priorities and do not believe they need to be added because applicants 
have the discretion to determine what approach or intervention will 
best address the priority and meet the needs of the targeted 
population. More generally, we also agree that there are equity issues 
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) 
students and note that this priority subpart supports projects designed 
to promote educational equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity 
for underserved students. In the definition of ``underserved 
students,'' LGBTQI+ students are already an identified subgroup.
    We agree that inclusive pedagogy should also include children or 
students with disabilities and are adding ``disability status'' to the 
list of included pedagogy. We also appreciate the commenter's 
suggestion for modification of this subpart to include projects that 
promote effective behavioral strategies and parent engagement and 
providing supports for educators such as mental health consultants and 
training and technical assistance, and believe that these projects, are 
covered elsewhere in the priorities, such as in Priority 1.
    Changes: We are including ``disability status,'' in subpart (b)(5).
    Comments: Two commenters suggested adding language to proposed 
subpart (b)(6) to specifically increase ``independence'' and ``promote 
self-determination'' in the use of technology to increase student 
engagement. Another commenter suggested separating proposed subpart 
(b)(6) into two subparts to emphasize the role out-of-school-time 
programs can play in supporting student engagement and equity. One 
commenter recommended adding parent advocacy and parent navigator roles 
in proposed subpart (b)(6). Another commenter recommended adding work-
based learning to proposed subpart (b)(6) so that virtual work-based 
learning is an option, thereby helping States address the 
transportation barrier that impacts work-based learning. One commenter 
expressed support for the inclusion of proposed subpart (b)(6) and 
encouraged the Department to promote strategic partnerships that foster 
innovation and allow schools to experiment with different learning 
models that leverage technology.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments. We believe that a focus on 
student independence and self-determination in the use of technology is 
permitted under the priority as written. Because the priority itself 
includes a focus on out-of-school time as an educational setting, and 
technology is highlighted in the priority as well, we believe there is 
already sufficient emphasis in proposed subpart (b)(6) (now final 
subpart (a)(2)(vi)) on the use of technology in out-of-school time 
activities. Further, we recognize the importance of parental 
involvement and believe that parent engagement under final subpart 
(a)(2)(vi) could include parent advocacy and navigation with the 
existing language.
    We also agree that virtual work-based learning could help address 
barriers to work-based learning. We believe that projects that promote 
such learning could already be included within the existing language of 
student learning or supplemental activities, and thus it is not 
necessary to include as a standalone focus. Finally, we agree that 
partnerships provide opportunities to leverage resources to increase a 
project's effectiveness or its ability to reach more students and that 
such partnerships would be permitted without changes to the subpart.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested we revise proposed subpart (b)(7) 
to focus on how funds are targeted and specifically to require funding 
levels to align with students' diverse needs and account for districts' 
differential access to local revenue given differences in local wealth 
and income levels.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment. We are clarifying in the 
subpart (now final subpart (a)(2)(vii)) that approaches to equitable 
school funding should focus on equitably meeting student needs and the 
district's capacity to fund K-12 schools.
    Changes: We have added language to now final subpart (a)(2)(vii) 
indicating that approaches to equitable school funding should align 
funding levels to students' needs and account for districts' 
differential access to local revenue.
    Comments: One commenter urged the Department to clarify in proposed 
subpart (b)(8) that access to high-quality early learning should be 
expanded for underserved populations through programs that are 
racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically responsive 
programs.

[[Page 70623]]

    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that projects to expand 
early learning programs should be racially, ethnically, culturally, and 
linguistically responsive.
    Changes: We have clarified in now final subpart (a)(2)(viii) that 
programs should be inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, 
language, and disability status.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that in proposed subpart (b)(9) 
of Priority 2, instead of ``multilanguage,'' we use the term 
``multilingual,'' which is used in the field.
    Discussion: We share the commenters' interest in using language 
consistent with that used by the field.
    Changes: We have replaced ``multilanguage'' with ``multilingual.''
    Comments: One commenter suggested we also promote engagement of 
families under proposed subpart (b)(10) of Priority 2, noting that 
family engagement opportunities may not be accessible or relevant to 
those families facing the greatest barriers because they are developed 
without input from them. Additionally, this commenter suggested adding 
language specific to ``parent leadership initiatives'' to provide 
parents with the opportunities and tools they need to be advocates and 
impact change on education issues. Another commenter suggested 
modifying this subpart to include staff and families.
    Discussion: We appreciate that there is a need for parents and 
families to be engaged in decision making and leadership and while we 
believe that they may be included among ``underserved community 
members,'' we agree that specifically including them would provide 
clarity. We have not added staff, as the appropriate staff are 
referenced in the prior subparts that refer to educators, which is a 
defined term that includes a range of school staff.
    Changes: We have added a reference to ``parents and families'' in 
now final subpart (a)(2)(x).
    Comments: One commenter recommended adding a reference to special 
education to proposed subpart (b)(11) of Priority 2, in recognition 
that a disproportionate percentage of youth in juvenile justice systems 
have disabilities and that they should receive access to all services 
to which they are entitled. Also, regarding subpart (b)(11), one 
commenter recommended the Department consider that non-credit programs 
can serve as a segue to college and career pathways for individuals 
exiting the justice system.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation to specifically focus 
on students with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. We do not 
think this revision is needed due to the inclusion of juvenile justice 
settings as a targeted educational setting in proposed subpart (a) and 
the inclusion of students impacted by the justice system and students 
with disabilities in the definition of underserved students, from which 
the Department can select one or more of the student subgroups 
identified. Additionally, regarding non-credit programs, we considered 
this approach but have instead focused on supporting all students in 
earning a recognized postsecondary credential, and therefore prioritize 
credit-bearing coursework. As a result, we decline to include this 
language.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A commenter requested that, in proposed subpart 
(b)(13)(ii) of Priority 2, we address within-school diversity and 
inclusion, such as efforts to end racialized tracking. Another 
commenter suggested that proposed subpart (b)(13)(ii)(A) require that 
the ongoing, robust family and community involvement include a diverse 
group of stakeholders. Another commenter wanted to create a separate 
priority with a focus of engaging family and community members in their 
child's education. One commenter urged the Department to add ``ethnic'' 
diversity along with ``racial'' and ``socioeconomic'' to subpart 
(b)(13)(iv)) and another commenter recommended adding ``ability'' to 
the same subpart. One commenter suggested putting special emphasis on 
the cross-agency collaboration listed in proposed subpart 
(b)(13)(ii)(C), specifically with the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD). One commenter recommended in proposed subpart 
(b)(13)(ii)(E) adding ``or referring to charter schools in addition to 
magnet schools, citing research on the level of diversity in charter 
schools and the opportunity for charter schools to enroll students 
across geographic boundaries.''
    Discussion: With respect to the request that we expressly promote 
within-school diversity and inclusion, we think that now final subpart 
(a)(2)(xiii)(B)(4) of Priority 2 addresses this through language 
related to an existing public diversity plan or diversity needs 
assessment. We agree that ethnic diversity and diversity of disability 
status are important and should be included in proposed subpart 
(b)(13)(iv), along with racial and socioeconomic diversity. We are 
modifying proposed subpart (b)(13)(iv) to include approaches that are 
inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and 
disability status. Regarding partnering specifically with HUD, we 
broadly address cross-agency partnerships in Priority 6 and therefore 
do not need to include that within this priority. With respect to 
charter schools, magnets were used as an exemplar and would not 
preclude an applicant being able to propose a project that addresses 
the same goals using charter schools.
    Changes: We have added language that is inclusive with regard to 
race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status in now final 
subpart (a)(2)(xiii)(D).
    Comments: A few commenters requested that the Department add a 
subpart (b)(14) to proposed Priority 2, to specifically improve the 
quality of education programs in Puerto Rico, to further the goal of 
promoting equity in access to educational resources and opportunities. 
One commenter recommended the addition of a subpart to prioritize the 
involvement of proximate voices in all levels of decision making to 
identify community needs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' desire to include 
language specific to Puerto Rico, and we agree that furthering the 
promotion of equity is important. We do not believe it is appropriate 
to target any particular State or territory as funding from the 
Department's discretionary grant programs may generally be used within 
any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, Outlying Areas, and the Tribal nations, and eligible 
applicants under our discretionary grant programs are generally 
established under a program's statutory authority and, if applicable, 
regulations. Regarding the request to add a subpart prioritizing 
proximate involvement to help identify community needs, in proposed 
subpart (a)(2), we specifically ask for projects designed to examine 
inequities and increase the number and proportion of educators from 
traditionally underrepresented backgrounds or the communities they 
serve with the intention of including more of those voices.
    Changes: None.

Priority 3--Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional 
Growth To Strengthen Student Learning

    Comments: Several commenters expressed their support for Priority 3 
and stated that the priority focused on the full pipeline of educator 
preparation and growth, as well as promoting a diverse educator 
workforce. Regarding educator preparation, they supported the 
preparation of certified teachers.

[[Page 70624]]

Multiple commenters supported the focus on a diverse educator 
workforce, especially programs that include comprehensive supports, 
build an educator workforce from the community, include pipelines for 
developing educators, align with existing efforts to recruit and 
support educators, and support student learning. Multiple commenters 
reiterated the importance of professional development for both new and 
experienced educators that is job-embedded; culturally responsive; 
focused on student social, emotional, and academic needs; integrates 
technology; and includes a focus on students' families and the needs of 
the community. One commenter favorably noted that some of the areas of 
professional development outlined in the priority overlap with the work 
after-school educators do. Lastly, commenters supported the inclusion 
of universal design for learning. One commenter, though, suggested that 
we revise subpart (c) to include ``accessibility'' and 
``accommodations'' in addition to universal design for learning, citing 
research related to working with children or students with disabilities 
during educator preparation.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the priority 
and agree on the importance of evidence-based educator preparation 
programs; credentials, especially in shortage areas; a diverse educator 
workforce; and professional growth. We do not think it is necessary to 
add ``accessibility'' and ``accommodations'' to subpart (c), as 
educators can be prepared in these areas in the educator preparation 
programs, and we think universal design for learning also can 
incorporate accessibility and accommodations without specifically 
adding language to the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter proposed splitting the priority into two 
priorities, with the first priority focused on educator preparation and 
the second priority focused on professional growth and student 
learning.
    Discussion: We recognize that in previous iterations of the 
Secretary's Supplemental Priorities, the various pieces of the educator 
pipeline have been addressed in separate priorities. However, as we 
stated in the background to the NPP, ``rather than a priority that is 
focused solely on educator professional development, the proposed 
priority addresses the needs of all educators, all aspects of the 
educator pipeline, and the diversity of and equitable access to those 
educators. This approach to the priorities provides a vision for 
systems-level approaches that build capacity for long-term change.'' As 
such, we are retaining Priority 3 as one comprehensive priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A few commenters expressed the importance of prioritizing 
HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs in preparing educators and recommended the 
Department prioritize these institutions so that they have the 
necessary resources for their educator preparation programs.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important that institutions, 
especially institutions that prepare a diverse set of educators, have 
the resources needed for those programs. We think that a focus on these 
institutions and their resources can be done through Priority 2 in 
combination with Priority 3.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A few commenters proposed that Priority 3 include a 
recognition of the economic challenges early learning educators face, 
from loan forgiveness to compensation and benefits. One commenter also 
noted the inconsistent State requirements for early learning educators, 
the lack of professional development, and their mental health needs. 
Another commenter highlighted the shortages of early learning 
educators.
    Discussion: We agree that there are economic challenges faced by 
early learning educators and recognize the important role early 
learning educators play in supporting the development of children. 
While early learning preparation standards are established at the State 
and local levels, we agree that early learning educators are an 
integral part of a diverse educator workforce and recognize the value 
of professional growth to strengthen student learning; however, we do 
not think any changes to the priority are necessary as we believe the 
priority is already inclusive of early learning educators.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A couple of commenters recommended adding a new subpart 
to the priority specifically for school leaders to address school 
climate.
    Discussion: We recognize the importance school leaders play in 
helping to establish school climate. Proposed subpart (b)(1)(vii)(5) of 
Priority 2 (now final Priority 2 subpart [(a)(2)(v)]) specifically 
addresses school climate and supportive, positive, and identity-safe 
education or work-based settings. Therefore, given there is a priority 
and subpart that specifically address school climate, and the fact that 
school leaders are included in the definition of ``educator'' and 
therefore all references to educators in Priority 3, we do not think a 
new subpart is necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested that we ensure that diverse 
educators prepared under Priority 3 are not segregated, stating that 
all students benefit from diverse educators. Further, the commenter 
recommended that in discussing diverse educators, we include language 
diversity. Another commenter recommended that diversity also include 
LGBTQI+ educators and alternative credentialing programs to prepare 
more LGBTQI+ educators.
    Discussion: We agree that all students, not just students of color, 
benefit from having access to diverse educators. We do not think that 
the priority would result in isolating particular groups of educators; 
rather, it is intended to diversify the educator workforce more 
broadly. Additionally, we agree that a diverse educator workforce 
includes educators with diverse language backgrounds and LGBTQI+ 
educators, but we do not believe that any additional language in the 
priority is necessary, nor that including language for alternative 
credentialing programs for specific groups of educators is needed.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter proposed that we add a new subpart in 
Priority 3 under which grantees would collect, track, and report data 
on educator diversity and, after examining the data, address 
disparities in graduation rates, passage rates for certification and 
licensure exams, successful employment, retention, and more.
    Discussion: We agree that an important aspect of the effort to 
promote diverse educators is understanding and addressing the issues 
that limit diverse educators from succeeding. As such, we propose 
adding a new subpart to the priority.
    Changes: We added a new final subpart (c) focused on examining and 
addressing issues related to the success of diverse educators and 
reordered the remaining subparts of the priority.
    Comments: Multiple commenters had recommendations related to the 
professional development pieces of the priority, specifically proposed 
subpart (g)(1). The commenter requested adding ``evidence-based'' in 
addition to ``high-quality'' and ``job embedded'' to describe 
professional development. Another commenter suggested that the priority 
emphasize professional development for educators to support children 
with disabilities and mental health needs. A third commenter suggested 
that the Department add subparts focused on professional

[[Page 70625]]

development for ``students' breadth of skills'' and ``whole learner 
approaches.''
    Discussion: We appreciate commenters' recommendations to focus the 
professional development pieces of this priority and recognize the 
importance of utilizing the existing evidence base to support the 
professional development. We can apply an appropriate evidence level 
established in 34 CFR 75.226, and we think that approach is preferable 
to adding ``evidence-based'' as suggested by the commenter in the 
specified subparts because it will allow the Department to tailor the 
evidence required to individual programs, as appropriate. We also 
support professional development designed to address the needs of 
children with disabilities and students' mental health needs in final 
subpart (h)(1)(iv) and in Priority 1 (c), and the necessary skills all 
students need to engage in learning. We think all these aspects of 
professional development can be covered under the priority as written.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A couple of commenters proposed changes to Priority 3 
related to educator working conditions, suggesting that it include 
teacher leadership and a more active role for teachers in decision 
making in schools and strong inclusion of teacher voice in policies 
such as student discipline procedures and demands on teachers' time. In 
addition, one commenter recommended that the priority support projects 
designed to assess the reasons for teacher turnover so that those 
issues can be addressed. Another commenter suggested that the priority 
focus on teacher salaries and alignment of those salaries with the cost 
of living.
    Discussion: We agree that working conditions have a significant 
impact on the educator workforce. This priority focuses on educators, 
which includes teachers, and this may include teachers' involvement in 
school decision making. The priority is also aimed at retaining a 
diverse educator workforce and addressing turnover will be central to 
retention. Lastly, proposed subpart (f) (now final subpart (g)) of the 
priority is specifically about hiring, supporting, and retaining 
educators, including developing compensation systems. As a result, we 
believe the priority as written already addresses the suggestions from 
commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested an additional subpart to the 
priority to incorporate more student engagement in providing feedback 
on educators and their involvement in assessments, utilizing incentives 
for performance pay, and mandating specific trainings, such as conflict 
resolution.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter raising the importance of 
student engagement and agree on ensuring student voices are heard. 
Although we appreciate the commenter's recommendations for how this 
priority could be expanded, we want to clarify that the priority could 
allow for projects like those described by the commenter so long as the 
projects are designed to diversify the educator workforce and support 
professional growth for educators. Applicants have the discretion to 
determine what approach or intervention will best address the priority 
and meet the needs of the targeted population.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters provided recommendations related to 
educator preparation programs and credentialing. Specifically, they 
recommended we consider highlighting ``grow your own'' programs that 
develop educators from the community, dual enrollment programs, and how 
college and career pathway programs think through supports for 
students. One commenter suggested adding the subparts under proposed 
(g)(1) of Priority 3 to subpart (a), arguing that it is important for 
newly prepared educators to be prepared in these same areas previously 
listed. Regarding credentialing, a few commenters suggested the 
Department include ``dual certification,'' and another commenter 
requested that the Department include a focus on two specific shortage 
areas: Dual credit educators and career and technical education 
educators. Another commenter recommended that subpart (b) include 
additional language to incentivize the recruitment and retention of 
certified educators in high-need schools.
    Discussion: We agree with the importance of recruiting from the 
community for future educators as well as other programs that allow 
educators to balance college and career as they proceed through the 
preparation program. The priority as written supports these efforts. 
Applicants have the discretion to determine what approach or 
intervention will best address the priority and meet the needs of the 
targeted population. Likewise, there is nothing that precludes educator 
preparation programs from incorporating the areas discussed in the 
professional development section of the priority in these educator 
preparation programs. Regarding the request to identify specific 
credentialing programs in the priority, we do not think it is necessary 
to list specific credentials beyond the shortage area language of the 
priority, as States and districts make determinations, based on local 
needs, of their shortage areas; however, we do agree that it is 
important to draw attention to dual certification as it may be used to 
help address shortage areas. In reviewing the priorities and the usage 
of ``shortage areas'' in relation to credentials, we noticed a 
discrepancy in usage; instead of ``shortage areas,'' Priority 2 refers 
to ``high-need fields.'' To be consistent, we will use ``shortage 
areas'' in both priorities. Regarding the comment on high-need schools, 
we do not think it is necessary to add language regarding educator 
placement in high-need schools, as proposed subpart (f) (now final 
subpart (g)) of Priority 3 focuses on building and expanding the 
educator workforce in districts with high rates of poverty.
    Changes: In Priority 3 we are adding ``or dual certification'' 
after ``certification'' to subpart (b) of the priority. In Priority 2, 
subparts (b)(3) and (b)(4), we are changing ``high-need fields'' to 
``shortage areas.''
    Comments: Multiple commenters offered recommendations related to 
financial incentives, supports, and compensation for educators. One 
commenter requested that we add a focus on expanding, in addition to 
implementing, loan-forgiveness programs under subpart (f). Another 
commenter recommended supports for educators related to licensure fees. 
A third commenter suggested that the priority address the cost of 
assessment fees for educators who commit to teach in a school district 
as well as licensure endorsements in leadership, coaching, and 
mentoring. Another commenter recommended that the term ``compensation'' 
include comprehensive benefits packages. Finally, one commenter, while 
recognizing that the priority focuses on underserved students, 
recommended we add in proposed subpart (e) (now final subpart (f)) a 
focus on financial incentives in high-need schools.
    Discussion: We appreciate commenters' recognition of the importance 
that financial incentives and compensation play in attracting and 
retaining educators. We agree that, along with implementing loan-
forgiveness programs, Priority 3 should promote expanding loan-
forgiveness programs. We do not agree, though, that subpart (e) should 
be limited to high-need schools, as diverse educators in all schools 
could benefit from loan-forgiveness and other programs based on their 
meeting service obligation requirements. We are aware of the costs 
associated with licensure and assessment fees and believe

[[Page 70626]]

comprehensive compensation can include coverage of these fees. In 
addition, proposed subpart (f)(2) (now final subpart (g)(2)), related 
to compensation systems, allows for inclusion of licensure endorsements 
and benefits packages and those applicants have the discretion to 
determine what compensation approach will best address the priority and 
meet the needs of the targeted population.
    Changes: We have added a reference to expanding loan forgiveness 
programs to final subpart (f) of the priority.
    Comments: Multiple commenters had recommendations for proposed 
subpart (f) (now final subpart (g)) of Priority 3. Commenters 
recommended adding charter schools in addition to high-poverty 
districts in proposed subpart (f), stating that with the hiring 
autonomy charter schools often have, charter schools that are a part of 
a local educational agency could be disadvantaged by not specifically 
being identified in the priority. One commenter also requested that we 
address, in proposed subpart (f), educator wellness and social and 
emotional health. Another commenter suggested a new subpart on educator 
involvement in change initiatives, to help support educator retention 
through educator engagement.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recognition that the 
autonomies granted to charter schools include hiring processes and 
decisions; however, we do not agree that not specifically identifying 
charter schools would favor any other applicant over charter school 
within this subpart. As to adding an additional subpart on educator 
wellness and their social and emotional health, these issues are 
covered under Priority 1 and do not require a new subpart under 
Priority 3. We agree that focusing on educator retention through their 
involvement in change initiatives is important and aligns with the 
intent of the priority as it is a way to help support and ensure 
educator engagement and, in turn, improve retention.
    Change: We have added a new final subpart (g)(4) on educator 
involvement in change initiatives which states increasing educator 
retention by providing opportunities for educators to be involved in 
the design and implementation of local and district wide initiatives 
that advance systemic changes.
    Comments: A few commenters made recommendations about proposed 
subpart (f)(3) of Priority 3 related to data systems, with one 
commenter supporting the subpart and encouraging an emphasis on how 
well-designed data systems inform student learning and working 
conditions. Another commenter requested the addition of a subpart 
focused on data sharing to inform curriculum for early learning 
education.
    Discussion: We agree that using data to inform teaching, learning, 
and working conditions is important for schools and districts; however, 
we do not think it is necessary to add a subpart that is focused on 
data systems for human capital management. Applicants can consider how 
best to use data to inform applications in response to all the 
priorities, including priorities focused on COVID-19 and equity, as 
well as how best to share the data. This would not need to be 
explicitly included within the priority to allow for multiple methods 
to be used.
    Change: None.
    Comments: A few commenters supported proposed subpart (g)(1)(i) of 
Priority 3 and recommended that the subpart emphasize digital 
citizenship skills and competencies as well as student mastery of 
knowledge.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for this subpart and agree 
that an emphasis on instruction that is engaging, utilizes technology, 
and develops critical thinking skills is important. While digital 
citizenship skills and mastery of knowledge are important, this subpart 
is focused on the instructional component of learning, and we do not 
think it is necessary to add anything additional to the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported the list of key 
transitional stages in proposed subpart (g)(1)(ii) (now final subpart 
(h)(1)(ii)), with one commenter emphasizing the importance of the 
transition to work and ensuring that those transitioning to work have 
the necessary understanding of performance expectations in the 
workplace. Another commenter recommended adding early learning to the 
list, noting the importance of the transition from early learning to 
elementary schools, especially for English learners and children with 
disabilities.
    Discussion: We agree that the successful transition to work 
requires that students and their families are equipped with the 
knowledge necessary for this transition, including an understanding of 
accountability systems. We think this knowledge of how we focus on 
accountability is embedded in this transition period and does not need 
to be specifically addressed. We also recognize that the transition 
from early learning to elementary school is critical, especially for 
some populations of students, but since the priority is written to 
support transitioning into the setting included in the list, the 
transition from early learning to elementary school is covered under 
elementary school in what is now subpart (h)(1)(ii)(A).
    Changes: Added ``early learning'' to what is now subpart 
(h)(1)(ii)(A).
    Comments: One commenter suggested that proposed subpart (g)(1)(iii) 
of Priority 3 be expanded to include professional development for 
English learner specialists and general education educators with the 
intent of ensuring all educators are prepared to meet the needs of 
English learners.
    Discussion: We agree that all educators should be prepared to meet 
the needs of English learners; however, given that subpart (h)(1) is 
focused on professional development, we do not think additional 
language is needed under (h)(1)(iii)]. The language of what is now 
(h)(1)(iii), which is unchanged from the proposed language in 
(g)(1)(iii), addresses professional development to meet the needs of 
English Learners; because it is worded broadly enough to encompass both 
specialists and general education teachers, additional language is not 
needed.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported proposed subpart (g)(1)(iv) 
(now final subpart (h)(1)(iv)) of Priority 3 that specifically 
addresses meeting the needs of children or students with disabilities. 
In their support of the priority, one commenter recommended ensuring 
that new educators are made aware of the specific supports and 
processes in a district so that the educator is better prepared to 
serve children or students with disabilities. The commenter also 
recommended that, in meeting the needs of children or students with 
disabilities, educators should understand disabilities so that issues 
related to them are not misunderstood and treated as disciplinary 
issues. One commenter recommended adding language to include universal 
design for learning and evidence-based practices to the subpart. 
Another commenter recommended using the term ``most significant 
cognitive disabilities'' to align with the ESEA.
    Discussion: We agree on the importance of meeting the needs of 
children or students with disabilities and agree on the importance of 
utilizing universal design for learning and evidence-based practices. 
Priority 3 includes universal design for learning in subparts (d) and 
(e), and Priority 2(a)(2)(i)(A) also incorporates it. We can apply an 
appropriate evidence level established in 34 CFR 75.226, and we

[[Page 70627]]

think that approach is preferable to adding ``evidence-based'' as 
suggested by the commenter in the specified subparts because it will 
allow the Department to tailor the evidence required to individual 
programs, as appropriate. We support the commenter's recommendations 
that educators be made aware of district supports and processes and 
that educator preparation include better understanding of disabilities 
to prevent unnecessary discipline. The proposed priority supports these 
efforts. Applicants have the discretion to determine what approach or 
intervention will best address the priority and meet the needs of the 
targeted population. Lastly, we agree that there should be alignment, 
where possible, with appropriate statutes and therefore agree that the 
priority should refer to ``students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities.''
    Changes: We have added ``cognitive'' after ``most significant'' in 
final subpart (h)(1)(iv) of Priority 3.
    Comments: Under proposed subpart (g)(1)(v) (now final subpart 
(h)(1)(v)) of Priority 3, one commenter requested adding ``ability'' to 
the list of inclusive pedagogy to ensure that pedagogy also focuses on 
the needs of children or students with disabilities.
    Discussion: We agree that inclusive pedagogy should include 
children or students with disabilities. To be consistent with other 
Department regulations with similar language, we are adding 
``disability status'' to the list of inclusive pedagogy.
    Changes: We have added ``disability status,'' to subpart (h)(1)(v).
    Comments: One commenter recommended adding ``underserved students'' 
to the end of proposed subpart (g)(1)(viii) (now final subpart 
(h)(1)(viii)) of Priority 3 to focus the work in these classroom 
environments on this specific population.
    Discussion: We agree that an emphasis on underserved students is 
important. Given the priority itself has a focus on underserved 
students, we do not think it is necessary to add underserved students 
to this subpart, as well.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A couple of commenters had recommendations specific to 
assessments under proposed subpart (g)(2) (now final subpart (h)(2)) of 
Priority 3, including ensuring that assessments are not just one 
``high-stakes'' assessment and that assessments used to gauge work 
readiness have a broader focus than just career and technical 
education, including being performance-based, and align with State and 
industry standards.
    Discussion: We appreciate commenters' recognition that assessments 
should not just focus on end-of-year or other high-stakes assessments 
and that assessments should also more broadly look at the needs of all 
students. The proposed priority is not focused on high-stakes 
assessments alone. As to work readiness, while the subpart refers to 
career and technical education, these assessments, which are designed 
to measure student learning, can include other standards, such as State 
or industry standards. Applicants have the discretion to determine what 
assessments will best address the priority and meet the needs of the 
targeted population.
    Changes: None.

Priority 4--Meeting Student Social, Emotional, and Academic Needs

    Comments: Many commenters expressed support for Priority 4, stating 
that social and emotional learning is important to overall well-being. 
Several commenters strongly supported the priority and expressed 
agreement with the focus on trauma-informed pedagogy.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for this priority and agree 
with the commenters that meeting social and emotional needs is central 
to supporting students' overall well-being.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters commended the inclusion of experts and 
the systemic implementation of evidence-based practices in social and 
emotional learning. One commenter recommended the addition of the term 
``evidence-based'' to subparts (b)(2), (b)(5), and (h). Another 
commenter urged the Department to review proposals that include a 
social and emotional learning component to build on the robust evidence 
base in the field of social and emotional learning and ensure that the 
evidence base is high quality. One commenter recommended that the 
Department focus on implementation of evidence-based practices in 
addition to the evidence supporting why a practice is effective and 
noted the need for access to technical assistance around 
implementation.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters on the importance of 
building and using evidence in this area. In addition to the use of 
these priorities, we can apply an appropriate evidence level 
established in 34 CFR 75.226, and we think that approach is preferable 
to adding ``evidence-based'' as suggested by the commenter in the 
specified subparts because it will allow the Department to tailor the 
evidence required to individual programs, as appropriate. We agree that 
the efforts to support implementation of evidence-based practices are 
critical.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters made suggestions for use of Priority 4 
in the Department's competitive grant programs. One commenter expressed 
support for this priority and encouraged the Department to maintain the 
focus on improving students' social, emotional, academic, and career 
development, including through nutritional, mental health, school 
climate, and other supports. One commenter expressed support for the 
inclusion of this priority and encouraged the Department to work with 
the education community to include this priority into Federal programs. 
Another commenter supported the priority and argued that including this 
as a competitive preference priority in future grant competitions could 
help colleges expand these types of programs. Another commenter 
expressed support for the priority and urged flexibility within ESEA 
Title II and Title IV formula grant programs to support professional 
development to address social and emotional learning and evidence-based 
trauma informed practices. In addition, the commenter urged the 
Department to provide programmatic and financial resources to help 
States and districts implement and educate families and communities on 
trauma-informed and culturally relevant practices.
    Discussion: We appreciate the input of these commenters. These 
priorities are intended to be a menu of options for the Department to 
use in our discretionary grant programs. As noted earlier, the 
Department may choose which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are 
appropriate for a particular program competition, as well as the 
selection criteria. If the Department chooses to use a supplemental 
priority, it will decide whether the priority will be used as an 
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority in the grant 
competitions. As these priorities capture policy areas of general 
importance for the Department, there are also related efforts to 
provide technical assistance and guidance related to formula grant 
programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter supported the emphasis on social and 
emotional needs and engagement recommended in Priority 4 and 
recommended incorporating these aspects of education into K-12 school

[[Page 70628]]

accountability frameworks. Another commenter recommended revising 
subpart (a) to include parents.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' points on aligning with 
school accountability frameworks and involving parents. Adding 
references to school accountability could focus the priority on K-12 
education as school accountability is part of ESEA Title I, and these 
priorities are for all discretionary grants including those focused on 
postsecondary education. Family involvement is included in several 
subparts throughout the priority where we think their involvement is 
most applicable. As such, we decline to make these changes to keep the 
priority flexible.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters articulated the connection between 
social and emotional well-being and academics, with some commenters 
stating that these skills are too often taught separately. One 
commenter highlighted that evidence supports that more explicitly pair 
social and emotional learning efforts with academic support can 
contribute to academic growth. Another commenter suggested specific 
additions to tie the connection between academics and social and 
emotional learning into a larger asset-based approach.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' arguments in favor of 
making the connection between social and emotional learning and 
academic support clear. We think that is best accomplished through the 
priority as written to enable the priority to be considered in a wider 
breadth of programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters expressed support for the inclusion of 
partnerships in the priority. One commenter encouraged the Department 
to foster partnerships between educational institutions and mental 
health professionals, and another commenter noted the strong focus on 
community partners and trusting relationships. Another commenter noted 
that, in immigrant communities, there can be a level of fear and 
distrust of government agencies. Another commenter recommended that 
school-community partnerships supplement existing services and involve 
collaboration between community providers and existing school personnel 
(e.g., school psychologists, counselors, social workers).
    Discussion: We appreciate the support from these commenters and 
agree that partnerships are important to include in this priority. 
Building trust with communities is essential to having the partnerships 
achieve their intended outcomes. We agree that collaboration with 
existing school personnel is important and, to address each of the 
potential collaborators identified, are adding a definition for 
``educator'' that includes the personnel identified by the commenter.
    Changes: We are adding a definition of ``educator'' that includes 
the personnel identified by the commenter.
    Comments: A commenter proposed adding language to subpart (b)(3) of 
Priority 4 that would include the diversity of stakeholders in 
engagement efforts to allow for meaningful representation in decision-
making.
    Discussion: We appreciate and agree with the commenter's point that 
engagement efforts should include individuals from diverse backgrounds 
who are representative of the community.
    Changes: We are rephrasing subpart (b)(3) so that it reads, 
``Engaging students (including underserved students), educators, 
families, and community partners from diverse backgrounds and 
representative of the community as partners in school climate review 
and improvement efforts.''
    Comments: Some commenters recommended revising subpart (b)(4) of 
Priority 4 to refer to applicants involving educators in decision-
making, including in such areas as establishing school discipline 
procedures. One commenter recommended incentivizing the elimination of 
zero tolerance and exclusionary disciplinary practices while also 
prioritizing the development and implementation of culturally informed 
discipline policies. One commenter asked to add to Priority 4 a 
reference to specialized training for educators and administrators on 
school discipline, restorative practice, trauma-informed environments, 
and implicit bias. Another commenter recommended addressing in subpart 
(b)(4) how positive parent and family interaction with the schools can 
be helpful in addressing negative discipline styles. One commenter 
recommended applying this priority to the competitions within the CSP.
    Discussion: We agree that educators should be involved in 
establishing disciplinary practices and that related training is 
important. We believe that it is important to advance culturally 
informed discipline practices as noted in the priority, which we expect 
would incentivize the reduction or elimination of zero tolerance 
policies and exclusionary practices. In response to the comment related 
to using this priority in the CSP program, if the Department chooses to 
use a supplemental priority, it also will decide whether the priority 
will be used as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational 
priority in a grant competition. We also agree that positive parent and 
family interaction is valuable and believe that this is also addressed 
within Priority 1 and Priority 2.
    Changes: We are revising subpart (b)(4) of Priority 4, by involving 
educators, students, and families, in decision-making about discipline 
procedures and providing training and resources to support educators.
    Comments: Several supported the focus of subpart (b)(4) of Priority 
4 on the disproportionate use of discipline towards students with 
disabilities, especially students of color with disabilities, and 
concerns that such students should not lose instructional time. One 
commenter emphasized the need to move away from discriminatory 
discipline policies toward evidence-based policies that create safe and 
inclusive environments.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support of these commenters and agree 
with the importance of examining discipline policies.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter supported the Department's focus in subpart 
(b)(5) of Priority 4 on real-world, hands-on learning to address 
student needs, noting this approach will help students build technical 
and essential employability skills and social capital. Two other 
commenters proposed modifications to subpart (b)(5). One commenter 
suggested including family service learning in this subpart, noting the 
value of a multi-generational approach to addressing the needs of a 
community. Another commenter suggested that the Department provide 
incentives to connect work-based learning to career-focused 
instruction, along with other strategies, to increase college and 
career readiness.
    Discussion: We agree that real-world, hands-on learning 
opportunities should be connected to instruction to bolster college and 
career readiness. While family service learning would be an appropriate 
strategy in some programs and communities, there may be situations 
where it is not practicable or aligned with program goals. Thus, we 
decline to make that change.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (b)(5) of Priority 4 to clarify 
that real-world, hands-on learning opportunities should also be aligned 
with instruction.
    Comments: One commenter expressed general support for subpart (d). 
Another

[[Page 70629]]

commenter suggested adding ``linguistically inclusive practices'' in 
addition to trauma-informed practices within the subpart.
    Discussion: In designing a grant competition, the Department may 
choose to use one or more subparts in a particular grant competition. 
Subpart (c)(3) refers to the diversity of evidence-based professional 
development and as linguistically inclusive practices were identified 
as an element of the diverse practices; we believe that it could be 
coupled with this subpart to have an effect similar to the commenter's 
suggestion.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed support for subpart (f). Another 
commenter recommended adding ``and accessible'' after ``physically 
healthy,'' citing a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study 
related to school buildings and physical barriers to people with 
disabilities. The commenter urged the Department to include physical 
accessibility in improvements to school infrastructure. Another 
commenter suggested strengthening the various sections of this priority 
by recognizing the physical and mental health needs of young children.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the need to ensure that 
school buildings are accessible to persons with disabilities. The 
Department's regulations implementing, in compliance with the 
requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which 
prohibits disability discrimination in federally assisted programs and 
activities, contain requirements applicable to the physical 
accessibility of facilities and the accessibility of recipients' 
programs or activities. Recipients of Federal funds from the Department 
are required to comply with these regulations, which ensure that 
persons with disabilities are not discriminated against because a 
recipient's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by persons with 
disabilities. In addition to Section 504's requirements, the Department 
of Justice regulations implementing Title II of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act prohibit disability discrimination by State and local 
governmental entities (Title II) regardless of their receipt of Federal 
funds. The Title II ADA regulations also contain accessibility 
requirements to ensure nondiscrimination. The Department's Office for 
Civil Rights enforces Section 504 and, in the education context, shares 
in the enforcement of Title II with the Department of Justice to ensure 
accessibility and equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities. 
We believe that the needs of young children are addressed through the 
inclusion of early learning settings in this priority, so a change is 
not needed.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters expressed general support for subpart (g) 
with one noting that, as schools reopen, the capacity to address 
students' mental and emotional well-being is imperative. Another 
commenter urged the Department to indicate that the services provided 
must be linguistically and culturally responsive. Another commenter 
suggested explicitly using the terms ``school social worker,'' ``school 
psychologist,'' and ``school counselors'' and ``other school-based 
mental health service professionals'' as defined in ESEA. Another 
commenter expressed appreciation for the inclusion of the language 
``social workers, psychologists, counselors, nurses, or mental health 
professionals and other integrated services and supports, which may 
include in early learning environments,'' and requested the inclusion 
of the full range of specialized instructional support personnel in 
supporting students' social and emotional learning.
    Discussion: We agree with adding that services provided should be 
inclusive, including but not limited to linguistic and cultural 
inclusivity. We also agree that school-based mental health service 
professionals and specialized instructional support personnel are 
important partners in providing these services and believe that the 
language of the priority is flexible enough to incorporate their work 
in settings where they are working with students. We decline to be more 
specific in this subpart so as not to unintentionally exclude services 
from the priority settings that are not based in an elementary or 
secondary school.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (g) of Priority 4 to state that 
services provided should be inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, 
culture, language, and disability status.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that work-based learning be 
included in subpart (h) of Priority 4, as it is an impactful form of 
experiential learning that allows learners to acquire hands-on skills 
and view firsthand what occurs in the professional setting of their 
interest.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter regarding the value of 
work-based learning and think that experiential learning includes work-
based learning. Therefore, we decline to specifically add work-based 
learning to the subpart.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended adding adult learning to 
subpart (j) of Priority 4 and another commenter urged the Department to 
include language to explain that services provided should be 
comprehensive, and linguistically and culturally responsive.
    Discussion: We agree with the recommended additions of adult 
education and inclusivity to fostering partnerships with multiple 
entities.
    Changes: We have added ``adult learning providers'' to the list of 
types of organizations that provide services under subpart (j). In 
addition, we have revised this subpart to include approaches that are 
inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and 
disability status.

Priority 5--Increasing Postsecondary Education Access, Affordability, 
Completion, and Post-Enrollment Success

    Comments: Several commenters expressed their support for Priority 
5. Two commenters expressed appreciation for the focus on transfer 
pathways while another commenter appreciated the focus on creating 
student-centered flexible systems of support. Another commenter 
supported the priority and noted that it could be used in competitions 
to help students access comprehensive educator preparation programs, 
and another commenter who supported this priority noted that it could 
be relevant to programs that support the early childhood workforce. One 
commenter expressed support for the Department's inclusion of adult 
learners in Priority 5. Two commenters applauded the priority's focus 
on establishing partnerships with HBCUs, TCUs, MSIs and community 
colleges. Three commenters expressed support for the priority and 
recommended that the Department consider using this priority in 
specific competitions, including the Education Innovation and Research 
program as well as in programs administered by the Office of Career, 
Technical, and Adult Education. Two commenters strongly supported 
subparts (i) and (j) of the priority, with one commenter expressing 
support for subpart (j) for its focus on evidence-based strategies and 
further suggested that the Department define ``evidence-based 
strategies'' to include strategies that meet the promising evidence 
definition from the ESEA as well as strategies based on research that 
use random assignment or quasi-experimental research methods.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for this priority and agree 
with the

[[Page 70630]]

commenters about the importance of including each of these topic areas 
within Priority 5. Although we do not set priorities for specific 
competitions in this notice, we appreciate hearing feedback from 
commenters regarding alignment between these priorities and particular 
programs. We also agree that it is important to emphasize the use of 
evidence-based practices throughout Department grant programs. The term 
``evidence-based'' is defined consistent with the definitions of the 
term in 34 CFR 77.1 and section 8101(21) of the ESEA (depending on the 
authorization of the program that uses the term) and includes 
strategies based on promising evidence as well as research that meets 
higher evidence standards such as moderate evidence and strong 
evidence. Strategies that align with the demonstrates a rationale 
definition also align with the evidence-based definition, so we decline 
to specify a particular level of evidence in the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter made several suggestions that they think 
would improve Priority 5, including partnering with students, providing 
guidance on creating student-centered, individualized plans for college 
readiness, ensuring best practices and resources are allocated towards 
marginalized students, and establishing partnerships with the private 
sector to promote career and mentorship opportunities. Another 
commenter noted the priority's alignment to the purpose of the Federal 
TRIO programs. The commenter also expressed support for the goal of a 
diverse educator workforce and suggested the TRIO-Student Support 
Services program, with its focus area on teacher preparation, could 
serve as a helpful lever for achieving this goal.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for their suggestions and agree 
that these are helpful points of emphasis. However, we believe that 
they are already broadly addressed within the priority through the 
descriptions in each subpart of Priority 5 of project design for 
traditionally underserved students. As stated previously, the 
Department does not set priorities for any particular grant program 
through this notice, but appreciates the commenter's perspective on 
opportunities for applying them.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested adding a new subpart to the 
priority that would support the development and implementation of 
comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs for students with 
intellectual disabilities to promote these programs that were 
authorized in the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 
1965, as amended (HEA).
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for highlighting the needs of 
this important population of students and agree with the concern that 
Priority 5 could be more inclusive of postsecondary students with 
intellectual disabilities which, in turn, could assist these students 
in accessing services provided through a wider range of Department 
grant programs.
    Changes: We have added subpart (l) to Priority 5 to support the 
development and implementation of comprehensive transition and 
postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities 
under the HEA.
    Comments: One commenter recommended adding language to Priority 5 
to note that the project's goal should be to help increase 
employability and access to quality jobs that provide a living wage, 
strong workplace standards, and work-family supports.
    Discussion: We share the commenter's perspective on the importance 
of these goals. We agree that increasing employability and access to 
quality jobs are priorities that we consider within a broader category 
of post-graduate outcomes.
    Changes: We have added ``and post-college outcomes'' to subpart (d) 
after ``completion''.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department add an 
additional priority area to encourage applicants to conduct equity 
audits, which are internal reviews of policies and practices to 
identify those that fail to effectively serve underrepresented 
students. The commenter expressed that these audits can address a range 
of issues such as admissions and financial aid, counseling services on 
campus, instructor diversity, and accessibility for students with 
disabilities to inform reforms.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions. We recognize 
that equity audits are one important strategy to promote equity and do 
not want to limit the field's approaches. However, we do not think it 
is appropriate to add an additional priority as the Department has 
monitoring protocols to ensure that applicants that receive awards 
comply with the requirements of the competition. Those requirements 
vary across program offices, but grant recipients must comply with 
them. We believe these requirements would address many of the concerns 
raised by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested adding the term ``evidence-
based'' to subparts (b), (c), and (h) of Priority 5 to encourage 
applicants to propose to implement evidence-based strategies in these 
areas.
    Discussion: We agree with this commenter on the importance of 
promoting the use of evidence-based practices to promote postsecondary 
student outcomes. We also note that in any competition, the Department 
already has the authority to combine any of these priority subparts 
with a particular evidence standard established in 34 CFR 75.226. This 
flexibility allows the Department to tailor the evidence required to 
individual programs, as appropriate.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed particular concern that Priority 
5 does not mention the word ``parent'' or ``family,'' noting that many 
youth and young adults in post-secondary programs are still supported 
by their parents and families. The commenter suggested revising the 
priority to include a focus on helping parents to support their youth/
young adults in accessing and completing higher education.
    Discussion: We agree with the notion that many students rely on the 
support of their families as they progress into and through their 
postsecondary programs. We note that none of the language in this 
priority would preclude applicants from proposing projects that support 
parents of postsecondary students if providing such support is 
allowable in a specific Department grant program.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed the desire to add a new subpart 
to Priority 5 related to providing secondary students access to career 
exploration and/or career advisement so that they are aware of 
postsecondary opportunities aligned with their academic and career 
goals, and the steps and supports necessary for that college and career 
path.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter and agree that using evidence-
based approaches to assist students with career exploration prior to 
college matriculation can be essential to putting students on a career 
pathway. Although we note that final subpart (f) includes a focus on 
career services, we agree with the commenter that a targeted subpart 
focusing on providing secondary students with career exploration and 
advisement opportunities is a valuable addition to these priorities.
    Change: We have revised Priority 5 by adding a new subpart (m) that 
to

[[Page 70631]]

prioritize projects that provide secondary school students with access 
to career exploration and advising opportunities to help them make 
informed decisions about their postsecondary enrollment and place them 
on a career path.
    Comments: One commenter urged the Department to include language 
within this priority that acknowledges the large share of adult 
learners who face challenges such as low and very low levels of formal 
education, limited English proficiency, high rates of poverty, and 
employment in low-skilled jobs. The commenter recommended that they 
receive equitable access to adult education services that are 
responsive to their needs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation by the commenter and 
agree that many adult learners face challenges. We have addressed those 
challenges by focusing on adult learners in final subpart (f). 
Therefore, we think that the inclusion of additional language would be 
redundant.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter supported the Department's commitment to 
accessible and affordable higher education but recommended that the 
Department modify Priority 5 to include support for efforts to lower 
barriers to obtaining graduate education, particularly for fields 
experiencing critical shortages, such as school psychology.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment, but we do not think a 
separate focus on assisting students in attaining graduate degrees is 
necessary. The Department's Office of Postsecondary Education 
administers a number of programs that are specifically designed to 
support students in pursuing graduate education, such as: The TRIO-
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Program, which is designed to 
provide assistance to help low-income and first generation college 
students pursue doctoral degrees; the Graduate Assistance in Areas of 
National Need program, which provides grants to assist students in 
pursuing graduate degrees in specific areas of national need; the 
Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad program, which provides funding 
to support individual doctoral students to conduct research abroad in 
modern foreign languages and area studies; as well as various programs 
authorized by titles III and V of the HEA that are designed to expand 
the capacity of HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs to offer graduate education 
opportunities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested the Department put a greater 
emphasis on establishing partnerships through Priority 5 to effectively 
smooth transitions for students and reduce barriers. The commenter 
highlighted issues around delivery of early college credit and reducing 
the need for developmental education as examples. Another commenter 
suggested that the Department include specific references to early 
college credit and recommended that we emphasize the importance of 
developing college and career pathways systems.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for highlighting the importance 
of, and role of Department grant programs in, establishing partnerships 
to bridge divides in the educational landscape, including partnerships 
between secondary and postsecondary schools, as well as partnerships 
across postsecondary institutions. We believe final subpart (a) of 
Priority 5 creates clearer pathways for students between institutions 
by making transfer of course credits more seamless and transparent. We 
also think proposed subpart (a) of Priority 5 (which became final 
subpart (b) of Priority 2), which encourage partnerships involving 
HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, as well as Priority 6, which provides the 
Department with the ability to require or encourage partnerships across 
Department competitions, address this concern. Regarding the comment 
about early college credit, we believe that final subpart (h) would 
allow for the inclusion of such a program.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended adding adult education programs 
as a fifth category of prioritized institutions in proposed subpart (a) 
of Priority 5; another commenter suggested adding career and technical 
education schools as an additional category of prioritized 
institutions.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations and have 
included both categories in what was subpart(a) of Priority 5 in the 
NPP. To ensure better application of this subpart, we have moved it to 
subpart (b) in Priority 2 in this NFP.
    Changes: We have included adult education and career and technical 
education in Priority 5 subpart (b).
    Comments: One commenter suggested that instead of focusing on 
underserved students at community colleges, HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, the 
Department should instead focus on addressing inequities at well-
resourced and highly selective colleges and universities. The commenter 
further suggested that this priority would further encourage well-
resourced institutions to continue recruiting wealthier, high-achieving 
white students and noted concern regarding low enrollment rates of 
underserved students at well-resourced institutions.
    Discussion: We think that enrollment rates of students from low-
income backgrounds are too low across the board, and we agree that 
there is much work to be done to increase racial and economic diversity 
in postsecondary education, including at well-resourced and highly 
selective institutions. We note that multiple subparts within this 
priority are focused on increasing the number of underserved students 
who succeed in postsecondary education, regardless of the type of 
institution. For example, final subpart (b) would give priority to 
applicants that propose to increase the number and proportion of 
underserved students who enroll in and complete postsecondary education 
programs, regardless of whether the institution is well-resourced or 
under-resourced. The Department also recognizes, however, that HBCUs, 
TCUs, MSIs and community colleges educate a disproportionate number of 
underserved students, and as a result, any effort to improve 
postsecondary outcomes for underserved students must include targeted 
support to these institutions. We have moved references to targeting 
support to these institutions, including through establishing 
partnerships with well-resourced institutions and other organizations, 
to subpart (b) in Priority 2.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed general support for subpart (c) 
of Priority 5.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the subpart.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed support for the inclusion of 
``Post-enrollment Success'' in the title of Priority 5, but this 
commenter suggested modifications to highlight career readiness 
throughout the priority. Specifically, regarding subpart (e), this 
commenter suggested adding post-graduate outcomes to the list of 
student outcomes. The commenter suggested several ways the Department 
could define post-graduate outcomes, such as graduate school 
matriculation, as well as several metrics that could be used to 
characterize a strong first job.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations and think that post-
enrollment broadly includes any point on a student's trajectory. We 
agree that there are many ways to define post-graduate outcomes and 
that adding post-graduate outcomes would be beneficial to add to the 
range of data identified as

[[Page 70632]]

post-enrollment outcomes. Including these data would allow a more 
coherent sense of what is meant by success than simply ending with 
graduation.
    Changes: We have added post-college outcomes to the subpart, which 
is now designated as subpart (d).
    Comments: One commenter strongly supported proposed subpart (e).
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the proposed subpart, 
which is now final subpart (d). We agree that a system of high-quality 
data will benefit students.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested requiring alignment of data-
related efforts to statewide goals (e.g., for postsecondary attainment) 
with a focus on measuring equity gaps and identifying strategies for 
ongoing monitoring and accountability.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and note that 
there are current data collections from other areas within the 
Department that focus on equity gaps. Additionally, the Department is 
required to monitor grantees and do so in a myriad of ways; therefore, 
we will not be adding this language to the priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter emphasized the importance of ensuring that 
undergraduate students have access to coursework and activities that 
prepare them for the workforce. This commenter further noted the 
importance of providing high-quality career preparation to 
undergraduate students across all majors and programs of study. This 
commenter suggested that the Department add ``Credit-bearing academic 
undergraduate courses focused on career,'' after ``career services'' in 
proposed subpart (f) of Priority 5.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation of the commenter and 
agree that there is a need for undergraduate students to have access to 
coursework and activities that prepare them for the workforce. We 
included structured/guided pathways within the priority to ensure that 
guardrails are provided for students and agree that the inclusion of 
the recommended language would be helpful to ensure that students were 
not just given guardrails, but also taking necessary classes within 
their major to avoid spending unnecessary time and money.
    Changes: We have revised proposed subpart (f) to include ``credit-
bearing academic undergraduate courses focused on career'' after 
``career services'' in what is now final subpart (e).
    Comments: One commenter suggested connecting efforts around 
integrated approaches with college and career pathway system 
development, including guided pathways and career and technical 
education and bridge programming that can accelerate students in 
subpart (f) of Priority 5.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions and agree 
that creating clear connections is beneficial to students. We believe 
that these connections are already included in the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department revise 
proposed subpart (g) (now final subpart (f)), which focuses on 
increasing the number of individuals who return to the educational 
system, to specifically recognize those individuals who return to the 
educational system to gain English language skills and/or to integrate 
into society.
    Discussion: We appreciate and agree with this comment and recognize 
the unique challenges for English learners who return to the 
educational system.
    Changes: In an effort to increase the number of English learners 
who return to the educational system to gain English language skills, 
we have added English language learning in subpart (f) of Priority 5.
    Comments: One commenter expressed support for proposed subpart (h). 
This commenter appreciated that the language provides applicants 
flexibility to integrate multiple approaches to supporting learners.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the proposed subpart, 
which is now subpart (g) in this NFP, and agree that multiple 
approaches to delivering instruction to students are necessary, 
depending on the context. We also agree that Priority 5 affords 
applicants the flexibility to combine multiple approaches to best 
support students.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed support for the inclusion of 
work-based learning in proposed subpart (h) (now final subpart (g)) of 
Priority 5, stating that work-based learning is essential to creating 
an equitable and racially just economic recovery. The commenter also 
suggested that work-based learning must be year-round and layered into 
all levels of education. This commenter suggested adding a new subpart 
focused on building community capacity to develop or strengthen 
effective career readiness programs by supporting cross-system 
collaborative partnerships composed of leaders from education, 
workforce, government, social services, philanthropy, and the private 
sector to provide work-based learning opportunities and high-quality 
college and career pathways.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for the inclusion 
of work-based learning and agree that partnerships are important 
components of this work; however, we address cross-agency and entity 
partnerships in Priority 6 and work-based learning in Priority 2, which 
may be used in combination with this priority, so no changes are 
needed.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended the Department implement career 
and technical education models that are grounded in labor market 
information and aligned from secondary through postsecondary education.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation and believe that 
proposed subparts (i) and (j) (now final subparts (h) and (i)), which 
focus on the use of evidence-based strategies, would ensure that 
current and proven models would be used that could include labor market 
information but is not restricted to that data source. Therefore, we 
have not included this additional language.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter supports the focus in proposed subpart (k) 
(now final subpart (j)) of Priority 5 on the transitional phase from 
high school to adulthood, especially the subpart that would prioritize 
applications that connect students and adults with disabilities with 
transition services under the Vocational Rehabilitation program or the 
IDEA.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for subpart (j) and agree 
with the importance of the inclusion of transition services under the 
Vocational Rehabilitation program and the IDEA.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended adding language to subpart (j) 
of Priority 5 that expressly supports full participation and inclusion 
in postsecondary institutions, pre-apprenticeship programs, 
apprenticeships, and other workforce training. The commenter cited the 
need for additional attention for such programs to become consistent 
pathways to employment for individuals with disabilities. Another 
commenter suggested modifying subpart (j) to include language that 
extends eligibility for services for students with disabilities nearing 
age 22. The commenter noted the need to extend eligibility of 
individuals for these services given the learning loss due to COVID-19. 
Multiple commenters also referred the Department to comments

[[Page 70633]]

made by another commenter to broaden this priority to ensure it is 
inclusive of all students with disabilities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendations and agree 
that it is important to ensure that the transition of services fully 
encompasses the intended outcomes and recipients. We agree that 
education outcomes are relevant, and that inclusion of that edit 
strengthens the subpart. Under Part B of the IDEA, a free appropriate 
public education (FAPE) must be made available to all children with 
disabilities residing in the State within the State's mandated age 
range for the provision of FAPE. Entitlement to FAPE begins at a 
child's third birthday and could last until the child's 22nd birthday, 
depending on State law or practice, which would render the second 
requested edit redundant.
    Changes: We are adding ``or education'' after ``employment 
outcomes'' in final subpart (j).

Priority 6--Strengthening Cross-Agency Coordination and Community 
Engagement To Advance Systemic Change

    Comments: Many commenters expressed general support for Priority 6 
and its emphasis on interagency collaboration. Commenters noted this 
priority acknowledges that schools are frequently the center of the 
community for students and families, and that strong family and 
community engagement is associated with improved student outcomes.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the priority and agree 
with these comments on the central role school's play.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters expressed support for using this 
priority in different ways. One commenter advocated for making this a 
foundational priority across all grants. Another commenter recommended 
the Department prioritize partnerships that align with guidance 
developed by the Institute for Educational Leadership, the Coalition 
for Community Schools, and the National Association of School 
Psychologists.
    Discussion: We appreciate these comments and note that several 
components of this priority are aligned with the community school's 
model. If the Department chooses to use the supplemental priorities, it 
also has discretion to decide how the priorities should be used in the 
grant competitions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested facilitating cross-agency 
budgeting and resourcing to ensure basic educational needs are being 
met.
    Discussion: We appreciate this comment and recognize the importance 
of examining budgeting. We think the priority as written allows for 
this inter-agency budgeting and resourcing.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed support for Priority 6 and 
suggested modifying the language to explicitly include philanthropy and 
the private sector more generally.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's focus on philanthropy and 
the private sector. We believe that community engagement can include 
philanthropy and the private sector, and subpart (c) focuses on 
partnerships that include an array of partners, including local 
nonprofit organizations, businesses, and philanthropic organizations. 
As such, we do not think any changes to the priority are necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested adding afterschool and summer 
programs to the list of needs to address included in subpart (a) of 
Priority 6.
    Discussion: We believe that some specific services provided through 
afterschool and summer programs could be addressed through the 
activities already included on this list, including key field-initiated 
focus areas. In addition, afterschool and summer programs are included 
in other priorities, which could be used in combination with this one 
in a particular grant competition.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested adding legal services to the list 
of issues to address through the coordinated efforts among Federal, 
State, or local agencies, or community-based organizations that support 
students under subpart (a), as these are often a key area of need for 
diverse groups of underserved students.
    Discussion: We appreciate this comment. However, we think these 
services may already be within the scope of this priority as well as 
grant programs administered by other Federal agencies.
    Change: None.
    Comments: Several commenters recommended adding mental health or 
clarifying that health includes mental health.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the point made by these 
commenters and agrees with the important addition of mental health.
    Changes: We are revising subpart (a)(7) to read: ``Health, 
including physical health, mental health, and behavioral health and 
trauma.''
    Comments: A commenter suggested specifying that school diversity 
includes student and educator diversity.
    Discussion: We agree that this specificity around diversity is 
helpful.
    Changes: We are adding ``including student and educator diversity'' 
to subpart (a)(9).
    Comments: One commenter expressed support for the inclusion of 
workforce development in subpart (a)(11). This commenter further 
indicated that workforce development should be interpreted to include 
career preparation for undergraduate students at four-year 
institutions. Another commenter suggested revising this subpart to 
refer to college readiness, workforce development and civic life.
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations as we agree that each 
of these areas of college and career readiness is critical, and 
especially agree that referring to college readiness and civic 
engagement would be beneficial towards the goal of advancing systemic 
change. Workforce development is already included in this subpart.
    Changes: We have revised subpart (a)(11) through (13) to also 
include college readiness and civic engagement.
    Comments: Two commenters recommended that the Department add a new 
subpart allowing use of funds for infrastructure, citing a June 2020 
report from the Government Accountability Office \1\ saying that 54% of 
schools have major systems that need replacing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: We agree with the importance of investing in school 
infrastructure. Issues related to healthy learning environments are 
emphasized in subpart (f) of Priority 4.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended changing subpart (a)(16) to 
Adult Education and Literacy and moving content in subpart (a)(16) to 
(a)(17).
    Discussion: We will renumber to ensure alignment.
    Changes: We have adjusted the numbering of the subpart to include 
adult education and literacy in (a)(19).
    Comments: One commenter expressed support for the inclusion of 
nonprofit organizations in subpart (c). This commenter noted that 
because nonprofits are nimble, they can be invaluable partners in 
Department of Education grants.
    Discussion: We agree that nonprofit organizations can be very 
valuable partners and note that they may be

[[Page 70634]]

included within the subpart as currently written.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter who expressed support for this priority 
overall, articulated particular support for subpart (d). The commenter 
urged the Department to use this priority in future competitions of the 
CSP National Dissemination grant. The commenter went on to say that 
this priority could support accessibility and equity issues in both the 
National Dissemination and State Entities grant programs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion on how the 
funds should be used. These priorities are intended as a menu of 
options for our discretionary grant programs. The Department may choose 
which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are appropriate for a 
particular program competition, as well as the appropriate level of 
funding and selection criteria. If the Department chooses to use a 
supplemental priority, it will decide whether the priority will be used 
as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority in a 
grant competition, as well as the appropriate level of funding and 
selection criteria, which may include peer-to-peer learning models.
    Changes: None.

Definitions

    Comments: One commenter supported, in general, the clarity that the 
definitions offer.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the definitions and think 
that they will ensure clarity in the use of the priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters recommended adding a definition of 
``technology,'' including their own proposed definitions that were 
intended to help ensure aligning with Federal laws.
    Discussion: While we appreciate all the commenters' suggestions, we 
recognize that the definition of technology is continually changing and 
therefore could create an obsolete definition upon programmatic use. 
Lastly, the NPP already included the following language to ensure 
compliance with Federal laws: ``Additionally, regarding each technology 
reference, all technology developed or used under these proposed 
priorities must be accessible to English learners, in addition to 
individuals with disabilities . . .''
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested that we include a definition of 
identity-safe learning environments.
    Discussion: While we appreciate the commenter's suggestions, we 
recognize that the definition of identity-safe is parallel to language 
within priorities (2)(a)(2)(v) and(4)(b) and (c) that specifically 
speaks to supporting teachers in creating safe, healthy, inclusive, and 
productive classroom environments.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter proposed definitions of ``competency-
based'' and ``high-quality systems of assessments.''
    Discussion: We thank the commenter and have already included a 
definition of ``competency-based education,'' which includes mastery of 
knowledge and skills, and a definition for ``high-quality systems of 
assessments.''
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter asked that we include definitions of 
``social and emotional learning,'' and another commenter noted that 
social and emotional learning remains under-defined in Federal law and 
policy and that it should be more explicitly defined.
    Discussion: We appreciate the request, and we recognize that the 
definition of social and emotional learning is continually changing and 
therefore could create an obsolete definition upon programmatic use.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested that the definitions of ``career 
and technical education,'' ``work-based learning,'' and ``area career 
and technical education school'' be included in the final definitions.
    Discussion: These are definitions that are included in the 
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) for programs authorized 
by that statute, and therefore would not need to be included within 
these priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended definitions for ``learning 
model'' and ``whole-learner approaches.''
    Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations from the commenter 
and note that these terms are not used within the priorities and 
therefore do not need to be defined.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter asked the Department to add the following 
language to the definition of children or students with disabilities: 
``And which includes children or students with the most significant 
cognitive disabilities'' to explicitly identify this subgroup of 
students with disabilities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' focus on children or 
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. However, we 
are not changing the definitions used in this NFP because they are the 
definitions of a ``child with a disability'' and ``student with a 
disability'' in section 602(3) of IDEA and its implementing regulations 
at 34 CFR 300.8 and section 7(37) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 
34 CFR 361.5(c)(51) of the Vocational Rehabilitation program 
regulations, respectively.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter encouraged the Department to expand the 
definition of ``competency-based education'' by incorporating seven 
components that are student focused.
    Discussion: The definition of competency-based education as 
currently written is in alignment with other Department rules, and as 
such, we are not making any changes to the definition.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Instead of just early learning, one commenter recommended 
defining ``high quality early learning.''
    Discussion: The current definition of ``early learning'' includes a 
variety of early learning settings, and the quality piece of the early 
learning is established by the regulator for the early learning 
program.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested using, as a definition, the term 
``Emergent Bilingual or Multilingual Learner'' instead of ``English 
Learner'' to emphasize language as a valuable skill rather than a 
limit.
    Discussion: The Department wholeheartedly agrees with an asset-
minded approach to language learners and will adopt such an approach 
where appropriate and when concepts are not tied to a specific term in 
a governing statute or regulation. The term English learner is defined 
in both the ESEA and the WIOA, which govern many of our grant programs. 
Therefore, we did not make changes to the definition of English 
learner.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter had strong support for the definition of 
``evidence-based.''
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the definition and think 
that it will ensure clarity in the use of the priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed support for a definition of the 
term ``high-quality assessment.''
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the definition and think 
that it will ensure clarity in the use of the priorities.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 70635]]

    Comments: One commenter recommended edits to the definition of 
``high-quality assessment'' so that assessments are part of a 
comprehensive assessment plan.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions and agree 
that a comprehensive assessment plan benefits students by adding more 
clarity around the expectation of high-quality assessment systems. For 
this reason, we have modified the definition to broaden the scope of 
high-quality assessment.
    Changes: We are making edits to the definition of high-quality 
assessment to include ``interim'' as part of the assessments, and that 
policymakers support students at the student, classroom, school, and 
system levels.
    Comments: One commenter recommended adding the term ``interim'' to 
the list of high-quality assessments to ensure the definition is 
comprehensive and properly represents the field. The commenter 
highlighted that interim assessments can measure growth and provide 
information throughout a school year and that interim assessment 
results are comparable across classrooms and schools, so they can help 
districts and State leaders direct resources to where they are needed 
most. This same commenter recommended adding language to the definition 
describing the importance of the purpose when defining the assessment 
and how the assessment will be used.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for the suggestions and 
appreciate the recommendations and will include ``interim'' in the 
definition, in addition to ``formative'', as they serve distinct 
purposes. Regarding the important use of the data from the assessments, 
we agree that there is a broader use that goes beyond the school and 
community. For this reason, we have modified the definition to 
strengthen the definition of high-quality assessment.
    Changes: We have revised the definition for high-quality 
assessments by adding interim assessments to not only help parents, 
educators and caregivers, but to also help policymakers support 
students at the student, classroom, school and system levels.
    Comments: One commenter appreciated the inclusion of children and 
students with disabilities in the definition of underserved student. 
Another commenter expressed support for this definition, in particular 
the focus on student caregivers. One commenter supported the 
specificity of the definition to help States and communities to be 
explicit about what equitable education systems include and how they 
serve students from the lived experiences described in the priority. 
The commenter noted the inclusion of adults and student parents, and 
``a student performing significantly below grade level(s),'' stating 
that inclusion of the latter acknowledges the role and responsibility 
of the system. One commenter appreciated the expansive and inclusive 
definition of underserved student. One commenter strongly supported the 
Department's inclusion of (LGBTQI+) students; students of color; 
students who are members of Tribal communities; and students with 
disabilities.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for their overall support for 
the definition and appreciate that the inclusions to the definition are 
comprehensive and relevant.
    Changes: None
    Comments: One commenter asked that military- or veteran-connected 
students be added to the definition of underserved student.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. We agree with 
the recommendation to include the military- and veteran-connected 
student and had already included it as a separate definition but will 
also include it within the definition of underserved student as we 
believe that this is a group of students that has been underserved.
    Changes: We have added military and veteran connected student to 
the category list of underserved students.
    Comments: Three commenters recommended that the Department add 
students residing in Puerto Rico as additional definitions to the list.
    Discussion: We do not believe it is appropriate to target any 
particular State or territory as funding from the Department's 
discretionary grant programs may generally be used within any of the 50 
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
Outlying Areas, and the tribal nations. We appreciate the second 
comment on adding a proposed subpart, and we agree that proximate 
involvement will help to identify community needs. We appreciate the 
commenter's desire to include language specific to Puerto Rico.
    Change: None.
    Comments: One commenter asked that ``questioning'' be added to (i) 
(LGBTQI+) under the definition of underserved student.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree that questioning is 
an important part of the acronym.
    Changes: We have added ``questioning'' as a part of the definition 
of underserved student.
    Comments: One commenter requested that the Department add 
unconnected students to the definition of underserved student, which 
includes students who do not have access to their own individual device 
or high-quality internet at home.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request and agree that 
there is a utility in including this group of students in the 
definition as the pandemic showed that students without access to the 
internet were unable to participate in learning.
    Changes: We have updated the definition of ``underserved student'' 
to include technologically unconnected youth.
    Comments: One commenter emphasized the importance of career 
readiness and encouraging projects focused on post-graduate outcomes 
and proposed a program that set undergraduates onto a path of strong 
economic opportunity.
    Discussion: We agree that college and career readiness is 
important, and programs should have outcomes that set students onto a 
path of strong economic opportunity that could be through either a 
strong first job or matriculation into graduate school. We think that 
there is a clear emphasis on college and career readiness incorporated 
into the priorities and we do not reference specific programs within 
the priorities.
    Changes: None.

Final Priorities

    The Secretary establishes the following priorities for use in any 
Department discretionary grant program.

Priority 1--Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Students, Educators, 
and Faculty

    Projects that are designed to address the impacts of the COVID-19 
pandemic, including impacts that extend beyond the duration of the 
pandemic itself, on the students most impacted by the pandemic, with a 
focus on underserved students and the educators who serve them, through 
one or more of the following priority areas:
    (a) Conducting community asset-mapping and needs assessments that 
may include an assessment of the extent to which students, including 
subgroups of students, have become disengaged from learning, including 
students not participating in in-person or remote instruction, and 
specific strategies for reengaging and supporting students and their 
families.
    (b) Providing resources and supports to meet the basic, 
fundamental, health

[[Page 70636]]

and safety needs of students and educators.
    (c) Addressing students' social, emotional, mental health, and 
academic needs through approaches that are inclusive with regard to 
race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status.
    (d) Addressing educator, faculty, and staff well-being.
    (e) Providing students and educators with access to reliable high-
speed broadband and devices; providing students with access to high-
quality, technology-supported learning experiences and ensuring these 
experiences are accessible to, interoperable, and usable by children or 
students with disabilities,\2\ educators with disabilities, and English 
learners; and providing educators with access to job-embedded, 
sustained, and collaborative professional development, to support the 
effective use of technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In an NIA, the Department could use either ``children with 
disabilities'' or ``students with disabilities,'' depending on which 
term is more appropriate for the program. In this document, we use 
these terms interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Using technology to enable evidence-based approaches to 
personalized student learning as well as evidence-based supplemental 
activities that extend learning time, such as comprehensive afterschool 
and summer learning and enrichment programs, and increase student and, 
where appropriate, parent engagement.
    (g) Using evidence-based instructional approaches and supports, 
such as professional development, coaching, ongoing support for 
educators, high quality tutoring, expanded access to rigorous 
coursework and content across K-12, and expanded learning time to 
accelerate learning for students in ways that ensure all students have 
the opportunity to successfully meet challenging academic content 
standards without contributing to tracking or remedial courses.
    (h) Using evidence-based instructional approaches or supports to 
assist individuals who did not enroll in, withdrew from, or reduced 
course loads in postsecondary education or training programs due to 
COVID-19 to enroll in, remain enrolled in, and complete credit-bearing 
coursework and earn recognized postsecondary credentials.

Priority 2--Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational Resources 
and Opportunities

    Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one or both of 
the following:
    (a) The applicant proposes a project designed to promote 
educational equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity for 
underserved students--
    (1) In one or more of the following educational settings:
    (i) Early learning programs.
    (ii) Elementary school.
    (iii) Middle school.
    (iv) High school.
    (v) Career and technical education programs.
    (vi) Out-of-school-time settings.
    (vii) Alternative schools and programs.
    (viii) Juvenile justice system or correctional facilities.
    (ix) Adult learning;
    (2) That examines the sources of inequity and inadequacy and 
implement responses, and that may include one or more of the following:
    (i) Rigorous, engaging, and well-rounded (e.g., that include music 
and the arts) approaches to learning that are inclusive with regard to 
race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status and prepare 
students for college, career, and civic life, including one or more of 
the following:
    (A) Student-centered learning models that may leverage technology 
to address learner variability (e.g., universal design for learning (as 
defined in this notice), K-12 competency-based education (as defined in 
this notice), project-based learning, or hybrid/blended learning) and 
provide high-quality learning content, applications, or tools.
    (B) Middle school courses or projects that prepare students to 
participate in advanced coursework in high school.
    (C) Advanced courses and programs, including dual enrollment and 
early college programs.
    (D) Project-based and experiential learning, including service and 
work-based learning.
    (E) High-quality career and technical education courses, pathways, 
and industry-recognized credentials that are integrated into the 
curriculum.
    (F) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), 
including computer science coursework.
    (G) Civics programs that support students in understanding and 
engaging in American democratic practices.
    (ii) Increasing the number and proportion of experienced, fully 
certified, in-field, and effective educators, and educators from 
traditionally underrepresented backgrounds or the communities they 
serve, to ensure that underserved students have educators from those 
backgrounds and communities and are not taught at disproportionately 
higher rates by uncertified, out-of-field, and novice teachers compared 
to their peers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All strategies to increase racial diversity of educators 
must comply with applicable law, including Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Improving the preparation, recruitment, and early career 
support and development of educators in shortage areas or hard to staff 
schools.
    (iv) Improving the retention of fully certified, experienced, and 
effective educators in high-need schools or shortage areas.
    (v) Pedagogical practices in educator preparation programs and 
professional development programs that are inclusive with regard to 
race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status so that 
educators are better prepared to create inclusive, supportive, 
equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for their 
students.
    (vi) Using technology to enable evidence-based approaches to 
personalized student learning in the classroom or support supplemental 
activities that extend learning time and increase student and, where 
appropriate, parent engagement.
    (vii) Creating more equitable and adequate approaches to school 
funding, by doing one or more of the following:
    (A) Aligning funding levels to students' diverse needs; or
    (B) Sufficiently accounting for districts' differential access to 
local revenue given differences in local wealth and income levels.
    (viii) Expanding access to high-quality early learning, including 
in school-based and community-based settings, by removing barriers 
through implementation of programs that are inclusive with regard to 
race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status.
    (ix) Establishing, expanding, or improving learning environments 
for multilingual learners, and increasing public awareness about the 
benefits of fluency in more than one language and how the coordination 
of language development in the school and the home improves student 
outcomes for multilingual learners.
    (x) Establishing, expanding, or improving the engagement of 
underserved community members (including underserved students and 
families) in informing and making decisions that influence policy and 
practice at the school, district, or State level by elevating their 
voices, through their participation and their perspectives and 
providing them with access to opportunities for leadership (e.g., 
establishing partnerships between civic student government programs and 
parent and caregiver leadership initiatives).

[[Page 70637]]

    (xi) Improving the quality of educational programs in juvenile 
justice facilities (such as detention facilities and secure and non-
secure placements) or adult correctional facilities.
    (xii) Supporting re-entry of, and improving long-term outcomes for, 
youth and adults after release from juvenile justice system or 
correctional facilities by linking youth and adults to appropriate 
support, education, vocational rehabilitation, or workforce training 
programs.
    (xiii) Increasing student racial or socioeconomic diversity, 
through one or more of the following:
    (A) Using high-quality data collection methods to identify racial 
and socioeconomic stratification, trends in and contributors to 
stratification, and barriers to racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic 
diversity.
    (B) Developing or implementing evidence-based policies or 
strategies that include one or more of the following:
    (1) Ongoing, robust family and community involvement.
    (2) Intra- or inter-district or regional coordination.
    (3) Cross-agency collaboration, such as with housing or 
transportation authorities.
    (4) Alignment with an existing public diversity plan that is 
evidence-based and designed to effectively promote diversity.
    (5) School assignment or admissions policies that are designed to 
promote socioeconomic diversity and provide equitable access to 
educational opportunities for students from low-income backgrounds or 
students residing in neighborhoods experiencing concentrated poverty.
    (C) Establishing or expanding schools, or programs within schools, 
that are designed to attract, and foster meaningful interactions among, 
substantial numbers of students from different racial and/or 
socioeconomic backgrounds, such as magnet schools.
    (D) Developing evidence related to, or providing technical 
assistance on, evidence-based policies or strategies designed to 
increase inclusivity with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, 
and disability status.
    (b) The project will be implemented by or in partnership with one 
or more of the following entities:
    (1) Community colleges (as defined in this notice).
    (2) Historically Black colleges and universities (as defined in 
this notice).
    (3) Tribal Colleges and Universities (as defined in this notice).
    (4) Minority-serving institutions (as defined in this notice).
    (5) Career and technical education centers.
    (6) Adult education.

Priority 3--Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional 
Growth To Strengthen Student Learning

    Projects that are designed to increase the proportion of well-
prepared, diverse, and effective educators serving students, with a 
focus on underserved students, through one or more of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Increasing the number of diverse educator candidates who have 
access to an evidence-based comprehensive educator preparation program.
    (b) Increasing the number of teachers with certification or dual 
certification in a shortage area, or advanced certifications from 
nationally recognized professional organizations.
    (c) Identifying and addressing disparities among educator subgroups 
in graduation rates, passage rates for certification and licensure 
exams, successful employment, retention, and professional growth.
    (d) Promoting knowledge of universal design for learning in 
educator preparation.
    (e) Integrating universal design for learning principles in 
pedagogical practices and classroom features, such as instructional 
techniques, classroom materials and resources, and classroom seating.
    (f) Implementing or expanding loan forgiveness or service-
scholarship programs for educators based on completing service 
obligation requirements.
    (g) Building or expanding high-poverty school (as may be defined in 
the program statute or regulations) districts' capacity to hire, 
support, and retain an effective and diverse educator workforce, 
through one or more of the following:
    (1) Providing beginning educators with evidence-based mentoring or 
induction programs.
    (2) Adopting or expanding comprehensive, strategic career and 
compensation systems that provide competitive compensation and include 
opportunities for educators to serve as mentors and instructional 
coaches, or to take on additional leadership roles and responsibilities 
for which educators are compensated.
    (3) Developing data systems, timelines, and action plans for 
promoting inclusive and bias-free human resources practices that 
promote and support development of educator diversity.
    (4) Providing opportunities for educators to be involved in the 
design and implementation of local and district wide initiatives that 
advance systemic changes.
    (h) Supporting effective instruction and building educator capacity 
through one or more of the following:
    (1) Providing high-quality job-embedded professional development 
opportunities focused on one or more of the following:
    (i) Designing and delivering instruction in ways that are engaging, 
effectively integrate technology, and provide students with 
opportunities to think critically and solve complex problems, apply 
their learning in authentic and real-world settings, communicate and 
collaborate effectively, and develop academic mindsets, including 
through project-based, work-based, or other experiential learning 
opportunities.
    (ii) Supporting students and their families at key transitional 
stages in their education as they enter into one or more of the 
following:
    (A) Early learning programs.
    (B) Elementary school.
    (C) Middle school.
    (D) High school.
    (E) Postsecondary education.
    (F) Career and technical education.
    (G) Work.
    (iii) Meeting the needs of English learners.
    (iv) Meeting the needs of children or students with disabilities, 
including children or students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities.
    (v) Addressing inequities and developing and implementing 
pedagogical practices that are inclusive with regard to race, 
ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status.
    (vi) Building meaningful and trusting relationships with students' 
families to support in-home, community-based, and in-school learning.
    (vii) For school leaders, improving mastery of essential 
instructional and organizational leadership skills designed to improve 
teacher and student learning.
    (viii) Supporting teachers in creating safe, healthy, inclusive, 
and productive classroom environments.
    (2) Developing and implementing high-quality assessments (as 
defined in this notice) of student learning (for example, curriculum-
aligned and performance-based tools aligned with State grade-level 
content standards or, for career and technical education, relevant 
industry standards) and strategies that allow educators to use the data 
from assessments to inform instructional design and classroom practices 
that meet the needs of all students and providing high-quality

[[Page 70638]]

professional development to support educators in implementing these 
strategies.
    (i) Increasing educator capacity to collaborate with diverse 
stakeholders to carry out rapid cycle evaluation, design-based 
research, improvement science, or other rapid cycle techniques to 
design, develop, or improve promising innovations that are designed to 
benefit underserved students.

Priority 4--Meeting Student Social, Emotional, and Academic Needs

    Projects that are designed to improve students' social, emotional, 
academic, and career development, with a focus on underserved students, 
through one or more of the following priority areas:
    (a) Developing and supporting educator and school capacity to 
support social and emotional learning and development that--
    (1) Fosters skills and behaviors that enable academic progress;
    (2) Identifies and addresses conditions in the learning 
environment, that may negatively impact social and emotional well-being 
for underserved students, including conditions that affect physical 
safety; and
    (3) Is trauma-informed, such as addressing exposure to community-
based violence and trauma specific to military- or veteran-connected 
students (as defined in this notice).
    (b) Creating education or work-based settings that are supportive, 
positive, identity-safe and inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, 
culture, language, and disability status, through one or more of the 
following activities:
    (1) Developing trusting relationships between students (including 
underserved students), educators, families, and community partners.
    (2) Providing high-quality professional development opportunities 
designed to increase engagement and belonging and build asset-based 
mindsets for educators working in and throughout schools.
    (3) Engaging students (including underserved students), educators, 
families, and community partners from diverse backgrounds and 
representative of the community as partners in school climate review 
and improvement efforts.
    (4) Developing and implementing inclusive and culturally informed 
discipline policies and addressing disparities in school discipline 
policy by identifying and addressing the root causes of those 
disparities, including by involving educators, students, and families 
in decision-making about discipline procedures and providing training 
and resources to educators.
    (5) Supporting students to engage in real-world, hands-on learning 
that is aligned with classroom instruction and takes place in 
community-based settings, such as apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, 
work-based learning, and service learning, and in civic activities, 
that allow students to apply their knowledge and skills, strengthen 
their employability skills, and access career exploration 
opportunities.
    (c) Creating a positive, inclusive, and identity-safe climate at 
institutions of higher education through one or more of the following 
activities:
    (1) Fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion for underserved 
students.
    (2) Implementing evidence-based practices for advancing student 
success for underserved students.
    (3) Providing evidence-based professional development opportunities 
designed to build asset-based mindsets for faculty and staff on campus 
and that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, 
language, and disability status.
    (4) Updating the institution's harassment policies and procedures 
consistent with applicable Federal law to ensure they apply to 
harassment that occurs in the institution's educational programs and 
activities, including during hybrid and distance education.
    (d) Providing multi-tiered systems of supports that address 
learning barriers both in and out of the classroom, that enable healthy 
development and respond to students' needs and which may include 
evidence-based trauma-informed practices and professional development 
for educators on avoiding deficit-based approaches.
    (e) Developing or implementing policies and practices, consistent 
with applicable Federal law, that prevent or reduce significant 
disproportionality on the basis of race or ethnicity with respect to 
the identification, placement, and disciplining of children or students 
with disabilities.
    (f) Providing all students access to physically healthy learning 
environments, such as energy-efficient spaces, for one or more of the 
following:
    (1) Early learning environments.
    (2) Elementary or secondary schools.
    (3) Out-of-school time learning spaces.
    (4) Postsecondary institutions.
    (5) Career and technical education.
    (6) Adult education learning environments.
    (g) Providing students equitable access that is inclusive, with 
regard to race, LGBTQI+, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability 
status, to social workers, psychologists, counselors, nurses, or mental 
health professionals and other integrated services and supports, which 
may include in early learning environments.
    (h) Preparing educators to implement project-based or experiential 
learning opportunities for students to strengthen their metacognitive 
skills, self-direction, self-efficacy, competency, or motivation, 
including through instruction that: Connects to students' prior 
knowledge and experience; provides rich, engaging, complex, and 
motivating tasks; and offers opportunities for collaborative learning.
    (i) Creating and implementing comprehensive schoolwide frameworks 
(such as small schools or learning communities, advisory systems, or 
looping educators) that support strong and consistent student and 
educator relationships.
    (j) Fostering partnerships, including across government agencies 
(e.g., housing, human services, employment agencies), local educational 
agencies, community-based organizations, adult learning providers, and 
postsecondary education intuitions, to provide comprehensive services 
to students and families that support students' social, emotional, 
mental health, and academic needs, and that are inclusive with regard 
to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status.

Priority 5--Increasing Postsecondary Education Access, Affordability, 
Completion, and Post-Enrollment Success

    Projects that are designed to increase postsecondary access, 
affordability, completion, and success for underserved students by 
addressing one or more of the following priority areas:
    (a) Increasing postsecondary education access and reducing the cost 
of college by creating clearer pathways for students between 
institutions and making transfer of course credits more seamless and 
transparent.
    (b) Increasing the number and proportion of underserved students 
who enroll in and complete postsecondary education programs, which may 
include strategies related to college preparation, awareness, 
application, selection, advising, counseling, and enrollment.
    (c) Reducing the net price or debt-to-earnings ratio for 
underserved students who enroll in or complete college, other 
postsecondary education, or career and technical education programs.
    (d) Establishing a system of high-quality data collection and 
analysis, such as data on persistence, retention, completion, and post-
college outcomes, for transparency, accountability, and institutional 
improvement.

[[Page 70639]]

    (e) Supporting the development and implementation of student 
success programs that integrate multiple comprehensive and evidence-
based services or initiatives, such as academic advising, structured/
guided pathways, career services, credit-bearing academic undergraduate 
courses focused on career, and programs to meet basic needs, such as 
housing, childcare and transportation, student financial aid, and 
access to technological devices.
    (f) Increasing the number of individuals who return to the 
educational system and obtain a regular high school diploma, or its 
recognized equivalent for adult learners; enroll in and complete 
community college, college, or career and technical training; or obtain 
basic and academic skills, including English language learning, that 
they need to succeed in college--including community college--as well 
as career and technical education and/or the workforce.
    (g) Supporting the development and implementation of high-quality 
and accessible learning opportunities, including learning opportunities 
that are accelerated or hybrid online; credit-bearing; work-based; and 
flexible for working students.
    (h) Supporting evidence-based practices in career and technical 
education and ensuring equitable access to and successful completion of 
high-quality programs, credentials, or degrees.
    (i) Supporting the development and implementation of evidence-based 
strategies to promote students' development of knowledge and skills 
necessary for success in the workforce and civic life.
    (j) Connecting children or students with disabilities, adults with 
disabilities, and disconnected youth to resources designed to improve 
independent living and the achievement of employment outcomes or 
education, which may include the provision of pre-employment transition 
services, transition and other vocational rehabilitation services under 
the Vocational Rehabilitation program, and transition and related 
services under IDEA, as appropriate.
    (k) Providing students access to international education, education 
in cultural and global competencies, and foreign language training in 
preparation for global competitiveness.
    (l) Supporting the development and implementation of comprehensive 
transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual 
disabilities (as defined in section 760 of the Higher Education Act of 
1965, as amended (HEA)).
    (m) Providing secondary school students with access to career 
exploration and advising opportunities to help students make informed 
decisions about their postsecondary enrollment decisions and to place 
them on a career path.

Priority 6--Strengthening Cross-Agency Coordination and Community 
Engagement To Advance Systemic Change

    Projects that are designed to take a systemic evidence-based 
approach to improving outcomes for underserved students in one or more 
of the following priority areas:
    (a) Coordinating efforts with Federal, State, or local agencies, or 
community-based organizations, that support students, to address one or 
more of the following:
    (1) Food assistance.
    (2) Energy.
    (3) Climate change.
    (4) Housing.
    (5) Homelessness.
    (6) Transportation.
    (7) Health, including physical health, mental health, and 
behavioral health and trauma.
    (8) Child care.
    (9) School diversity, including student and educator diversity.
    (10) Justice policy.
    (11) College readiness.
    (12) Workforce development.
    (13) Civic engagement.
    (14) Technology.
    (15) Public safety.
    (16) Community violence prevention and intervention.
    (17) Social services.
    (18) Voting access and registration.
    (19) Adult education and literacy.
    (20) Another key field-initiated focus area.
    (b) Conducting community needs and asset mapping to identify 
existing programs and initiatives that can be leveraged, and new 
programs and initiatives that need to be developed and implemented, to 
advance systemic change.
    (c) Establishing cross-agency partnerships, or community-based 
partnerships with local nonprofit organizations, businesses, 
philanthropic organizations, or others, to meet family well-being 
needs.
    (d) Identifying, documenting, and disseminating policies, 
strategies, and best practices on effective approaches to creating 
systemic change through cross-agency or community-based coordination 
and collaboration.
    (e) Expanding or improving parent and family engagement.
    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 Definitions

    The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any 
Department discretionary grant program in which the final priorities 
are used. In any discretionary grant program competition in which the 
definition of ``underserved students'' is used, the Secretary may use 
the entire definition or one or more of the subparts of the definition 
that are most relevant for the grant program competition.
    Children or students with disabilities means children with 
disabilities as defined in section 602(3) of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1401(3)) and 34 CFR 300.8, 
or students with disabilities, as defined in the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(37), 705(202) (B)).
    Community college means ``junior or community college'' as defined 
in section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended 
(HEA).
    Competency-based education (also called proficiency-based or 
mastery-based learning) means learning based on knowledge and skills 
that are transparent and measurable. Progression is based on 
demonstrated mastery of what students are expected to know (knowledge) 
and be able to do (skills), rather than seat time or age.
    Disconnected youth means an individual, between the ages 14 and 24, 
who may be from a low-income background, experiences homelessness, is 
in foster care, is involved in the justice system, or is not working or 
not

[[Page 70640]]

enrolled in (or at risk of dropping out of) an educational institution.
    Early learning means any (a) State-licensed or State-regulated 
program or provider, regardless of setting or funding source, that 
provides early care and education for children from birth to 
kindergarten entry, including, but not limited to, any program operated 
by a child care center or in a family child care home; (b) program 
funded by the Federal Government or State or local educational agencies 
(including any IDEA-funded program); (c) Early Head Start and Head 
Start program; (d) non-relative child care provider who is not 
otherwise regulated by the State and who regularly cares for two or 
more unrelated children for a fee in a provider setting; and (e) other 
program that may deliver early learning and development services in a 
child's home, such as the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home 
Visiting Program; Early Head Start; and Part C of IDEA.
    Educator means an individual who is an early learning educator, 
teacher, principal or other school leader, specialized instructional 
support personnel (e.g., school psychologist, counselor, school social 
worker, early intervention service personnel), paraprofessional, or 
faculty.
    English learner means an individual who is an English learner as 
defined in section 8101(20) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965, as amended, or an individual who is an English language 
learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act.
    Evidence-based has the meaning ascribed to it in 34 CFR 77.1 or the 
ESEA, as applicable.
    High-quality assessments mean diagnostic, formative, interim, or 
summative assessments that are valid and reliable for the purposes for 
which they are used and that provide relevant and timely information to 
help educators, parents or caregivers, and policymakers support 
students at the student, classroom, school, and system levels.
    Historically Black colleges and universities means colleges and 
universities that meet the criteria set out in 34 CFR 608.2.
    Military- or veteran-connected student means one or more of the 
following:
    (a) A child participating in an early learning program, a student 
enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career 
and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or 
guardian who is a member of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 
U.S.C. 101), in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, 
Space Force, National Guard, Reserves, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, or Public Health Service or is a veteran of the 
uniformed services with an honorable discharge (as defined by 38 U.S.C. 
3311).
    (b) A student who is a member of the uniformed services, a veteran 
of the uniformed services, or the spouse of a service member or 
veteran.
    (c) A child participating in an early learning program, a student 
enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career 
and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or 
guardian who is a veteran of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 
U.S.C. 101).
    Minority-serving institution means an institution that is eligible 
to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of title 
III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA.
    Tribal College or University has the meaning ascribed it in section 
316(b)(3) of the HEA.
    Underserved student means a student (which may include children in 
early learning environments, students in K-12 programs, students in 
postsecondary education or career and technical education, and adult 
learners, as appropriate) in one or more of the following subgroups:
    (a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with 
high concentrations of students living in poverty.
    (b) A student of color.
    (c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian 
Tribe.
    (d) An English learner.
    (e) A child or student with a disability.
    (f) A disconnected youth.
    (g) A technologically unconnected youth.
    (h) A migrant student.
    (i) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.
    (j) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or 
intersex (LGBTQI+) student.
    (k) A student who is in foster care.
    (l) A student without documentation of immigration status.
    (m) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.
    (n) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly 
incarcerated student.
    (o) A student who is the first in their family to attend 
postsecondary education.
    (p) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary 
education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.
    (q) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in 
postsecondary education.
    (r) A student who is enrolled in or is seeking to enroll in 
postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.
    (s) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an 
adult student with limited English proficiency.
    (t) A student performing significantly below grade level.
    (u) A military- or veteran- connected student.
    Universal design for learning has the meaning ascribed it in 
section 103(24) of the HEA.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines 
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a 
rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action is a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We have also reviewed this proposed 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 on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing

[[Page 70641]]

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 and definitions 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 an analysis of 
anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that these final priorities 
and definitions are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 
13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Potential Costs and Benefits

    The final priorities and definitions will impose minimal costs on 
entities that receive assistance through the Department's discretionary 
grant programs. Additionally, the benefits of implementing the final 
priorities and definitions outweigh any associated costs because it 
will result in the Department's discretionary grant programs 
encouraging the submission of a greater number of high-quality 
applications and supporting activities that reflect the 
Administration's educational priorities.
    Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant 
program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on 
applicants by the final priorities and definitions will be limited to 
paperwork burden related to preparing an application for a 
discretionary grant program that is using a priority in its 
competition. Because the costs of carrying out activities will be paid 
for with program funds, the costs of implementation will not be a 
burden for any eligible applicants, including small entities.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that this final regulatory action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define 
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently 
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and 
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are 
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated 
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are 
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government 
overseeing a population below 50,000.
    The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect 
are early learning providers, school districts, institutions of higher 
education, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit organizations. Of 
the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible entities, all 
are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the number of 
applications prepared and submitted annually for competitive grant 
competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the final priorities 
and definitions will significantly impact small entities beyond the 
potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and 
receiving, competitive grants from the Department.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The final priorities and definitions do not contain any information 
collection requirements.
    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: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of the Department published in 
the Federal Register, in text or 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.

Miguel A. Cardona,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-26615 Filed 12-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P