[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4228-4242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01257]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2023-OESE-0209]
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Comprehensive Centers Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
under the Comprehensive Centers Program, Assistance Listing Number
84.283B. The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of these
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We intend to
award grants to establish Comprehensive Centers that provide high-
quality capacity-building services to State, regional, and local
educational agencies and schools that improve educational opportunities
and outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of
instruction for all students.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before February 22, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation
or cannot otherwise submit your comments via www.regulations.gov,
please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Please go to www.regulations.gov to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``FAQ.''
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly
available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michelle Daley. Telephone: (202)
987-1057. Email: [email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, please identify clearly the specific proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria that each
comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result
from these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria. Please let us know of any further ways we could
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect public
comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria by accessing Regulations.gov. To inspect comments in
person, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The Comprehensive Centers Program supports the
establishment of Comprehensive Centers to provide capacity-building
services to State educational agencies (SEAs), regional educational
agencies (REAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools that
improve educational outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the
quality of instruction for all students, and particularly for groups of
students with the greatest need, including students from low-income
families and students attending schools implementing comprehensive
support and improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and
improvement activities under section 1111(d) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
Program Authority: Section 203 of the Educational Technical
Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
Public Participation: In developing proposed priorities for this
program, the Department consulted with education stakeholders,
including through Regional Advisory Committees (RACs) established under
section 206 of the ETAA, Tribes, chief State school officers, chief
executive officers of States, and Regional Educational Laboratory (REL)
governing boards.
Tribal Consultation: Consistent with Executive Order 13175 and the
Department's Tribal consultation policy, on January 24, 2023, the
Department conducted a Tribal Consultation to gather perspectives from
Tribal leaders, including Tribal educational agency (TEA) leaders, to
inform the development of the Department's FY 2024 Comprehensive Center
grant competition. More than 150 attendees joined the consultation.
Commenters highlighted the importance of including Tribes in
developing Centers' five-year service plans to carry out authorized
activities for the Comprehensive Centers Program. Commenters emphasized
Tribal inclusion on Center advisory boards (described in section 203(g)
of the ETAA) and participation in annual planning to align goals among
SEAs, LEAs, IHEs, and TEAs to generate greater synergy for more
meaningful changes and success for Native persons within the
educational system.
Tribal leaders broadly affirmed the need for capacity-building
services within the areas of focus of the Comprehensive Centers, in the
following order of importance: (1) implement and scale up evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions that directly benefit
recipients that have disadvantaged students or high percentages or
numbers of students from
[[Page 4229]]
low-income families; (2) support Tribal schools that are implementing
support and improvement activities; (3) implement and scale up
evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that address the
unique educational obstacles faced by rural populations; and (4)
address corrective actions or results from audit findings and
monitoring conducted by the Department at the request of the client. In
addition, Tribal leaders identified specific needs for services in: (1)
supporting rural areas with shortages of educators and student support
staff, such as school psychologists, school social workers, and
instructional coaches who have experience with trauma-informed
instruction; (2) allocating resources to train and recruit
professionals to work in Tribal communities; and (3) supporting TEAs
with ongoing administrative functions.
Regional Advisory Committees: In accordance with ETAA section 206,
the Secretary established 10 RACs to conduct an education needs
assessment and identify each region's most critical educational needs
and develop recommendations for technical assistance to meet those
needs. The RACs met and engaged their respective constituencies to make
their assessments and recommendations between August and November 2023.
Final RAC reports were published in December 2023 on the Department's
website at https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/program-and-grantee-support-services/comprehensive-centers-program/regional-advisory-committees/.
While specific needs and recommendations varied by region, the most
common needs identified across all 10 RACs were: (1) supporting
teachers, school leaders, and school personnel, including addressing
workforce shortages, supporting educator preparation programs and
pathways, strengthening recruitment and retention, and diversifying the
educator workforce; (2) supporting strong instruction and academic
achievement, including supporting evidence-based math and literacy
instruction, ensuring equity and addressing issues of
disproportionality, addressing opportunity gaps to promote academic
achievement and growth for all learners, and promoting access to a
high-quality early childhood education; (3) supporting student
populations with specific learning needs, including early grades,
English learners, multilingual learners, children with disabilities,
and growing populations of refugee and immigrant children and youth;
(4) supporting student well-being and mental health; (5) promoting safe
and engaged school communities, including promoting authentic parent
and community engagement, positive school climate, and addressing
issues of chronic absenteeism; and (6) promoting career and
postsecondary educational pathways.
Education stakeholders noted that identified needs were not
mutually exclusive and there is considerable overlap across educational
priorities that may require coordinated approaches to implementing ESEA
programs, promoting strong instruction, supporting educators, ensuring
equity, and supporting school communities' academic, social emotional,
and mental health needs. Detailed recommendations for services to meet
those needs are included in the individual report from each RAC. Some
examples of RAC recommendations included: (1) providing professional
development to assist teachers in translating evidence-based practices
into educator-friendly tools, resources, and training; (2) creating
resources to support effective family engagement and improve academic
achievement; (3) supporting data use and disaggregation to better
identify and understand the needs of special student populations; (4)
identifying and disseminating evidence-based approaches to meeting
student instructional needs; (5) developing, implementing, and
evaluating ``grow your own'' and apprenticeship programs as well as
alternative pathways into the teaching profession; (6) developing
targeted recruitment strategies including financial incentives,
scholarship programs, and marketing campaigns highlighting the value of
the profession to attract more individuals from diverse backgrounds to
the profession; (7) supporting LEAs to provide differentiated and
evidence-based professional learning opportunities to both novice and
experienced teachers that are specific to the needs and context of
their unique LEA and/or school; (8) supporting educators in identifying
high-quality curricular and digital learning materials; (9) supporting
SEAs and LEAs in developing new and innovative secondary and
postsecondary pathways that emphasize applied learning and mastery;
(10) supporting partnerships with local communities, local Tribes, and
Tribal governments to identify local career needs and work-based
learning opportunities and appropriate pathways; (11) supporting LEAs
in developing resource allocation systems that allow resources to be
focused on student learning (e.g., budgeting, scheduling, resourcing,
and long-term planning); and (12) developing models for multi-tiered
systems of support (MTSS) and integrating Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS) to address school and community
mental health needs. The RACs noted that professional development and
technical assistance must be grounded in adult learning theory, address
the needs of educators and students of color, and, when proven
effective, be shared across the region and with other regions.
Proposed Priorities
We propose three priorities. The Assistant Secretary may use one or
more of these priorities for the FY 2024 Comprehensive Centers Program
competition or for any subsequent competition.
Background:
The ESEA holds States accountable for closing achievement gaps and
ensuring that all children, regardless of race, ethnicity, family
income, English language proficiency, or disability, receive a high-
quality education and meet challenging State academic standards.
The ETAA authorizes support for not less than 20 grants to
establish Comprehensive Centers to support State and local educational
systems to implement activities described in the ESEA to improve
academic opportunities and outcomes for students. Centers are operated
through cooperative agreements with the U.S. Department of Education.
Centers focus on building the capacity of those receiving Comprehensive
Center services (recipients) in one of four dimensions of capacity-
building: human, organizational, policy, and resource. Recipients
primarily include staff of SEAs and, as appropriate, REAs, including
TEAs as defined in ESEA section 6132(b)(3); LEAs; and schools.
Under section 203(a)(2) of the ETAA, the Department must establish
at least one Center in each of the 10 geographic regions served by the
Department's Regional Educational Laboratories authorized under section
941(h) of the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and
Improvement Act of 1994. The proposed funding for Centers established
under the ETAA must take into consideration the school-age population,
proportion of economically disadvantaged students, increased cost
burdens of service delivery in rural areas, and number of schools
identified for improvement under ESEA section 1111(d).
Section 203(d) of the ETAA directs the Centers to provide
assistance to
[[Page 4230]]
schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). Additionally,
pursuant to authority granted to the Secretary in Title III of Division
H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), and
the Consolidated Appropriations Acts for 2017 through the last act in
2023, Comprehensive Center services have been provided to the BIE and
schools within its jurisdiction.
The Department last conducted a competition in 2019 and made five-
year awards to 19 Regional Centers and one National Comprehensive
Center (National Center). The 19 Regional Centers provide high-quality
intensive capacity-building services to State clients and recipients to
identify, implement, and sustain effective evidence-based (as defined
in 34 CFR 77.1) practices that support improved educator and student
outcomes. The National Center provides high-quality universal and
targeted capacity-building services to address: high-leverage problems
identified in Regional Center service plans; common findings from
finalized Department monitoring reports or audit findings;
implementation challenges faced by States and Regional Centers; and
emerging national education trends. Prior Comprehensive Centers
competitions also funded national Content Centers, which provide
focused services in areas of high national need. An additional Content
Center, funded in response to 2016 appropriations language and a new
authority in the ESEA, focuses on students at risk of not attaining
full literacy skills due to a disability.
Through the proposed priorities in this document, the Department
intends to maximize the ability of the Comprehensive Centers to be
flexible and responsive to specific State and local client needs while
also providing leadership and focused support on issues of national
importance to support education systems through a time of continued
challenge and transition. This approach aligns with ``Raise the Bar:
Lead the World'' \1\--the Department's recent call to action to all
stakeholders to transform pre-kindergarten through postsecondary
education and unite around evidence-based strategies that advance
educational equity and excellence for all students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department believes that the best way to support State and
local efforts in achieving academic recovery and excellence through the
Comprehensive Centers Program, consistent with the requirements of both
the ESEA and the ETAA, is by supporting the capacity of State and local
educational systems to improve core instruction, enable conditions to
accelerate learning and deliver a comprehensive and rigorous education
for every student, attend to the social, emotional, and mental
wellbeing of school communities, eliminate the educator shortage,
provide pathways to multilingualism, and meet the unique needs of all
students. The Comprehensive Centers Program is also a critical support
to SEAs, LEAs, and schools working to implement evidence-based
practices to help accelerate academic recovery in math and literacy,
while also promoting equity in student access to educational resources
and opportunities to improve student outcomes and close opportunity
gaps.
Additionally, and as noted throughout this document, the Department
is interested in supporting the implementation of evidence-based
approaches to addressing important educational challenges. As an
important complement to the research and evaluation and research-
related technical assistance function provided by the RELs, under the
proposed priorities, Comprehensive Centers would focus capacity-
building services on selecting, implementing, and sustaining evidence-
based programs, policies, practices, and interventions. In doing this
work, Centers must consider clients' capacity to select and implement
evidence-based approaches, particularly for practice areas or
populations where available evidence may be limited; help clients with
implementation of evidence-based interventions that will help learners
accelerate their learning and achievement; and document and disseminate
information about their results. More information about using and
building evidence is available in the Department's Non-Regulatory
Guidance: Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments, which can
be found at https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/discretionary/2023-non-regulatory-guidance-evidence.pdf.
To support capacity-building that is customer-focused, results-
driven, and most likely to help recipients sustain positive impact on
students, we believe the Centers must focus services on helping
recipients to (1) identify root causes of, and select the most
appropriate and effective evidence-based solutions to address, high-
leverage educational problems, (2) create sustainable organizational
structures and performance management systems that help recipients set
priorities for using their resources to achieve desired results, (3)
increase their ability to use those structures and systems to ensure
that LEAs and schools are provided high-quality services and supports,
(4) support the implementation and scaling of evidence-based strategies
in LEAs and schools, (5) identify and implement a continuum of supports
and interventions to address the specific and varying needs of LEAs and
schools, (6) support the sustainability of State- and local-led
approaches, and (7) contact and engage with entities that have not
asked for targeted support but may be in need of it based on available
data.
We believe three tiers of services can be offered: (1) universal,
(2) targeted, and (3) intensive. Within the proposed priorities for the
Comprehensive Centers, Regional Centers would specialize in providing
intensive supports, whereas National and Content Center(s) would
primarily provide targeted and universal services.
Consistent with the RAC findings and recommendations and the
requirements in the ESEA and ETAA, the proposed priorities address
service delivery in all tiers related to the teaching and learning of
all children, including those with disabilities and who are English
Learners and multilingual; supporting school improvement activities;
maximizing flexibility and responsiveness; and enabling more coherent,
coordinated, and efficient service delivery to all States, while
minimizing duplication of services across 14 Regional Centers, 4
Content Centers, and one National Center. Under the proposed
priorities, Regional Centers and the National Center would address
critical needs related to teaching and learning, while remaining
flexible to address emerging needs, enhancing the ability of the
Department to provide focused services in areas of high national need
through the Content Centers. Such delineation would support a balance
of responsiveness and coherent, coordinated, and efficient service
delivery across Comprehensive Centers.
National, Content, and Regional Comprehensive Centers
Under the proposed priorities, the Comprehensive Centers would
operate as a network comprised of National and Content Centers that
identify and provide scalable solutions at the national level that can
be replicated in States, and Regional Centers that serve as the entry
point to the network and focus on providing individualized, intensive,
and responsive support to meet the specific needs of States and systems
within their regions.
First, under the proposed priorities, the National Center would
address
[[Page 4231]]
educational issues related to instruction, learning, and improvement at
a national level. Every State and LEA has a set of policies, programs,
and systems that relate to each of these areas. The multitude of State
and local needs and priorities identified by the RACs associated with
aligning instruction, assessment, accountability, school improvement,
school climate and environment, and addressing opportunity gaps are
interconnected. The Department believes that one National Center can
most effectively support these interconnected needs using an integrated
technical assistance approach that models and supports alignment within
the agencies it serves.
The National Center would also support the implementation and
scale-up of evidence-based practices across the Nation. For example,
the National Center might begin by convening practitioners and
education system leaders who were successfully addressing a common need
using one or more evidence-based practices to elicit practitioner and
leader feedback about their perceived barriers and success factors in
implementing those practices. Using that feedback, the National Center
could then develop and disseminate resources and tools that supported
broader implementation of the practices, getting buy-in from
stakeholders and supporting LEAs in change management and professional
development. The National Center would disseminate these effective
universal capacity-building resources and tools nationally and through
the Regional Centers and other Federal technical assistance providers
(federally funded providers), to provide targeted opportunities for SEA
and LEA peers to work together to apply and implement them.
Additionally, the National Center would serve as the core of the
Comprehensive Center Network (CCNetwork), which would enable it to
identify common implementation challenges and emerging national
education issues facing States across regions and content areas and to
coordinate support among Regional and Content Centers. In this role,
the National Center's activities could include facilitating peer
learning among Centers and their clients, and identifying best
practices in providing and scaling effective capacity-building services
that will enhance the effectiveness of services provided across the
network. The National Center would also most effectively cooperate with
other federally funded providers to identify gaps in services where the
National Center may provide needed support and avoid duplication of
services across Federal investments. Finally, the National Center would
most effectively disseminate resources from the CCNetwork to potential
recipients.
To effectively serve in this role, under the proposed requirements
and selection criteria, the National Center must have expertise in
implementation science, adult learning, and developing effective
training materials for adults, to enable it to design effective
universal capacity-building tools to assist Regional Centers in taking
effective practices to scale within their States.
Under the proposed priorities, the National Center would provide
services to SEAs, LEAs, REAs, TEAs, and other recipients, in addition
to Regional and Content Centers, to address identified national needs.
Accordingly, under the proposed requirements, Regional Centers must be
poised to share timely information from a variety of regional
stakeholders about their capacity needs with the National Center and
must reserve a portion of their time to support their States in
participating in targeted capacity-building services facilitated
through National or Content Centers and implementing the tools and
resources the National and Content Centers produce.
Under the proposed priorities, Regional Centers would serve as the
entry point for States to the CCNetwork and support States in
navigating available support from the CCNetwork and other federally
funded providers. The Department acknowledges the importance of
aligning Federal supports to State and local needs within each
identified region; therefore, we propose closely aligning these centers
to the existing REL regions, while also enhancing support for States
and recipients with higher needs or special initiatives being
undertaken by State, intermediate, or local educational agencies, or
BIE-funded schools, as appropriate, which may require special
assistance from the Regional Center.
In turn, under the proposed priorities, the Content Centers funded
under this program would work to increase the depth of knowledge and
expertise available to Regional Centers, SEAs, and LEAs in key areas of
high national importance and need. Content Centers would complement the
work of the Regional Centers by providing targeted, universal, and,
where appropriate, intensive capacity-building services, including
information, publications, tools, and specialized technical assistance
based on evidence-based practices, in their specific content area. The
Content Centers would also play a key role in improving efficiency in
developing and disseminating technical assistance by, for example,
avoiding the duplication and higher costs of parallel efforts by two or
three Regional Centers. Content Centers must have national subject
matter expertise and practitioner experience to ensure both the ability
to draw on the latest research and evidence related to the area of
need, as well as to provide high-quality assistance that draws from the
experience of professionals who have successfully led State and local
agencies and provided successful high-quality capacity-building
services.
To meet specific areas of need, including topics identified by the
RACs and through monitoring of ESEA programs that are not otherwise
served by the National Center or other Department investments, the
Assistant Secretary proposes funding priorities for four Content
Centers: (1) the Center on English Learners and Multilingualism, (2)
the Center for Early School Success, (3) the Center on Fiscal Equity,
and (4) the Center on Strengthening and Supporting the Educator
Workforce.
The Department also acknowledges that some important priorities
identified through Tribal consultation and by the RACs are already
being addressed through other significant Federal investments in
technical assistance. Such investments include substantial support
provided through technical assistance centers funded under Title IV,
Part A of the ESEA and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) for
promoting student well-being and mental health, establishing safe and
supportive school communities, and addressing school climate and
chronic absenteeism; investments in family engagement through the
Statewide Family Engagement Centers; and significant support provided
through centers funded under IDEA technical assistance and
dissemination programs for children with disabilities. Where services
are already being provided, the Department encourages Comprehensive
Centers to refer to or partner with those federally funded providers,
and to focus Comprehensive Center services on meeting gaps in
identified needs that are not yet being addressed through other Federal
investments.
Proposed Priority 1--National Comprehensive Center.
Projects that propose to establish a National Center to (1) provide
high-quality, high-impact technical assistance and capacity-building
services to the Nation that are designed to improve educational
opportunities and educator and student outcomes and (2) coordinate the
work of the CCNetwork to effectively use program
[[Page 4232]]
resources to support evidence use and the implementation of evidence-
based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices to close opportunity gaps
and improve educational outcomes, particularly accelerating academic
achievement in math and literacy for all students, and particularly for
groups of students with the greatest need, including students from low-
income families and students attending schools implementing
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted or additional
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of
the ESEA, in a manner that reaches and supports as many SEAs, REAs,
TEAs, LEAs, and schools in need of services as possible.
The National Center must design and implement an effective approach
to providing high-quality, useful, and relevant universal, targeted,
and, as appropriate and in partnership with Regional Centers, intensive
capacity-building services that are likely to achieve desired recipient
outcomes. The approach must be driven by adult learning strategies and
incorporate implementation, improvement, and systems change frameworks.
The approach must promote alignment across interconnected areas of
need, programs, and agency systems.
The National Center must implement effective strategies for
coordinating with the Regional Centers and Content Centers to assess
educational needs; coordinate common areas of support across Centers;
share and disseminate information about CCNetwork services, tools, and
resources to maximize the reach of the CCNetwork across clients and
education stakeholders; coordinate with other federally funded
providers regarding the work of the CCNetwork and support navigation of
available support for clients; and support the selection,
implementation, scale-up, and dissemination of evidence-based practices
that will improve educational outcomes, particularly academic
achievement in math and literacy, and close opportunity gaps for all
students, particularly for groups of students with the greatest need,
including students from low-income families and students attending
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement or targeted
or additional targeted support and improvement activities under section
1111(d) of the ESEA.
Services must address: common high-leverage problems identified in
Regional Center service plans (as outlined in the Program Requirements
for the National Center); findings from finalized Department monitoring
reports or audit findings; implementation challenges faced by States
and LEAs related to teaching, learning, and development; needs of
schools designated for improvement; needs related to closing
achievement and opportunity gaps; needs to improve core instruction;
and emerging education topics of national importance.
The National Center must provide universal and targeted capacity-
building services that demonstrably assist SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and
Regional Center clients and recipients to--
(1) Implement approved ESEA Consolidated State Plans, with
preference given to implementing and scaling evidence-based programs,
practices, and interventions that directly benefit entities that have
high percentages or numbers of students from low-income families as
referenced in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5));
(2) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions that lead to the increased capacity of SEAs and LEAs to
address the unique educational challenges and improve outcomes of
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities
or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement activities
as referenced in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)) and
their students;
(3) Implement State accountability and assessment systems
consistent with Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA section 1111(b)-(d));
(4) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions that improve instruction and outcomes in core subjects,
including math and literacy instruction;
(5) Address the unique educational obstacles faced by rural and
Tribal students; and
(6) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and
interventions that address other emerging education topics of national
importance that are not being met by another federally funded provider
(e.g., best practices in the use of education technology).
An applicant under this priority must demonstrate how it will
cultivate a network of national subject matter experts from a diverse
set of perspectives or organizations to provide capacity-building
support to Regional Centers and clients regarding the ESEA topical
areas listed above and other emerging education issues of national
importance.
Proposed Priority 2--Regional Centers.
Projects that propose to establish Regional Centers to provide
high-quality, intensive capacity-building services to State and local
clients and recipients to assist them in selecting, implementing, and
sustaining evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that
will result in improved educator practice and student outcomes,
especially in math and literacy.
Each Regional Center must provide high-quality, useful, and
relevant capacity-building services that demonstrably assist clients
and recipients in--
(1) Carrying out Consolidated State Plans approved under the ESEA,
with preference given to the implementation and scaling up of evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions that directly benefit
recipients that have high percentages or numbers of students from low-
income families as referenced in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec.
1113(a)(5)) and recipients that are implementing comprehensive support
and improvement activities or targeted or additional targeted support
and improvement activities as referenced in Title I, Part A of the ESEA
(ESEA sec. 1111(d));
(2) Implementing, scaling up, and sustaining evidence-based
programs, practices, or interventions that focus on key initiatives
that lead to LEAs and schools improving student outcomes. Key
initiatives may include implementing evidence-based practices to help
accelerate academic recovery in math and literacy (include, high-impact
tutoring, high-quality summer and after-school programming, and
effective interventions to reduce chronic absenteeism), improving core
instruction, implementing innovative approaches to assessment,
responding to educator shortages, or developing aligned and integrated
agency systems;
(3) Addressing the unique educational obstacles faced by
underserved populations, including students from low-income families,
students of color, students living in rural areas, Tribal students,
English learners, students in foster care, migratory children,
immigrant children and youth, and other student populations with
specific needs defined in the ESEA; and
(4) Improving implementation of ESEA programs by addressing
corrective actions or results from audit findings and ESEA program
monitoring, conducted by the Department, that are programmatic in
nature, at the request of the client.
Regional Centers must effectively work with the National Center and
Content Centers, as needed, to assist
[[Page 4233]]
clients in selecting, implementing, and sustaining evidence-based
programs, policies, practices, and interventions; and must develop
cost-effective strategies to make their services available to as many
SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools within the region in need of
support as possible.
Applicants must propose to operate a Regional Center in one of the
following regions:
Region 1 (Northeast): Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire,
New York, Rhode Island, Vermont
Region 2 (Islands): Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic): Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania
Region 4 (Appalachia): Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia
Region 5 (Southeast): Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Region 6 (Gulf): Alabama, Florida, Mississippi
Region 7 (Midwest): Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Wisconsin
Region 8 (Central): Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Wyoming
Region 9 (Southwest): Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Region 10 (West): Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah
Region 11 (Northwest): Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana
Region 12 (Pacific 1): American Samoa, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall
Islands
Region 13 (Pacific 2): Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau
Region 14: Bureau of Indian Education
Proposed Priority 3--Content Centers.
Projects that propose to establish Content Centers to provide
targeted and universal capacity-building services in a designated
content area of expertise to SEA, REA, TEA, and LEA clients designed to
improve educational opportunities, educator practice, and student
outcomes.
Content Centers must be designed to build the capacity of
practitioners, education system leaders, public schools serving
preschool through 12th grades (P-12) (which may include Head Start and
community-based preschool), LEAs, and SEAs to use evidence in the
designated content area. Capacity-building services may include, for
example, developing evidence-based products and tools, and providing
services that directly inform the use of evidence in a State or local
policy or program or improved program implementation to achieve desired
educational outcomes. Services must promote the use of the latest
evidence, including research and data; be effectively delivered using
best practices in technical assistance and training; and demonstrate a
rationale for how they will result in improved recipient outcomes.
Content Centers must support Regional Centers, as needed, with
subject matter expertise to enhance the intensive capacity-building
services provided by the Regional Centers or to design universal or
targeted capacity-building services to meet identified SEA, REA, TEA,
or LEA needs.
Content Centers must effectively coordinate and align targeted
capacity-building services with the National Center, Regional Centers,
and other federally funded providers, as appropriate, to address high-
leverage problems and provide access to urgently needed services to
build Centers' capacity to support SEAs and local clients. Content
Centers must effectively coordinate with the National Center, Regional
Centers, and other federally funded providers to assess potential
client needs, avoid duplication of services, and widely disseminate
products or tools to practitioners, education system leaders, and
policymakers in formats that are high quality, easily accessible,
understandable, and actionable to ensure use of services by as many
SEA, REA, TEA, and LEA recipients as possible.
Applicants must propose to operate a Content Center in one of the
following areas:
(1) English Learners and Multilingualism. The Center on English
Learners and Multilingualism must provide universal, targeted, and, as
appropriate and in partnership with Regional Centers, intensive
capacity-building services designed to support SEAs and LEAs to meet
the needs of English learners, including the needs of English learners
with disabilities, and increase access to high-quality language
programs so that they, along with all students, have the opportunity to
become multilingual. The Center must also support the selection,
implementation, and scale-up of evidence-based practices, in
coordination with the National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition, related to meeting the needs of English learners.
(2) Early School Success: The Center for Early School Success must
provide universal, targeted, and, as appropriate and in partnership
with Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to
support SEAs and LEAs to implement comprehensive and aligned preschool
to third-grade (P-3) early learning systems in order to increase the
number of children who experience success in early learning and
achievement, including developmentally informed and evidence-based
instructional practices in social emotional development, early
literacy, and math. The Center must support the selection,
implementation, and scale-up of programs, policies, and practices,
informed by research on child development, that can strengthen P-3
learning experiences and support social, emotional, cognitive, and
physical development.
(3) Fiscal Equity: The Center on Fiscal Equity must provide
universal, targeted, and, as appropriate and in partnership with
Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to
support SEAs and LEAs in strengthening equitable and adequate school
funding strategies, including the allocation of State and local
funding; improving the quality and transparency of fiscal data at the
school level; and prioritizing supports for students and communities
with the greatest need. The Center must support the selection,
implementation, and scale-up of evidence-based programs, policies, and
practices that promote responsible fiscal planning and management and
effective and permissible uses of ESEA formula funds, including through
combining those funds with other available and allowable Federal,
State, and local funds (``blending and braiding'') and considering how
ESEA funds may interact with and complement other Federal programs,
such as IDEA, Medicaid, and Head Start to improve student opportunities
and outcomes.
(4) Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce: The Center
on Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce must provide
universal, targeted, and, as appropriate and in partnership with
Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to
support SEAs to support their LEAs and schools in designing and scaling
practices that establish and enhance high-quality, comprehensive,
evidence-based, and affordable educator pathways, including educator
residency and Grow Your Own programs, as well as emerging pathways into
the profession such as registered apprenticeship programs for teachers
and that improve educator diversity, recruitment, and retention. The
Center must support the selection, implementation, and scale-up of
[[Page 4234]]
evidence-based programs, policies, and practices that are likely to
support States and LEAs in addressing educator shortages and providing
all students with highly qualified educators across the P-12 continuum,
including through increased compensation and improved working
conditions; high-quality, comprehensive, evidence-based, and affordable
educator preparation, including educator residency and Grow Your Own
programs, as well as emerging pathways into the profession such as
registered apprenticeship programs for teachers; providing
opportunities for teacher leadership and career advancement; ongoing
professional learning throughout educators' careers, including
implementing evidence-based strategies for effective teaching and
learning; strengthening new teacher induction; and supporting and
diversifying the educator workforce, as well as other actions to
improve learning conditions and educator well-being.
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)).
Proposed Requirements
Background
The Department proposes program and application requirements to
support effective administration of Comprehensive Center services.
The proposed application requirements are designed to complement
the proposed program requirements. Under the proposed program
requirements, Centers would be required to model best practices in
implementation design and performance management. Under the proposed
application requirements, applicants must demonstrate how they will
model best practices, including by describing strategies to identify
the root causes driving high-leverage problems, select the evidence-
based practices that most effectively address those causes, and
implement effective practices in implementation design and performance
management to achieve desired outcomes.
In meeting the proposed program requirement for annual service
plans, proposed capacity-building services must be in service of
outcomes that (a) are co-designed with clients; (b) address authentic
needs based on needs-sensing activities; (c) are clear and measurable;
and (d) have associated achievable, specific targets. Long-term goals
should serve as a ``north star'' for the work of the Centers and should
be in service of their clients' goals. This requires highly inclusive
needs sensing processes that include relevant stakeholders and
recipients in the process of defining the needs to be addressed, and
disciplined processes by which Centers help clients to define the
specific outcomes they aim to achieve that will result in improved
educational outcomes.
In addition, the proposed requirements for stakeholder engagement
would ensure that meaningful efforts are made to engage with, and
incorporate the views of, a broad range of potential clients, including
those who did not initially request support but may benefit from it
based on available data. These stakeholder engagement requirements
would be reinforced through the proposed communication and
dissemination requirements, which would require Centers to ensure
services are broadly disseminated to reach as many potential clients as
possible. Finally, the proposed program requirements for performance
management would require Centers to quantify and collect data on the
use, reach, and impact of Center services in alignment with the
performance measures for this program.
Effective service delivery requires highly qualified personnel who
bring both subject matter content and technical expertise. Under the
proposed program requirements, subject matter experts must include
professionals with significant and demonstrated scholarly expertise in
content areas and approaches relevant to the work the Center undertakes
as well as practitioners who have significant--and, ideally, recent--
experience directly leading State or local educational systems. Under
the proposed application requirements, applicants must describe how
highly qualified personnel will combine subject matter expertise with
strong demonstrated expertise providing effective technical assistance
through teaching and leading professional development in those content
areas.
Additionally, successfully managing a Center, developing deep
customer-focused relationships with States, and managing complex
projects with varied stakeholders requires significant investment of
personnel time and leadership. Under the proposed program requirements,
Centers must strive to achieve as close to full-time equivalency (FTE)
as practicable for all personnel in key leadership and service-delivery
roles, and at least .75 FTE for the Program Director, to help ensure
that sufficient leadership and expertise are available to support
effective management and service provision. Additionally, the proposed
program requirements for the National Center require at least 1 FTE
Project Director, or co-Directors each with at least .75 FTE, to ensure
sufficient leadership capacity for the project.
While Centers assist clients in selecting evidence-based practices,
they additionally help them develop and implement practices that may
become models to others. To expand the reach of the Centers, each
Center must effectively curate and disseminate effective practices.
Under the proposed program requirement for communications and
dissemination plans, Centers must intentionally plan for how
information will be used and by whom, and what strategies most
effectively engage their target audiences to expand the reach and
potential impact of their services, tools, and products. And under the
proposed program requirement for performance management systems,
Centers must measure and report on the effectiveness of these
strategies, including the reach of their services, to monitor and
improve the efficacy of their communication and dissemination
strategies.
In providing services within the CCNetwork, and in alignment with
other providers who are servicing the same clients, Centers must
approach collaboration intentionally to reduce client burden in
interacting with multiple providers, and to ensure that Federal
resources are being used most efficiently and effectively to meet a
variety of needs across federally funded providers. While each Center
may have a specific recipient type or area of
[[Page 4235]]
expertise, all work in service of the same goals. To avoid duplication
wherever possible, under the program requirements for annual service
plans and partnership agreements, Centers must coordinate common
activities, such as needs sensing with State agency leadership, with
other federally funded providers serving their intended clients, to the
extent practicable, and must establish processes to identify which
Centers may be best suited to meet expressed and identified needs.
Under the proposed program requirements relating to CCNetwork peer
learning, Centers must share with other regions knowledge of effective
practices and approaches to capacity-building used with their clients.
We believe that Centers will benefit by learning from each other and
that this requirement would promote the achievement of each Center's
intended outcomes, as well as enhance the overall impact of the
CCNetwork.
The Department recognizes that we cannot anticipate every need a
State may have, and that critical needs could emerge throughout the
grant period that will require Centers to rapidly respond to meet new
demands. For that reason, the Department proposes to require each
Center to reserve funds annually to address emerging needs.
Proposed Program Requirements:
The Assistant Secretary proposes the following program requirements
for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any
year in which this program is in effect.
Program Requirements for All Centers: National, Regional, and
Content Center grantees under this program must:
(1) Develop service plans annually for carrying out the technical
assistance and capacity-building activities to be delivered by the
Center in response to educational challenges facing students,
practitioners, and education system leaders. Plans must include: High-
leverage problems to be addressed, including identified client needs,
capacity-building services to be delivered, time-based outcomes (i.e.,
short-term, mid-term, long-term), responsible personnel, key technical
assistance partners, milestones, outputs, dissemination plans, fidelity
measures, if appropriate, and any other elements specified by the
Department. The annual service plans must be an update to the Center's
five-year plan submitted as part of the initial grant application and
account for changes in client needs.
(2) Develop and implement capacity-building services, including
tools and resources, in partnership with State and local clients and
recipients to reflect and address specific client needs and contexts
and promote sustainable evidence utilization to address identified
educational challenges.
(3) Develop and implement an effective performance management
system that integrates continuous improvement to promote effective
achievement of client outcomes. The system must include methods to
measure and monitor progress towards agreed upon outcomes, outputs, and
milestones and to measure the reach, use, and impact of the services
being delivered to ensure capacity-building services are implemented as
intended, reaching intended clients and recipients, and achieving
desired results. Progress monitoring must include periodic assessment
of client satisfaction and timely identification of changes in State
contexts that may impact the project's success. The performance
management system must include strategies to report on defined program
performance measures.
(4) Develop and implement a stakeholder engagement system to
regularly communicate, engage, and coordinate, using feedback to inform
improvement, across organizational levels (Federal, State, and local),
and facilitate regular engagement of stakeholders involved in or
affected by proposed services. This system must provide regular and
ongoing opportunities for outreach activities (e.g., regular promotion
of services and products to potential and current recipients,
particularly at the local level) and regular opportunities for
engagement with potential beneficiaries or participants involved in or
impacted by proposed school improvement activities (e.g., students,
parents, educators, administrators, Tribal leaders) to ensure services
reflect their needs.
(5) Develop and implement a high-quality personnel management
system to efficiently obtain and retain the services of nationally
recognized technical and content experts and other consultants with
direct experience working with SEAs, REAs, and LEAs. The Center must
ensure that personnel have the appropriate expertise to deliver high-
quality capacity-building services that meet client and recipient need
and be staffed at a level sufficient for achieving the goals of its
assigned projects and responsibilities.
(6) Develop and implement a comprehensive communication and
dissemination plan that includes strategies to disseminate information
in multiple formats and media (e.g., evidence-based practice tool kits,
briefs, informational webinars) including through CCNetwork websites,
social media, and other methods as appropriate, and strategies to
monitor the use of the information it disseminates. The plan must
include approaches to determine, at the outset of each project, in
consultation with clients, the most effective modality and methodology
for capturing evidence-based practices and lessons learned,
dissemination strategies customized and based on needs of the targeted
audience(s), and strategies to monitor and measure audience engagement
and use of information and products of the Center. Centers must work
with partners to disseminate products through networks in which the
targeted audiences are most likely to seek or receive information with
the goal of expanding the reach of Centers to the largest number of
recipients possible.
(7) Identify and enter into partnership agreements with federally
funded providers, State and national organizations, businesses, and
industry experts, as applicable, to support States in the
implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based programs, practices,
and interventions, as well as reduce duplication of services and
engagement burden to States. Where appropriate, the agreements should
document how the partnerships might advance along a continuum to
effectively meet program and client goals.
(8) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, demonstrate
to the Department that it has secured client and partner commitments to
carry out proposed annual service plans.
(9) Participate in a national evaluation of the Comprehensive
Centers Program.
Program Requirements for National Comprehensive Center: In addition
to the requirements for all Centers, National Center grantees under
this program must:
(1) Design and implement robust needs sensing activities and
processes to consult with and integrate feedback from the Department,
Regional and Content Centers, and advisory boards that surface high-
leverage problems that could be effectively addressed in developing the
national annual service plan.
(2) Collaborate with Regional and Content Centers to implement
universal and targeted services for recipients to address high-leverage
problems identified in the annual service plan. In providing targeted
services (e.g., multi-State and cross-regional peer-to-peer exchanges
or communities of practice on problems), the National Center must
provide opportunities for recipients to learn from their peers and
subject matter experts and apply evidence-based
[[Page 4236]]
practices and must define tangible, achievable capacity-building
outcomes for recipient participation. Universal services must be
grounded in evidence-based practices, be produced in a manner that
recipients are most likely to use, be shared via multiple mechanisms
such as the CCNetwork website, social media, and other channels as
appropriate, and be appropriate for a variety of education
stakeholders, including the general public.
(3) Develop and implement a strategy to recruit and retain a
comprehensive cadre of national subject matter experts that includes
qualified education practitioners, researchers, policy professionals,
and other consultants with (1) direct experience working in or with
SEAs, REAs, and LEAs and (2) in-depth expertise in specific subject
areas with an understanding of State contexts available to support
universal and targeted services of the National Center and intensive
capacity-building services of Regional Centers. Cadre experts must have
a proven record of designing and implementing effective capacity-
building services, using evidence effectively, and delivering quality
adult learning experiences or professional development experiences that
meet client and recipient needs and must have recognized subject matter
expertise including publishing in peer-reviewed journals and presenting
at national conferences on the ESEA programs or content areas for which
they are engaged as experts to provide universal, targeted, or
intensive capacity building.
(4) Reserve not less than one half of the annual budget to provide
universal, targeted, and, as needed, intensive services to address
topics 1-5 enumerated in the priority for this Center and as approved
by the Department in the annual service plan.
(5) Include in the communications and dissemination plan, and
implement, processes for outreach activities (e.g., regular promotion
of services and products to clients and potential and current
recipients), use of feedback loops across organizational levels
(Federal, State, and local), regular engagement and coordination with
the Department, Regional Centers, and partner organizations (e.g.,
federally funded providers), and engagement of stakeholders involved in
or impacted by proposed school improvement activities.
(6) Design and implement communications and dissemination vehicles
for the CCNetwork, including maintaining the CCNetwork website with an
easy-to-navigate design that meets government or industry recognized
standards for accessibility, including compliance with Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and maintain a consistent media
presence, in collaboration with Regional and Content Centers and the
Department Communications office, that promotes increased engagement.
(7) Develop peer learning opportunities for Regional and Content
Center staff (and other partners, as appropriate) to address
implementation challenges and scale effective practices to improve
service delivery across the CCNetwork.
(8) Collect and share information about services provided through
the CCNetwork for the purpose of coordination, collaboration, and
communication across Centers and other providers, including an annual
analysis of service plans to identify and disseminate information about
services rendered across the CCNetwork.
(9) Ensure that the Project Director is capable of managing all
aspects of the Center and is either staffed at 1 FTE or there are two
Co-Project Directors each at a minimum of 0.75 FTE. The Project
Director or Co-Project Directors and all key personnel must be able to
provide services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate
to achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in
annual service plans.
(10) Reserve not less than one third of the budget to address the
program requirements for CCNetwork coordination (requirements 5 through
8).
Program Requirements for Regional Centers: Regional Center grantees
under this program must:
(1) Actively coordinate and collaborate with the REL serving their
region. Coordination must include annual joint need sensing in a manner
designed to comprehensively inform service delivery across both
programs while reducing burden on State agencies. The goals of this
coordination and collaboration are to share, synthesize, and apply
information, ideas, and lessons learned; to enable each type of
provider to focus on its designated role; to ensure that work is non-
duplicative; to streamline and simplify service provision to States and
LEAs; and to collaborate on projects to better support regional
stakeholders.
(2) Consult with a broad range of stakeholders, including chief
State school officers and other SEA leaders, TEAs, LEAs, educators,
students, and parents, and integrate their feedback in developing the
annual service plan to reflect the needs of all States (and to the
extent practicable, of LEAs) within the region to be served.
(3) In developing the annual service plan, ensure services are
provided to support students and communities with the highest needs,
including recipients: (i) that have high percentages or numbers of
students from low-income families as referenced in Title I, Part A of
the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5)); (ii) that are implementing
comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted or
additional targeted support and improvement activities as referenced in
Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)); (iii) in rural areas;
and (iv) serving student populations with demonstrated needs unmet or
under-met through other Federal, State, or local interventions.
(4) Explore and provide opportunities to connect peers within and
across regions.
(5) Collaborate with the National Center and Content Centers, as
appropriate, including to support client and recipient participation in
targeted capacity-building services, and obtain and retain the services
of nationally recognized content experts through partnership with the
National Center, Content Centers, or other federally funded providers.
(6) Support the participation of Regional Center staff in CCNetwork
peer learning opportunities, including sharing information about
effective practices in the region, to extend the Center's reach to as
many SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools in need of services as possible
while also learning about effective capacity-building approaches to
enhance the Center's ability to provide high-quality services.
(7) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, provide to
the Department copies of partnership agreements with the REL(s) in the
region that the Center serves and, as appropriate, other Department-
funded technical assistance providers that are charged with supporting
comprehensive, systemic changes in States or Department-funded
technical assistance providers with particular expertise (e.g., early
learning or instruction for English language learners) relevant to the
region's service plan. Partnership agreements must define processes for
coordination and support collaboration to meet relevant program
requirements.
(8) Be located in the region the Center serves. The Project
Director must be capable of managing all aspects of the Center and be
either at a minimum of 0.75 FTE or there must be two Co-Project
Directors each at a minimum of 0.5 FTE. The Project Director or Co-
Project Directors and key personnel must also be able to provide on-
site
[[Page 4237]]
services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate to
achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in
annual service plans.
Program Requirements for Content Centers: Content Center grantees
under this program must:
(1) Consult and integrate feedback from the National and Regional
Centers in developing the annual service plan to inform high-quality
tools, resources, and overall technical assistance in priority areas.
(2) Collaborate with Regional Centers to address specific requests
for assistance from States within the regions and strengthen Regional
Center staff knowledge and expertise on the evidence base and effective
practices within its specific content area.
(3) Produce high-quality universal capacity-building services, and
identify, organize, select, and translate existing key research
knowledge and Department guidance related to the Center's content area
and examples of workable strategies and systems for implementing
provisions and programs that have produced positive outcomes for
schools and students, and communicate the information in ways that are
highly relevant and highly useful to State- and local-level policy
makers and practitioners.
(4) Collaborate with the National Center and Regional Centers to
convene States and LEAs, researchers, and other experts, including
other Federal entities and providers of technical assistance as
identified by the Department, to learn from each other about practical
strategies for implementing ESEA provisions and programs related to the
Center's area of focus.
(5) Support the participation of Content Center staff in CCNetwork
peer learning opportunities with the goal of providing high-quality
services while reaching as many SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools in need
of services as possible.
(6) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, provide
copies to the Department of partnership agreements with Department-
funded technical assistance providers that are charged with supporting
comprehensive, systemic changes in States or Department-funded
technical assistance providers with particular expertise relevant to
the Center's content area. Partnership agreements must define processes
for coordination and support collaboration to meet relevant program
requirements.
Proposed Application Requirements:
Application Requirements for All Centers:
(1) Present a plan for operating the Comprehensive Center that
clearly establishes the critical educational challenges proposed to be
addressed by the Center, the impact the Center plans to achieve,
including the proposed scope of services in relation to the number of
SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and, as appropriate, schools served, with
respect to specific State and local outcomes that would represent
significant achievement in advancing the efforts of State and local
systems to improve educational opportunities and student outcomes, and
proposes how the Center will efficiently and effectively provide
appropriate capacity-building services to achieve the desired outcomes.
(2) Present applicable regional, State, and local educational
needs, including relevant data demonstrating the identified needs, and
including the perspectives of underrepresented groups, that could be
addressed through capacity-building to implement and scale up evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions.
(3) Demonstrate how key personnel possess expert knowledge of
statutory requirements, regulations, and policies related to ESEA
programs, current education issues, and policy initiatives for
supporting the implementation and scaling up of evidence-based
programs, practices, and interventions.
(4) Demonstrate expertise in providing highly relevant and highly
effective technical assistance (e.g., that is co-designed with clients;
demonstrably addresses authentic needs based on needs-sensing
activities; is timely, relevant, useful, clear and measurable; and
results in demonstrable improvements or outcomes), including by
demonstrating expertise in the current research on adult learning
principles, coaching, and implementation science that will drive the
applicant's capacity-building services; how the applicant has
successfully supported clients to achieve desired outcomes; and how the
applicant will promote self-sufficiency and sustainability of State-
and local-led school improvement activities.
(5) Present a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) informed by
research or evaluation findings that demonstrates a rationale (as
defined in 34 CFR 77.1) explaining how the project is likely to improve
or achieve relevant and expected outcomes. The logic model must
communicate how the proposed project would achieve its expected
outcomes (short-term, mid-term, and long-term), and provide a framework
for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project
consistent with the applicant's performance management plan. Include a
description of underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs,
and theories, as well as the relationships and linkages among these
variables, and any empirical support for this framework.
(6) Present a management plan that describes the applicant's
proposed approach to managing the project to meet all program
requirements related to needs assessment, stakeholder engagement,
communications and dissemination, and personnel management.
(7) Present a performance management plan that describes the
applicant's proposed approach to meeting the program requirements
related to performance management, including the applicant's proposed
strategy to report on defined program performance measures, and
describes the criteria for determining the extent to which: capacity-
building services proposed in annual service plans were implemented as
intended; recipient outcomes were met (short-term, midterm, and long-
term); recipient capacity was developed; and services reached and were
used by intended recipients.
(8) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OESE
program officer. With approval from the program officer, the project
must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later
than the end of the third quarter of each budget period.
Application Requirements for the National Center: In addition to
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a National Center
applicant must:
(1) Demonstrate expertise and experience in leading digital
engagement strategies to attract and sustain the involvement of
education stakeholders, including, but not limited to: implementing a
robust web and social media presence and engagement, overseeing
customer relations management, providing editorial support to Regional
and Content Centers, and utilizing web analytics to improve content
engagement.
(2) Describe the proposed approach to providing targeted capacity-
building services, including how the applicant intends to collaborate
with Regional Centers to identify potential recipients and estimate how
many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, and LEAs it has the capacity to
[[Page 4238]]
reach; how it will measure the readiness and capacity of potential
recipients; and how it will measure the extent to which targeted
capacity-building services achieve intended recipient outcomes and
result in increased recipient capacity (and specifically, increase
capacity in one or more of the four dimensions of capacity-building).
(3) Describe the proposed approach to universal capacity-building
services, including how many and which recipients it plans to reach and
how the applicant intends to: measure the extent to which products and
services developed actually address common problems; support recipients
in the selection, implementation, and monitoring of evidence-based
practices; improve the use of evidence with regard to emerging national
education trends; and build recipient capacity in at least one of the
four dimensions of capacity-building.
Application Requirements for Regional Centers:
In addition to meeting the application requirements for all
Centers, a Regional Center applicant must--
(1) Describe the proposed approach to intensive capacity-building
services, including identification of intended recipients based on
available data in each of the content areas identified, alignment of
proposed capacity-building services to client needs, and engagement of
clients who may not initiate contact to request services. The applicant
must also describe how it intends to measure the readiness of clients
and recipients to work with the Center; co-design projects and define
outcomes; measure and monitor client and recipient capacity across the
four dimensions of capacity-building; and measure the outcomes achieved
throughout and at the conclusion of a project.
(2) Demonstrate that proposed key personnel have the appropriate
expertise to deliver high-quality, intensive services that meet client
and recipient needs similar to those in the region to be served.
Application Requirements for Content Centers: In addition to
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a Content Center
applicant must--
(1) Describe the proposed approach to carry out targeted capacity-
building services that increase the use of evidence-based products or
tools regarding the designated content area amongst practitioners,
education system leaders, elementary schools and secondary schools,
LEAs, and SEAs.
(2) Describe the proposed approach to providing universal capacity-
building services, including how it will develop evidence-based
products or tools regarding the designated content area; widely
disseminate such products or tools to practitioners, education system
leaders, and policymakers in formats that are high quality, easily
accessible, understandable, and actionable; identify intended
recipients; and align proposed capacity-building services to client
needs.
(3) Demonstrate that key personnel have appropriate subject matter
and technical expertise to translate evidence into high-quality
technical assistance services and products for State and local clients,
including expertise applying adult-learning principles and
implementation science to the delivery of technical assistance services
and products.
Proposed Definitions: The Assistant Secretary proposes the
following definitions of ``client,'' ``collaboration,''
``coordination,'' ``English learner,'' ``key personnel,'' and
``recipient,'' for use in this program in any year in which this
program is in effect. We propose these definitions to aid applicants in
understanding the intent and purpose of the priorities, requirements,
and selection criteria.
We also propose to replace certain terms established in the Notice
of Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Performance
Measures published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2019 (84 FR
13122) (2019 NFP). Specifically, although the 2019 NFP is not generally
intended to be superseded by this proposed action, we are proposing new
definitions for the terms ``high-leverage problem,'' ``outcomes,'' and
``regional educational agency'' to better reflect how they are used in
this document. Additionally, as established in the 2019 NFP, the term
``capacity building services'' includes within it definitions for the
``four dimensions of capacity-building services'' and the ``three tiers
of capacity-building services.'' In this NPP, we propose to define
these terms separately. Other than separating these terms, we have not
proposed changes to the general term ``capacity building services'' or
the ``four dimensions of capacity-building services'' as established in
the 2019 NFP; however, to reflect how they apply to the proposed
priorities in this document, we propose revised definitions for the
three tiers of capacity-building services: ``intensive capacity-
building services,'' ``targeted capacity-building services,'' and
``universal capacity-building services.''
We also propose to use, in the proposed priorities, requirements,
and selection criteria, the following terms, which are defined in the
ESEA: ``immigrant children and youth,'' ``migratory child,'' and
``tribal educational agency.''
The proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria also
incorporate the following terms established for use in this program by
the 2019 NFP: ``capacity-building services,'' ``milestone,'' and
``outputs.'' We have included the definitions of those terms in
Appendix 1 to this document.
Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous
improvement and achieve expected outcomes.
Client means the organization with which the Center enters into
agreement for negotiated capacity-building services. The client is
engaged in defining the high-leverage problems, capacity-building
services, and time-based outcomes for each project noted in the
Center's annual service plan. Representatives of clients include but
are not limited to Chief State School Officers or their designees, LEA
leaders, and other system leaders.
Collaboration means exchanging information, altering activities,
and sharing in the creation of ideas and resources to enhance the
capacity of one another for mutual benefit to accomplish a common goal.
Coordination means exchanging information, altering activities, and
synchronizing efforts to make unique contributions to shared goals.
English learner means an individual who is an English learner as
defined in section 8101(20) of the ESEA, or an individual who is an
English language learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act.
Four dimensions of capacity-building services are:
(1) Human capacity means development or improvement of individual
knowledge, skills, technical expertise, and ability to adapt and be
resilient to policy and leadership changes.
(2) Organizational capacity means structures that support clear
communication and a shared understanding of an organization's visions
and goals, and delineated individual roles and responsibilities in
functional areas.
(3) Policy capacity means structures that support alignment,
differentiation, or enactment of local, State, and Federal policies and
initiatives.
(4) Resource capacity means tangible materials and assets that
support alignment and use of Federal, State, private, and local funds.
[[Page 4239]]
High-leverage problems means problems that (1) if addressed could
result in substantial improvements for groups of students with the
greatest need, including for students from low-income families and for
students attending schools implementing comprehensive support and
improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement
activities under ESEA section 1111(d)); (2) are priorities for
education policymakers, particularly at the State level; and (3)
require intensive capacity-building services to achieve outcomes that
address the problem.
Immigrant children and youth have the meaning ascribed in section
3201(5) of the ESEA.
Intensive capacity-building services means assistance often
provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between
the Comprehensive Center and its clients and recipients, as well as
periodic reflection, continuous feedback, and use of evidence-based
improvement strategies. This category of capacity-building services
should support increased recipient capacity in more than one dimension
of capacity-building services and result in medium-term and long-term
outcomes at one or more system levels.
Key personnel means any personnel considered to be essential to the
work being performed on the project.
Migratory child has the meaning ascribed it in section 1309(3) of
the ESEA.
Outcomes means demonstrable effects of receiving capacity-building
services and must reflect the result of capacity built in at least one
of the four dimensions of capacity building. ``Outcomes'' includes
short-term outcomes, medium-term outcomes, and long-term outcomes:
(1) Short-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 1 year.
(2) Medium-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 2 to 3 years.
(3) Long-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-building
services after 4 or more years.
Recipient means organizations including, but not limited to, SEAs,
LEAs, REAs, TEAs, and schools that have received ``intensive'' and
``targeted'' capacity-building services and products from Regional
Centers, or that received ``targeted'' or ``universal'' capacity-
building services and products from the National Center or Content
Centers.
Regional educational agency means educational agencies that serve
regional areas within a State.
Targeted capacity-building services means assistance based on needs
common to multiple clients and recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the recipient(s),
the National Center or Content Center, and Regional Center(s), as
appropriate. This category of capacity-building services includes one-
time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning
or hosting national or regional conferences. It can also include
services that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a
series of conference calls, virtual or in-person meetings, or learning
communities on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also
be considered targeted capacity-building services.
Tribal educational agency has the meaning ascribed in section
6132(b)(3) of the ESEA.
Universal capacity-building services means assistance and
information provided to independent users through their own initiative,
involving minimal interaction with National or Content Center staff.
This category of capacity-building services includes information or
products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, policy briefs, or research
syntheses, downloaded from the Center's website by independent users,
and may include one-time, invited or offered webinar or conference
presentations by National or Content Center staff. Brief communications
or consultations by National or Content Center staff with recipients,
either by telephone or email, are also considered universal services.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Assistant Secretary proposes the following selection criteria
for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or
more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect.
In the notice inviting applications we will announce the maximum
possible points available under each criterion.
Approach to Capacity Building. In determining the overall quality
of the approach to capacity building of the proposed project, the
Secretary may consider one or more of the following factors.
(1) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to responding to the priority or priorities
established for the competition that will likely result in building SEA
capacity to implement State-level initiatives and support local- and
school-level initiatives that improve educational outcomes, close
achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction for all
students.
(2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates an exceptional
approach to developing and delivering high-quality, useful, and
relevant capacity-building services that--
(a) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, would be
expected to assist SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and Regional Center clients
and recipients, including those who do not proactively request
assistance, to address the activities described in the priority;
(b) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, would be
expected to assist clients and recipients to address the activities
described in the priority; and
(c) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, would be
expected to assist clients and recipients, including those who do not
proactively request assistance, to address activities described in the
priority related to the designated content area.
(3) The extent to which the proposed technical assistance plan
provides strategies that address the technical assistance needs of
State and local educational systems in key areas of identified need, as
evidenced by in-depth knowledge and understanding of--
(a) In the case of an applicant for the National Center,
implementation challenges faced by States; evidence-based practices
related to teaching, learning, and development; needs of schools
designated for improvement; needs to improve core instruction; and
emerging education topics of national importance;
(b) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the specific
educational goals and priorities of the States to be served by the
applicant, including emerging priorities based on State-led reform
efforts, and the applicable State and regional demographics, policy
contexts, and other factors and their relevance to improving student
outcomes, closing opportunity and achievement gaps, and improving
instruction; and
(c) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, State
technical assistance needs and evidence-based practices related to the
Content Center priority for which the applicant is applying.
(4) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent
to which the capacity-building and management plans propose an
exceptional approach
[[Page 4240]]
to meeting the requirements for the National Center.
(5) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the extent
to which the applicant's capacity-building plan proposes an exceptional
approach to meeting the requirements for all Regional Centers.
(6) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, the extent to
which the applicant's capacity-building plan proposes an exceptional
approach to meeting the requirements for all Content Centers.
Quality of Project Design. In determining the quality of the
project design of the proposed center for which the applicant is
applying, the Assistant Secretary may consider one or more of the
following factors.
(1) The extent to which the proposed performance management system
and processes demonstrate an exceptional approach to integrating
continuous improvement processes and evaluation that will result in
regular and ongoing improvement in the quality of the services provided
and increase the likelihood that recipient outcomes are achieved.
(2) The extent to which the proposed stakeholder and communication
engagement system is likely to result in a high level of engagement
with multiple potential beneficiaries or participants involved in or
impacted by the proposed capacity-building activities to ensure that
the proposed services reflect their needs, are delivered in a manner
that is relevant and useful, and reach the largest number of recipients
possible.
(3) The extent to which the proposed personnel management system
includes performance management processes for staff, subcontractors,
and consultants that enable effective hiring, developing, supervising,
and retaining a team of subject-matter and technical assistance experts
and professional staff that will effectively meet the needs of the
project.
(4) The extent to which the proposed partnerships represent an
intentional approach to collaboration that is likely to reduce client
burden and to ensure that Federal resources are being used most
efficiently and effectively to meet a variety of needs across federally
funded providers.
(5) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent
to which the proposed project represents an exceptional management
approach, including with respect to managing budgets; selecting,
coordinating, and overseeing multiple consultant and subcontractor
teams; managing communications and dissemination systems; and leading
large-scale projects to coordinate with and deliver tools, training,
and capacity-building services to governments, agencies, communities,
schools, or other organizations.
Subject Matter and Technical Assistance Expertise. In determining
the subject-matter and technical expertise of key project personnel,
the Assistant Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant
encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of
groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race,
color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the
Assistant Secretary may consider one or more of the following factors.
(1) The extent to which key project personnel demonstrate the
required expertise and relevant knowledge, understanding, and
experience in operating and administering State and local educational
systems to effectively support recipients.
(2) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated experience
providing high-quality, timely, relevant, and useful technical
assistance and capacity-building services to State and local
educational systems.
(3) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated the ability
to develop ongoing partnerships with leading experts and organizations
nationwide or regionally, as appropriate, that enhance its ability to
provide high-quality technical assistance and subject-matter expertise.
(4) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent
to which the applicant has demonstrated ability in operating a project
of such scope.
Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria: We will announce the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in a document in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria after considering responses to this
document and other information available to the Department. This
document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
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, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more
(as of 2023 but to be adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of
OIRA for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094).
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 upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the
[[Page 4241]]
behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are 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 Department believes that this proposed regulatory action would
not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation
in our programs is voluntary, and whose costs can generally be covered
with grant funds. As a result, the proposed regulatory action would not
impose any particular burden, except when an entity voluntarily elects
to apply for a grant. The proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would help ensure that the grant
program selects a high-quality applicant to implement activities that
meet the goals of the program for each Center. We believe these
benefits would outweigh any associated costs.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand.
The Assistant Secretary invites comments on how to make the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the
following:
Are the requirements in the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria clearly stated?
Do the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria contain technical terms or other wording that
interferes with their clarity?
Could the description of the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of the preamble be more helpful in making the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
easier to understand? If so, how?
What else could we do to make the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria easier to understand?
To send any comments on how the Department could make the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria easier to
understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Assistant Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory
action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size
Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they
are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field
of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit
institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently
owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public
institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by
a government overseeing a population below 50,000.
Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible
entities, all are voluntary. Therefore, we do not believe that the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
would significantly impact small entities beyond the potential for
increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, a
competitive grant from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: These proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria contain information
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1894-0006. The proposed priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria do not affect the currently approved data
collection.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, 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.
Adam Schott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, Delegated the
Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant
Secretary Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Appendix I
The proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria
incorporate the following
[[Page 4242]]
terms established for use in this program by the 2019 NFP:
Milestone means an activity that must be completed. Examples
include: Identifying key district administrators responsible for
professional development, sharing key observations from needs
assessment with district administrators and identified stakeholders,
preparing a logic model, planning for State-wide professional
development, identifying subject matter experts, and conducting
train-the-trainer sessions.
Outputs means products and services that must be completed.
Examples include: Needs assessment, logic model, training modules,
evaluation plan, and 12 workshop presentations.
Note: A product output under this program would be considered a
deliverable under the open licensing regulations at 2 CFR 3474.20.
[FR Doc. 2024-01257 Filed 1-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P