[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17753-17759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05202]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2023-OELA-0132]


Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions--National 
Professional Development Program

AGENCY: Office of English Language Acquisition, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, and definitions.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) establishes these 
final priorities, requirements, and definitions for use in the National 
Professional Development (NPD) program, Assistance Listing Number 
84.365Z. The Department may use one or more of these priorities, 
requirements, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 
and later years. We intend for these priorities, requirements, and 
definitions to increase the number of bilingual and multilingual 
teachers supporting English learners (ELs).

DATES: These priorities, requirements, and definitions are effective 
April 11, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco Javier L[oacute]pez, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 558-4880. 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: 
    Purpose of Program: The NPD program, authorized by sections 
3111(c)(1)(C) and 3131 of the ESEA, provides grants to IHEs or public 
or private entities with relevant experience and capacity, in consortia 
with State educational agencies (SEAs) or local educational agencies 
(LEAs), to implement pre-service and in-service professional 
development activities intended to improve instruction for ELs and 
assist education personnel working with ELs to meet high professional 
standards.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6861.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on September 
15, 2023 (88 FR 63543). The NPP contained background information and 
our reasons for proposing the priorities, requirements, and 
definitions. As discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes 
section of this document, we revised the definition of ``pre-service'' 
to ensure that GYO programs are part of, and aligned with, State-
approved, State-registered pre-service programs. In addition, we added 
a priority (Final Priority 2) to specifically address the recruitment, 
preparation, and retention needs of emergent bilingual or multilingual 
teacher candidates (i.e., not yet bilingual or multilingual, or not yet 
fully licensed or certified as a teacher, or both) and adjusted the 
numbering of the priorities accordingly. Next, we revised Priority 4 
(formerly Proposed Priority 3) to include school leaders and 
individuals who are pursuing an additional credential to work in a 
multilingual setting. Additionally, we consolidated the strategies in 
Final Priority 1 along with clarifying that the term ``evidence-based'' 
in Final Priorities 1, 2, and 4 is as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c). 
Finally, we simplified the definition of ``low-income'' for clarity and 
opted for the term ``student from a low-income background'' instead of 
``low-income student'' as well as clarified the definition of 
``bilingual or multilingual.''
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 35 
parties submitted comments addressing the proposed priorities, 
requirements, and definitions. We group major issues according to 
subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes 
or suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under 
the applicable statutory authority.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since 
publication of the NPP follows.

General Comments

    Comment: Eighteen commenters expressed support for the Department's 
efforts to meet the needs of our Nation's multilingual students by 
addressing the teacher shortage. Many of these commenters applauded the 
Department's emphasis on GYO strategies. Several commenters noted the 
timeliness of the proposed priorities and the Secretary's Raise the Bar 
initiative. More specifically, a couple of commenters emphasized the 
need for such pre-service programs while others emphasized the 
importance of the in-service training articulated in Final Priority 4.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the NPD program and for 
the specific emphasis on increasing the numbers of bilingual and 
multilingual teachers, specifically through GYO strategies, improving 
instruction for ELs, and promoting pathways to multilingualism for all 
students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters offered broad strategies for the 
Department and the field to consider, noting the importance of 
incentives to encourage participation. One of these commenters 
expressed the importance of incentivizing participation specifically in 
GYO programs. In addition, this commenter detailed numerous strategies 
to address the shortage of multilingual teachers. Two of the three 
commenters recommended that the Department provide targeted incentives 
for current

[[Page 17754]]

teachers to pursue and obtain bilingual certifications.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the suggestions for 
increasing the number of bilingual or multilingual teachers and 
recognizes the importance of incentives to encourage participation in 
teacher professional development programs. The NPD program allows for 
projects that incentivize participation through preparation stipends 
and tuition payments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter agreed that, to provide an equitable 
education to students, it is critical to increase the number of 
teachers with bilingual or ESL certification. Two commenters 
highlighted the importance of ensuring equitable access to bilingual 
opportunities for emergent bilingual students and children with 
disabilities. One of these commenters offered several suggestions, 
including incentivizing schools to create policies to honor emergent 
bilingual students' multilingualism with the seal of biliteracy and 
incentivizing teachers to pursue dual certification in bilingual 
education and special education to improve bilingual services for 
emergent bilingual students with disabilities.
    Discussion: We appreciate these comments and have designed these 
priorities with the goal of expanding pathways to multilingualism for 
all students, including English learner students and students with 
disabilities. While this regulatory action does not focus specifically 
on special education, applications that incorporate opportunities for 
certification in bilingual education for special education candidates 
are allowable and encouraged in the NPD program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter highlighted the distinction between the 
terms ``bilingual educator'' and ``English language learner teacher'' 
with regards to the way instruction is delivered.
    Discussion: We appreciate this comment and recognize that the 
language used to describe educators and students in the field of 
multilingual and English learner education varies.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted the challenge to effective 
multilingual education due to teachers having large caseloads of 
students and recommended imposing a cap on teachers' caseloads.
    Discussion: While we acknowledge the commenter's suggestion that 
there should be a Federal cap on caseloads, which we interpret to mean 
class size, we are unable to establish Federal requirements that are 
beyond the scope of the statutory authority for Department programs and 
therefore have not added the requested cap to this rule.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended increasing teacher salaries and 
establishing regulations on the number of hours teachers work beyond 
the educational day. In addition, this commenter suggested that schools 
provide more supplies and other resources.
    Discussion: We recognize the importance of teacher salaries and 
workloads and encourage states to ensure that all teachers are paid a 
livable and competitive wage. However, we are unable to establish 
Federal requirements beyond the scope of the statutory authority for 
Department programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter proposed recommendations for improving the 
number and quality of qualified bilingual and multilingual programs/
classes in their State.
    Discussion: We appreciate this comment. However, the systems and 
structures at the State and district levels that were recommended are 
beyond the scope of the statutory authority of this Federal program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter detailed their organization's efforts and 
support for GYO programs designed to increase the number of 
multilingual teachers via various pathways.
    Discussion: We appreciate the work of the commenter to address the 
shortage of multilingual teachers.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters urged funding for in-service English as a 
Second Language (ESL) teachers as well as the school districts who 
employ them to promote bilingualism, particularly advocating for 
increased language opportunities for teachers who only speak English. 
The commenters also shared that support should be directed towards 
enhancing literacy instruction.
    Discussion: The Department thanks the commenters for these 
suggestions and recognizes the importance of in-service training. There 
is already an established NPD priority for projects that provide in-
service professional development to improve instruction for ELs. This 
is inclusive of all educators who work with ELs. We agree with the 
importance of literacy instruction but do not think it is necessary to 
prescribe specific content areas within the priorities. We believe that 
applicants should propose the content areas they believe will best 
prepare education personnel who are serving ELs, such as literacy 
instruction.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested requirements for entities offering 
accredited pre-service training programs, including that the programs 
be specialized according to content area and be composed of at least 18 
hours of training to prepare teachers to support linguistically diverse 
students. In addition, this commenter stated that SEAs and LEAs need 
models and guidance for supporting newcomer students and migratory 
youth, and the commenter highlighted benefits of universal bilingual 
kindergarten.
    Discussion: We recognize the importance of teacher preparation and 
programs that provide teachers with the skills needed to support 
classrooms that include students who speak multiple languages and 
students with varying levels of language proficiency in these 
languages. We appreciate the commenter's suggestions for supporting 
newcomer students and migratory youth and the support for early 
childhood education. Rather than prescribing specific types of 
instruction for pre-service training programs, we encourage applicants 
to propose programs that are evidence-based and that will best prepare 
education personnel who are serving ELs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Five commenters explained the importance of supporting 
educational programs in rural communities where there are a growing 
number of multilingual and English learner students. Three of these 
commenters suggested that the NPD program incorporate a priority for 
bilingual and multilingual educators in rural school districts. One of 
these commenters expressed concern that peer reviewers from past 
competitions were not aware of the needs of rural communities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendation to support 
rural communities and recognize the growing number of multilingual and 
EL students attending schools in rural communities. Eligible rural-
serving entities are encouraged to apply for NPD program grants. The 
Department offers a variety of supports for all applicants, including 
those who have not received an NPD program grant in prior years. For 
example, the Department offers a pre-application webinar and responds 
to questions as part of every NPD competition. The Department also 
provides more general resources that are available to entities applying 
for any grant program. Please see https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/

[[Page 17755]]

about/discretionary/index.html. We did not create a new priority or 
expand an existing priority to focus on rural communities in the final 
priorities because there is an administrative priority for rural 
applicants (85 FR 13640) \1\ that remains in effect and is available 
for use by the NPD program. Finally, the Department's procedures for 
awarding discretionary grants include a variety of safeguards and 
technical assistance to ensure fair grant competitions. For example, 
for almost all the Department's grant competitions, program staff 
recruit application reviewers from outside the Federal Government. Peer 
reviewers for the NPD program are recruited and selected based on their 
qualifications and experience in serving EL students. And, while 
Department staff screen applications to ensure that they meet all 
program requirements, the non-Federal reviewers read and independently 
score the applications assigned to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/85-FR-13640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters noted the importance of training 
multilingual teachers for children aged five and under. One of these 
commenters asked that we expand Priority 1 to specifically include 
early childhood educators. The second commenter advocated for making 
Proposed Priorities 1 and 3 (Final Priorities 1 and 4) absolute 
priorities and weighting Proposed Priority 2 (Final Priority 3) heavily 
as a competitive preference priority.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the support of these 
commenters and shares the belief in the importance of expanding the 
number of bilingual and multilingual educators supporting early 
learning. We encourage applications that incorporate training for 
bilingual and multilingual teachers on how best to support children 
aged five and under. In general, we believe this type of training is 
allowable under Final Priorities 1, 2, and 4. Therefore, we do not 
believe it is necessary to modify the priorities or requirements. We 
think it is important to allow flexibility for applicants to propose 
projects they believe will best prepare teacher candidates for serving 
ELs and based on the need at the time.
    Details about future competitions, including absolute and 
competitive preference priorities, will be published in the Federal 
Register in future notices inviting applications.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter, writing on behalf of their association, 
explained the importance of supporting students and educators from 
Latino backgrounds. This commenter specifically advocated for Proposed 
Priority 3 (Final Priority 4), stating that it would help eliminate the 
educator shortage, increase services for students who are ELs, and 
expand pathways to multilingualism for all students.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendations to ensure 
that the priorities and strategies for the NPD program address the 
unique considerations of specific linguistic and cultural communities, 
and we acknowledge the commenter's support for Proposed Priority 3 
(Final Priority 4). Because the NPD program is statutorily authorized 
to serve all ELs, and we intend for the final priorities, requirements, 
and definitions to expand capacity to support culturally and 
linguistically diverse students and educators, we have not changed the 
priorities to focus explicitly on specific communities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters highlighted that consideration should be 
made for varying language proficiency within certain contexts, 
particularly within specific languages and populations, such as 
indigenous and refugee communities. One of the commenters advised that 
there may be certain languages where there may not be a large 
population of advanced speakers, and some advanced speakers may not 
have advanced proficiency in all domains of the language. A second 
commenter advocated for targeted programming and support for Native 
American languages as defined in section 104 of the Native American 
Language Act of 1990 (NALA 1990) and in ESEA sections 3127 and 3124(3). 
Both commenters made specific recommendations for the explicit 
inclusion of Native American languages within the priorities and an 
adjustment of the definition of ``bilingual or multilingual'' to allow 
for various levels of proficiency for Native American languages. 
Finally, the second commenter also recommended allowing projects to 
support teacher candidates' language development in Native American 
languages given that many Native American languages have declining 
numbers of individuals who are highly proficient.
    Discussion: We recognize the importance of strengthening and 
revitalizing Native American languages through the recruitment, 
retention, and empowerment of Native American educators, and encourage 
projects designed to foster a high level of proficiency in Native 
American languages. The Department is actively supporting Native 
American language revitalization through this and other programs.
    The NPD program is designed to support professional development for 
educators working with ELs who speak all languages, including Native 
American languages as defined by NALA 1990 and amended by the Durbin 
Feeling Languages Act. For this reason, we do not believe it is 
appropriate to reference specific languages.
    We do not believe it is appropriate to revise the definition of 
``bilingual or multilingual'' to allow for various levels of 
proficiency for Native American languages, as we hope to maintain a 
focus on high levels of proficiency across all languages. At the same 
time, we appreciate the importance of supporting educators and teacher 
candidates in reaching proficiency. To meet this need, we added a new 
priority (Final Priority 2) that allows for pre-service programs that 
support teacher candidates who are acquiring an additional language but 
may not yet be highly proficient in the four domains of listening, 
speaking, reading, and writing. We also revised the definition of 
``bilingual or multilingual'' to include languages with fewer than four 
domains (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), by clarifying that 
``bilingual or multilingual'' applies to those with a high level of 
proficiency in the domains that exist for the language. It is expected 
that applicants will identify appropriate indicators for measuring 
proficiency in these languages and equip educators to teach in these 
languages, and that teacher candidates will finish the pre-service 
program highly proficient in two or more languages and with a teaching 
credential.
    Additionally, in support of strengthening and revitalizing Native 
American languages through Native American educators, the Department 
recently announced \2\ new awards totaling more than $11 million for 
the new Native American Language Resource Centers (NALRC) program, the 
first-ever Native American Teacher Retention Initiative (NATRI) 
program, and the State Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) program. 
Through these awards, the Department seeks to strengthen the vitality 
of Native American languages in schools, support Native American 
teachers, and ensure Tribal Educational Agencies can

[[Page 17756]]

coordinate grant resources alongside State and local partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-awards-more-11-million-preserve-native-languages-increase-native-teacher-retention-and-support-tribal-educational-agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: The Department added new Final Priority 2 and revised the 
definition of ``bilingual or multilingual'' to include all languages, 
including those with fewer than four domains.

Priorities

    Comment: One commenter suggested that current multilingual 
educators be offered pathways to other content area certifications. A 
second commenter recommended opening multilingual teacher training to 
educators of all content areas, not solely to EL educators.
    Discussion: We appreciate the work of bilingual and multilingual 
teachers and recognize the importance of professional development 
opportunities to support them in other content areas. The NPD program 
provides professional development to improve instruction for ELs. This 
is inclusive of all educators who work with ELs across content areas.
    Furthermore, in response to the comment about the availability of 
training for all teachers of ELs, not just EL educators, we revised 
Final Priority 4 (formerly Proposed Priority 3) to clarify that current 
educators of ELs, including content area educators, are eligible for 
additional development to work in multilingual contexts serving EL 
students.
    Changes: We have revised Final Priority 4 (formerly Proposed 
Priority 3) to clarify that current educators of ELs, including content 
area educators, are eligible for additional development to work in 
multilingual contexts serving EL students.
    Comment: Six commenters suggested that the Department support 
pathways for in-service school leaders to further their knowledge of 
multilingual learner education. This focus would help to ensure that 
multilingual teachers have support and guidance from school 
administration.
    Discussion: We agree that school leadership is important in the 
provision of multilingual education. We added language to Final 
Priority 4 to clarify that applicants may propose projects to create 
pathways for school leaders to further their knowledge of multilingual 
learner education.
    Changes: We have added ``school leaders'' to the list of examples 
of education personnel who may receive in-service professional 
development under Final Priority 4.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that multilingual teacher 
education programs be encouraged to think strategically about how 
teachers are prepared to teach content in other languages. Another 
commenter stated that educators must know English language basics to 
teach English as a second language in a bilingual classroom. The 
commenter suggested that professional development should be focused on 
English language phonics and phonemic awareness for all educators. 
Finally, a third commenter requested that the Department provide 
guidance on the types of professional development addressed under these 
final priorities. The commenter wanted to ensure that the NPD program 
supports comprehensive training for teachers.
    Discussion: We recognize the importance of fully equipping 
bilingual and multilingual teachers with the knowledge and skills to 
teach across content areas and languages. The NPD program allows 
applicants to prepare their pre-service and in-service programs in 
response to the unique needs of their respective settings, which could 
include a comprehensive approach or a more targeted focus, such as on a 
specific content area or on teaching English as a second language in a 
bilingual classroom.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter questioned whether there are enough 
personnel to guide and oversee newly trained teachers in bilingual 
education and ensure high-quality teaching.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern. While this 
comment referred to oversight on a nationwide scale and cannot be 
addressed solely through this program, applicants that propose a grant 
under this program are encouraged to incorporate teacher supervision 
into their grant proposal to ensure that teachers, in both pre-service 
and in-service programs, are meeting the expectations of the 
preparation program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters commended the efforts to increase 
opportunities for bilingual education for multilingual learners, 
stating that increased pre-service opportunities are important and 
needed. One commenter expressed that there might be confusion created 
by using the term ``pre-service'' given that, as proposed, this term 
includes paraprofessionals and those with other teaching credentials 
who are not currently multilingual teachers. This commenter wanted to 
ensure that pathways are expanded to diversify the teacher pipeline 
rather than limited by traditional notions of ``pre-service.'' In 
addition, two commenters suggested that education and training 
opportunities be made available to bilingual and multilingual 
educational assistants working in schools who do not have a college 
degree or education credentials, and to multilingual, English learner, 
and emergent bilingual teachers who would like to become credentialed 
as bilingual educators.
    Discussion: While we acknowledge the commenters' concerns, the 
definition of ``pre-service'' is intended to capture the broad array of 
pathways to becoming a certified bilingual or multilingual teacher. 
These pathways can include pre-service programs in which bilingual or 
multilingual paraprofessionals, who work in schools and are interested 
in obtaining their teaching credential to support ELs directly, are 
enrolled. We envision other bilingual and multilingual individuals who 
are already teachers to be eligible for projects proposed under Final 
Priority 1 to the extent that they want to move into teaching in 
bilingual or multilingual education settings. Additionally, we revised 
Final Priority 4 (formerly Proposed Priority 3) to include individuals 
who have a teaching credential but have not been teaching in bilingual 
or multilingual education settings and are pursuing an additional 
credential to do so.
    Changes: We revised Final Priority 4 to include individuals who may 
have a teaching credential but have not been teaching in bilingual or 
multilingual education settings and are pursuing an additional 
credential to do so.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for both Proposed Priority 
1 and Proposed Priority 3 (Final Priority 4) as both will help address 
the teacher shortage for ELs and multilingual learners.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's support of 
ELs and their teachers and looks forward to working collectively to 
address the nationwide teacher shortage of multilingual educators.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Eight commenters addressed Proposed Priority 2 (Final 
Priority 3). Two of these commenters supported the priority because it 
would create more equitable pathways for aspiring teachers from low-
income populations. One of the commenters asked for clarity on how 
applicants could meet the conditions within Final Priority 3. Another 
one of these commenters suggested that the Department expand the 
definition of ``low-income'' to factor in other socioeconomic 
considerations beyond Pell Grant eligibility. Another of the commenters 
encouraged the Department to use available data to target programs that 
serve socioeconomically diverse students. Four of the commenters raised

[[Page 17757]]

concerns that Proposed Priority 2 would exclude individuals who are not 
low-income as defined or do not have the support to apply for Pell 
grants. Two of the commenters addressed the importance of serving 
first-generation college applicants as part of Proposed Priority 2.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions. We believe 
Final Priority 3 will, by design, target programs that are serving 
socioeconomically diverse students, while allowing for inclusion of 
students who do not meet the definition of ``low-income.'' Under Final 
Priority 3 (formerly Proposed Priority 2), 30, 40, or 50 percent of the 
candidates in a pre-service program must meet the definition of ``low-
income.'' This priority imposes a minimum, but outside of this minimum, 
a project could meet this priority by serving a group of potential 
candidates that is comprised of 50 to 70 percent of individuals who do 
not meet the definition of ``low-income.'' Given that the priority 
would allow for a large percentage of candidates who are not from low-
income backgrounds and the importance of building a diverse and 
representative teacher workforce, we do not believe it is necessary to 
make changes to the priority.
    Finally, we believe that Pell eligibility is a reasonable indicator 
of low-income status, due to its use as such in other contexts, its 
validity and reliability, and its availability to institutions. We note 
that Pell eligibility requirements factor in family size, which is an 
important consideration in qualifying as low-income. Furthermore, the 
definition does not require that students have applied for or received 
Pell Grants, but rather that they would be eligible for, or meet the 
financial threshold for, a Pell Grant. Accordingly, the definition 
would not exclude students who lack the support to complete a FAFSA, 
which is used to determine Pell eligibility. Further, outreach may be 
conducted as part of an NPD project to help students complete the 
FAFSA. The purpose of this priority is, in part, to encourage 
applicants to use funding to work with and recruit students from low-
income backgrounds, including those who live in rural areas or who are 
first-generation candidates, as they transition to and enroll in 
postsecondary education.
    To simplify the definition of ``low-income student,'' we are 
removing the reference to section 484(a)(5) of the Higher Education 
Act. This revision does not substantively change the defined term.
    Changes: In the definition of ``low-income,'' we have removed the 
reference to section 484(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act.

Definitions

    Comment: Four commenters suggested that the Department explicitly 
include alternative teacher training pathways in its definition of 
``pre-service'' programs rather than only including traditional IHE 
teacher preparation programs. One of the four commenters recommended 
that we revise the definition of ``pre-service'' to include individuals 
who are participating in State-approved programs offered by non-
traditional educational providers. Another of the four commenters 
explained that alternative pathways programs train new teachers more 
practically, and such pathways may better serve candidates who come 
from low-income backgrounds, consistent with the focus of Proposed 
Priority 2 (Final Priority 3).
    Discussion: The Department recognizes the value of comprehensive, 
high-quality alternative pathways programs for preparing new teachers 
and the importance of responding to the needs of socioeconomically 
diverse bilingual and multilingual teacher candidates through these 
programs which can provide more flexibility. We revised the definition 
of ``pre-service'' to clarify that teacher candidates are not limited 
to programs solely provided by IHEs; rather they include State-
accredited pre-service programs that lead to State-approved full 
certification or licensure.
    Changes: We revised the definition of ``pre-service'' such that it 
is not limited to teacher education programs only through IHEs.

Final Priorities

    The Department establishes the following four priorities for this 
program. We may use one or more of these priorities in any year in 
which this program is in effect.
    Final Priority 1--Increase the Number of Bilingual or Multilingual 
Teachers Through a Grow-Your-Own (GYO) Pre-Service Program that 
Recruits Teacher Candidates who are Bilingual or Multilingual.
    Projects that propose to increase the number of fully licensed or 
certified bilingual or multilingual teachers working in language 
instruction educational programs or serving ELs, and improve their 
qualifications and skills, through evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 
77.1(c)) pre-service programs. Applicants must describe their plan for 
recruiting, supporting, and retaining teacher candidates who are 
bilingual or multilingual. Applicants must include in their proposed 
plan for a pre-service program, one or more of the following GYO 
strategies that are designed to address shortages of bilingual or 
multilingual teachers and increase the diversity of qualified 
individuals entering the educator workforce:
    (a) Implementing evidence-based GYO strategies for bilingual or 
multilingual individuals (e.g., creating dual enrollment, early 
college, and Career and Technical Education programs in teaching for 
middle and high school students paired with offering seals of 
biliteracy or supporting bilingual or multilingual paraprofessionals 
actively working in P-12 schools in becoming teachers).
    (b) Recruiting bilingual or multilingual individuals who may have a 
teaching credential, but who are not certified to teach bilingual or 
multilingual education, and supporting them in earning the additional 
certification.
    (c) Implementing evidence-based teacher residencies in bilingual or 
multilingual education, including scaling these evidence-based pathways 
through a registered teacher apprenticeship program.
    Final Priority 2--Increase the Number of Bilingual or Multilingual 
Teachers Through a Grow-Your-Own (GYO) Pre-Service Program that 
Recruits Teacher Candidates who are Emergent Bilinguals or 
Multilinguals.
    Projects that propose to increase the number of fully licensed or 
certified bilingual or multilingual teachers working in language 
instruction educational programs or serving ELs, and improve their 
qualifications and skills, through evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 
77.1(c)) pre-service programs that recruit teacher candidates who are 
emergent bilinguals or multilinguals. Applicants must describe their 
plan for recruiting, supporting, and retaining teacher candidates who 
are not yet, but are aspiring to be, teachers who are bilingual or 
multilingual, and their plan for ensuring that teacher candidates 
complete the pre-service program as fully licensed or certified 
teachers who are also bilingual or multilingual. Applicants must 
include in their proposed plan for a pre-service program, one or more 
of the following GYO strategies that are designed to address shortages 
of bilingual or multilingual teachers and increase the diversity of 
qualified individuals entering the educator workforce:
    (a) Implementing evidence-based GYO strategies for bilingual or

[[Page 17758]]

multilingual individuals (e.g., creating dual enrollment, early 
college, and Career and Technical Education programs in teaching for 
middle and high school students paired with offering seals of 
biliteracy or supporting paraprofessionals actively working in P-12 
schools in becoming bilingual or multilingual teachers).
    (b) Recruiting individuals who may have a teaching credential, but 
who are not certified to teach bilingual or multilingual education, and 
supporting them in earning the additional certification.
    (c) Implementing evidence-based teacher residencies in bilingual or 
multilingual education, including scaling these evidence-based pathways 
through a registered teacher apprenticeship program.
    Final Priority 3--Service to Students from Low-income Backgrounds.
    Projects that propose to recruit, prepare, and retain in the pre-
service program classes of participants for which one or more of the 
following conditions are met:
    (a) At least 30 percent of the participants are from low-income 
backgrounds.
    (b) At least 40 percent of the participants are low-income 
students.
    (c) At least 50 percent of the participants are low-income 
students.
    Final Priority 4--Improve In-Service Professional Development 
Programs Targeting Bilingual or Multilingual Educational Personnel Who 
Serve English Learners.
    Projects that propose evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) 
in-service professional development programs designed to expand the 
number, and improve the qualifications and skills, of educational 
personnel working in language instruction educational programs or 
serving ELs, including--
     Bilingual or multilingual educational paraprofessionals 
and personnel who are not certified or licensed as teachers;
     Bilingual or multilingual individuals who have a teaching 
credential but have not been teaching in bilingual or multilingual 
education settings and are pursuing an additional credential to do so;
     School leaders who are furthering their knowledge and 
skills to support bilingual or multilingual educators working in 
language instruction educational programs or serving Els; and
     Other bilingual or multilingual individuals who can 
benefit from in-service professional development with the goal of 
increasing the number and skills of individuals working in language 
instruction educational programs or serving ELs.

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Requirements

    The Department establishes the following requirements for this 
program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in 
which this program is in effect.
    Final Application Requirements: An applicant must provide the 
indicators it proposes to use to determine if a participant meets the 
definition of ``bilingual or multilingual.'' Applicants may provide 
this information in response to the selection criteria, or otherwise as 
applicable, in their applications.

Final Definitions

    The Department establishes the following definitions for this 
program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in 
which this program is in effect.
    Bilingual or multilingual means able to listen, speak, read, and 
write in two or more languages with at least a high level of 
proficiency in each language, as determined based on indicators of 
proficiency established by the grantee. Note, bilingual or multilingual 
means a high level of proficiency in the domains that exist for the 
language, which may be fewer than four domains for some languages.
    Student from a low-income background means a student--
    (a) Who is eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant for the award 
year for which the determination is made; or
    (b) Who meets the financial threshold to receive a Federal Pell 
Grant for the year for which the determination is made.
    Pre-service means the period of preparation for a person who does 
not have a teaching certificate or license and who is enrolled in a 
State-approved teacher education program that leads to a State-approved 
full certificate or license.
    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, 
or definitions, 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 
(adjusted every three 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 final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to

[[Page 17759]]

review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended 
by Executive Order 14094.
    We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. To the 
extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an 
agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would 
justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net 
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes 
that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in 
Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    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.
    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 Secretary certifies that these final priorities, requirements, 
and definitions would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    The small entities that this final regulatory action would affect 
are IHEs, or public or private entities with relevant experience and 
capacity, in consortia with LEAs or SEAs applying for and receiving 
funds under this program. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed 
on applicants by the final priorities, requirements, and definitions 
would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an 
application and that the benefits would outweigh any costs incurred by 
applicants.
    Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the 
final priorities, requirements, and definitions would impose no burden 
on small entities in general. Eligible applicants would determine 
whether to apply for funds and can weigh the requirements for preparing 
applications, and any associated costs, against the likelihood of 
receiving funding and the requirements for implementing projects under 
the program. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they 
determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 
application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a 
grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through 
its development of an application, such as the use of that application 
to seek funding from other sources to address a shortage in bilingual 
or multilingual teachers working in a language instruction education 
program or serving ELs.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    These final priorities, requirements, and definitions do not 
contain any information collection requirements.
    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 this 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.

Montserrat Garibay,
Assistant Deputy Secretary and Director for the Office of English 
Language Acquisition.
[FR Doc. 2024-05202 Filed 3-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P