Administrative Priority and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs
| Published date | 30 December 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 86545 |
| Record Number | 2020-28820 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | Education Department |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86545-86551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28820]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2020-OPEPD-0096]
Administrative Priority and Definitions for Discretionary Grant
Programs
AGENCY: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education announces a priority and
definitions for discretionary grant programs that the Secretary may use
in fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years to promote the use of the
Department of Education's (the Department's) discretionary grants funds
to support remote learning.
DATES: The priority and definitions are effective January 29, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 205-5231. Email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
We published a notice of proposed priority and definitions (NPP) in
the Federal Register on September 8, 2020 (85 FR 55439). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular administrative priority and definitions.
We have made minor revisions to paragraphs (b) and (f) of the
priority and to the definition of ``interoperable credentials,'' which
we explain in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this
document.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 16
parties submitted comments.
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not
address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to
the proposed priority and definitions.
Analysis of the Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments
and of any changes in the priority and definitions since publication of
the NPP follows.
Comments: A few commenters asked for clarity on how the priority
would be used and encouraged the Department to prioritize certain
applicants, such as institutions of higher education, for eligibility.
Discussion: As discussed in the NPP, the priority is intended to
build State and local capacity to support remote learning and
instruction. The Department may elect to use this priority when
inviting applications for a discretionary grant program. The Department
has the discretion to choose whether the priority and definitions are
appropriate for the competition after considering program purpose,
feasibility, and scope. The Department also has the discretion to
choose how the priority would apply; for example, the priority may be
used as an absolute priority (applicants must address the priority in
order to be eligible to receive grant funds) or a competitive
preference priority (applicants may receive additional points depending
on how well they address the priority). We will only use the priority
and definitions for a particular grant competition when it is relevant
and appropriate. Furthermore, the Department is not required to use the
priority and definitions for any particular program.
In any competition in which this priority and definitions are used,
eligible entities are determined by the program statute; therefore, we
cannot specify eligibility for a particular type of entity as part of
the final priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters proposed revisions to, or additional
language for, the background section that accompanied the proposed
priority to emphasize the impact of school closures for in-person
instruction on different populations, such as students with
disabilities, as well as specifics related to learning losses discussed
in the cited study.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the NPP
background section, which explains our rationale for this priority and
definitions. We agree with comments that emphasized the impact of
school closures for in-person instruction on students with disabilities
and other groups of students and believe the commenters' concerns are
sufficiently addressed through paragraph (f) of the priority. Moreover,
we are revising paragraph (f) so that a program may choose to focus on
a specific subgroup. Additionally, we added language in parentheticals
clarifying that where the commonly used terms used for the subgroups of
students in paragraph (f) or similar terms are defined in the
applicable authorizing program statute, these terms take on the
statutory definition that applies to the particular program. For
example, this priority could be used in the Alaska Native Education
(ANE) program to encourage projects that provide high-quality remote
learning to students who are Alaska Natives, as defined in the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA), through the
use of paragraph (f)(iv) of the priority, pertaining to Native American
students.
Changes: We are modifying paragraph (f) so that a program may
choose to focus on specific subgroups and have clarified that the
definitions of listed subgroups may be based on the program's statutory
authority, as applicable.
Comments: Multiple commenters requested that we reference Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act in the accessibility requirement
paragraph that concludes the priority.
Discussion: We agree that accessibility is important in ensuring
all students can access remote learning effectively, and we have
indicated so in various paragraphs of the priority. Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act applies only to Federal agencies, so recipients of
Federal financial assistance are not required to comply with that law;
consequently, inclusion of Section 508 in the accessibility requirement
has limited applicability and is therefore unnecessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns about the impact
of remote learning for students with disabilities, including a concern
that the priority did not take into account the individual needs of
students identified for services pursuant to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
In addition, multiple commenters expressed support for paragraph
(f) of the priority to target the needs of specific subgroups,
including students with disabilities. However, one commenter
recommended the Department remove the requirement that paragraph (f) of
the priority be used only in conjunction with another paragraph of the
priority.
[[Page 86546]]
Discussion: Students with disabilities throughout the country who
may be eligible for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Section 504) or the IDEA must have their individual
learning needs met from wherever they are learning. Educators also need
training and support to provide effective remote instruction. Through
this priority, we will promote strategies and practices for delivering
remote learning and competency-based education that effectively meet
the individual needs of students with disabilities, including:
Identifying the appropriate technologies, assistive technologies, or
accessible educational materials needed to ensure students with
disabilities have access to core or alternate curricula; enhancing
communication and collaboration with parents and families to identify
the most effective methodology and supports that will meet the unique
and individual needs of students with disabilities; and ensuring
Individualized Education Program teams and teams determining services
under Section 504 collaborate with parents to identify the program,
related services, accommodations, and supports the individual student
will require in order to derive an educational benefit and achieve
academic, functional, and behavioral educational outcomes.
Lastly, paragraph (f) of the priority is designed to target the
work carried out under paragraphs (a)-(e) of the priority to a
particular subgroup or subgroups of students and leverage that work to
focus efforts. As such, paragraph (f) on its own would not address
fully the improvements that would be supported with this remote
learning priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters suggested adding language on the
principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in all the paragraphs
of the priority.
Discussion: The priority currently refers to UDL in paragraph (a)
of the priority as an example. As written, the language in the other
paragraphs of the priority could be inclusive of UDL as a strategy for
meeting the needs of students with disabilities.
Further, the priority offers the flexibility for applicants to
address UDL and similar strategies in their grant applications. There
is nothing in the priority that would prohibit the use of UDL. For
these reasons, it is not necessary to revise the priority to include
explicit references to the strategy in all paragraphs of the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter raised concerns that the priority did not
address all student populations most impacted by remote learning, that
remote learning is not culturally responsive, and that the assessments
need to be research-based. This commenter also raised concern about
inequitable access to technology, stating that the priority will
further exacerbate the ``digital divide.'' A second commenter
recommended removing the 10 percent limitation on technology costs,
citing concerns about access to technology and the variance in that
access across the country.
Discussion: We appreciate the concern that the remote learning
priority must consider the needs of all students. We include paragraph
(f) of the priority which requires ``high-quality'' remote learning for
specific subgroups of students, and we think that the concept of high-
quality remote learning would include considerations about what is
culturally responsive, as appropriate. We also generally defer to
applicants on how best to meet their communities' needs. Furthermore,
the intent of the remote learning priority is to ensure that the
Department provide incentives to applicants that would implement
robust, effective, and engaging remote learning strategies that meet
the needs of all students. In addition, while we do not explicitly
require performance-based assessments to be supported by research, in
paragraph (d) of the priority we do require that the assessments obtain
valid and reliable results.
Paragraph (c) of the proposed priority allowed for providing access
to technologies needed to serve learners. The intent of proposed
paragraph (c) was to reduce the differences in access to technology. We
understand that setting a limit on technology costs could be
prohibitive to successfully implementing the remote learning priority
and understand that applicants are best positioned to determine the
sufficient amount of resources needed to invest in technology to
support project objectives. As such, we are removing the cap on
technology costs in paragraph (c) of the proposed priority.
Changes: We are removing the last sentence of paragraph (c) of the
proposed priority.
Comments: Multiple commenters supported the priority, emphasized
the need for professional learning and the usage of paragraph (b), and
noted the important role institutions of higher education play in
professional development. One commenter asked that the Department use
paragraph (b) in all competitions as an absolute priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the priority. We agree
that professional learning is an important part of effective remote
learning and agree that institutions of higher education, along with a
number of other entities, can support professional learning for
educators. With respect to using paragraph (b) as an absolute priority
across all discretionary grant programs, the Department has discretion
in choosing whether and how to use the priority based on its
applicability to a given program's purpose, and those decisions are
best made on a program-by-program basis.
Changes: None.
Comment: A couple of commenters requested that the Department
expand paragraph (b), which is focused on professional learning. One
commenter wanted paragraph (b) to align with the definition of
``professional development'' under the ESEA. Another commenter said the
examples in the parenthetical for paragraph (b) should be expanded with
additional examples to emphasize professional development focused on
student engagement and not just professional development in technology
use.
Discussion: We appreciate the interest in clarity and consistency
in terminology in this priority and other statutes. However, the
language about professional development being ``sustained and
intensive'' from the definition of ``professional development'' in ESEA
is not appropriate for this remote learning priority. Our intent for
this priority is to help the Department's grantees pivot between in-
person and remote learning as needed. While remote learning in response
to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been in place for
an extended period, not all remote learning under this priority will be
for similar time frames, and professional learning may not need to be
ongoing to address educator capacity for remote learning.
In regard to the comment recommending additional examples to
highlight professional learning activities beyond technology, paragraph
(b) already includes a focus on professional learning with the intent
of advancing student engagement and learning, but we recognize the
paragraph may appear to highlight technology primarily. As such, we are
reorganizing the sentence for paragraph (b) to clearly emphasize
increasing student engagement, including through the use of technology.
Changes: We are revising paragraph (b) so that it more clearly
states that the professional learning under this priority is focused on
student engagement and learning through technology, rather than
emphasizing technology.
[[Page 86547]]
Comments: Multiple commenters sought revisions to paragraph (d) of
the priority to clarify that performance-based assessments are
important, regardless of the connection to competency-based education;
that the assessments must show true competency; and that assessments
should not require seat time. Commenters also asked the Department to
provide additional examples of assessments.
Discussion: We agree that performance-based assessments are
important and purposefully highlight these kinds of assessments and
seek their development under paragraph (d) of the priority. We agree
that performance-based assessments can be separate from competency-
based education; however, we want to emphasize competency-based
education in this paragraph of the remote learning priority. Moreover,
we want to encourage assessments that demonstrate competency, in
keeping with the recommendation from one commenter, and we want to
support assessments that accurately document students' skills. The
examples included in paragraph (d) do not need to be exhaustive and are
sufficient for the purposes of the priority. Lastly, we do not consider
the priority or the definition of ``competency-based education,'' as
written, to require a particular amount of instruction or seat time;
rather, the definition of ``competency-based education'' specifically
calls for assessments that demonstrate progression ``based on
demonstrated mastery of what students are expected to know (knowledge)
and be able to do (skills), rather than seat time or age.''
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the ``valid and reliable
assessments'' piece of paragraph (d) of the priority that focused on
assessments and competency-based education should not be limited to
just summative assessments.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's interest in not limiting
assessments to summative assessments and focusing on formative
assessments as well. We do not consider the inclusion of ``valid and
reliable'' in describing the assessments to mean that they must only be
summative assessments. Rather, paragraph (d) focuses on performance-
based assessments that document students' skills and, under the
definition of ``competency-based education,'' progression is based on
demonstrated mastery rather than seat time. However, we want to clarify
that the intent is for performance-based assessments to yield valid and
reliable results and are therefore changing ``obtain'' in proposed
paragraph (d) to ``yield.''
Changes: We are revising ``obtain'' in paragraph (d) of the
proposed priority to ``yield.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that we clarify the terms
``hybrid/blended learning'' and ``linked open data formats'' used in
the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the interest in providing clarity in the
priority and the terminology used. We decline to further define
``hybrid/blended learning,'' as this term has various meanings in the
field depending on specific contexts of a particular community, and we
do not think it is necessary to define the term for purposes of the
priority. We also decline to define ``linked open data formats.'' We
think ``open data'' is a term widely used at the Federal, State, and
local levels, and by ``linked'' we emphasize the accessibility of the
data. We do not consider a separate definition to be necessary and
believe programs using this priority will clarify how these terms fit
within their specific context.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether, under paragraph (f), the
Department should require applicants to provide both high-quality
remote learning and competency-based education in response to this
paragraph, or whether applicants should have the flexibility to choose
between remote learning or competency-based education, as provided in
the proposed priority.
Discussion: The proposed priority would have offered applicants a
choice between providing remote learning or competency-based education
to specific student subgroups. While a project could support both
remote learning and competency-based education, in further reviewing
paragraph (f), we think ``competency-based education'' can be removed
from proposed paragraph (f) because the broader priority is focused on
building capacity for remote learning.
Changes: We are removing ``or competency-based education'' from
paragraph (f) of the proposed priority.
Comment: One commenter proposed limiting the definition of ``remote
learning'' to K-12 education given the recent publication of the higher
education distance education regulations, citing concern that existing
definitions in the higher education context, including the definition
for ``distance education,'' that include remote learning concepts may
spark confusion. Specifically, ``distance education'' is defined in the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), as well as in the
Distance Education and Innovation regulations published in the Federal
Register on September 2, 2020 (85 FR 54742).
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's consideration of whether
this priority and the ``remote learning'' definition is applicable in
the higher education context, as our intent is to establish a priority
that could be used in grant programs across the Department, including
those for higher education. We recognize that there are definitions for
``distance education'' in section 103(7) of the HEA and ``distance
learning'' in section 8101(14) of the ESEA. The definition of ``remote
learning'' is not meant to contradict or supersede these definitions or
the definition of ``distance education'' in the HEA or the higher
education Distance Education and Innovation regulations; rather, it is
meant to provide context for those definitions and clarify what is
meant by remote learning in the context of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported the priority but asked that the
definition for ``remote learning'' also reference non-technology
models, such as service learning, internships, and other programs.
Discussion: We agree that remote learning can include non-
technology models and highlight some of those as examples in the
``remote learning'' definition. Given that the list of examples is not
exhaustive, nothing in the definition prohibits other activities in
addition to the activities identified. We, therefore, do not think
adding additional examples is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters supported the inclusion of
competency-based education in the priority, with one commenter
recommending a stand-alone priority focused on competency-based
education, arguing that competency-based education, while it can be
used in conjunction with technology, does not require technology.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for inclusion of competency-
based education in the priority and definitions. We agree that
competency-based education is important, and the Department previously
included ``competency-based learning'' in Priority 3--Fostering
Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining Knowledge and Skills in the
Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for
Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities) published in the
Federal Register on March 2, 2018
[[Page 86548]]
(83 FR 9096). As such, we do not need to create an additional, separate
priority for competency-based education. Further, we decline to remove
the reference to ``competency-based education'' in paragraph (a)
because our intent is to encourage competency-based education in remote
learning environments.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters recommended changes to the definition
of ``competency-based education,'' including adding references to
credentials that are inclusive of all students, include appropriate
pacing, and are student focused. An additional commenter proposed
limiting the definition for ``competency-based education'' to K-12
education given the recent publication of the higher education Distance
Education and Innovation regulations and concern about confusion when
used in the higher education context, especially since competency-based
education was not defined in those regulations.
Discussion: We appreciate comments suggesting that we revise the
definition of ``competency-based education.'' We proposed to define the
term as ``competency-based education,'' which was included as an
example in paragraph (a) of the priority and is central to the
performance-based assessments piece of paragraph (d). The definition as
written is inclusive of all students, allows for demonstration of
mastery as a result of self-paced learning, and provides a broad
understanding of competency-based education for operationalizing within
the context of the remote learning priority. The definition of
``competency-based education'' for the remote learning priority is
consistent with other Department usage and definitions of ``competency-
based education,'' including the Rural Tech Project (https://www.ruraltechproject.com/).
As to the concern about usage of the priority and the ``competency-
based education'' definition in higher education, the Department has
the discretion for each grant program to choose if the priority should
be used in a given competition considering the program's purpose,
feasibility, and scope, and, if so, how the priority would apply; for
example, a program may choose to use only paragraph (a) of the
priority. As noted above, competency-based education is part of an
illustrative list in paragraph (a), and an applicant is not required to
address all items in that list. Competency-based education is more
central to paragraph (d), but the Department may choose whether to use
paragraph (d) when including the remote learning priority in a
particular grant competition, taking into consideration the program's
statute and other relevant regulations. As noted earlier, the
Department will make program-by-program decisions about when and how to
use the remote learning priority, including in the higher education
context. Moreover, the definition of ``competency-based education''
does not contradict or supersede any of the Distance Education and
Innovation regulations; rather, it is meant to clarify what is meant by
``competency-based education'' in the context of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported the inclusion of interoperable
credentials in the priority and definitions and recommended that the
Department include interoperable credential requirements in all
discretionary grant competitions. In the definition, the commenter
proposed that we change ``common standardized frameworks'' to
``nationally recognized and widely used educational or professional
learning standards.''
Discussion: We agree that interoperable credentials are important
and appreciate the support for paragraph (e) of the priority. The
Department has discretion in choosing whether and how to use the
priority for all of our grant competitions. We decide to use a
particular priority based on careful consideration of whether the
priority and definitions are appropriate for each competition with
regard to program purpose, feasibility, and scope.
In regard to the recommendation to refer to ``nationally recognized
and widely used educational or professional learning standards'' rather
than ``common standardized frameworks,'' we appreciate the interest in
ensuring clarity in terminology. We note the white papers hosted on the
U.S. Department of Commerce website designed to provide clarity
regarding, among other things, ``credentials,'' which include a focus
on ``common standardized frameworks'': ``White Paper on Interoperable
Learning Records'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_FINAL_EBOOK.pdf) and ``Learning and Employment Records:
Progress and the path forward'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf). Moreover, we do not think the
Department should endorse specific national standards related to
credentialing, and, as such, we do not consider it appropriate to
revise the definition as the commenter suggested. Though there are many
standards that could apply to credentials, we expect applicants and
grantees will choose standards that are widely accepted and meet the
needs of their projects. Therefore, we are not making any changes to
the reference to, or definition of, ``interoperable credentials.''
Changes: None.
Comment: In reference to competency-based education and
interoperable credentials, one commenter recommended adding specific
references to ``short-term credentials,'' such as micro-credentials, to
clearly demonstrate that credentials are broader than traditional,
time-bound programs.
Discussion: We agree that the intent behind inclusion of
competency-based education and interoperable credentials in the
priority and definitions is to broaden practitioners' use of
credentials. As such, we are adding examples of some of these short-
term credentials to highlight other less traditional credential types.
Change: In the definition for ``interoperable credentials,'' we
have added references to micro-, stackable, and other types of short-
term credentials.
Comment: One commenter proposed limiting the definition of
``interoperable credentials'' to K-12 education, stating that the term
is not one used in the higher education context.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's consideration of whether
the ``interoperable credentials'' definition is applicable in the
higher education context, as our intent is to have a priority that
could be used in grant programs across the Department, including those
for postsecondary education. Credentials are more than specific
postsecondary degrees; they can be smaller units and time bound.
Examples of these types of credentials include micro-credentials and
stackable credentials, which can be used for professional development,
and we think it is important for all education sectors to think more
broadly about credentials and their interoperability.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters asked whether the definition of
``interoperable credentials'' creates two sets of requirements, for the
credentials themselves and for data and information sharing relating to
the credentials. The commenters suggested clarifying revisions. Given
that the term included two distinct points, the commenters had concerns
about confusion when defining ``interoperable credentials.'' The
commenters proposed edits to clarify the distinction.
[[Page 86549]]
In addition, one of the commenters also expressed the importance of
transparency related to interoperable credentials and proposed a new
definition for ``credential transparency.''
Discussion: Through this definition, the Department is establishing
requirements both with respect to the credentials generally and with
respect to their interoperability. Although there are many types of
credentials, including some that may not be interoperable, we
intentionally use the term ``interoperable credentials'' in this
priority because we are especially interested in promoting
recognizable, transferrable, and transparent evidence of mastery.
Defining the term ``interoperable credentials'' does not imply that
other forms of credentials do not exist.
Credential transparency is embedded in the definition, particularly
through the requirement of ``open standards,'' and, as the commenter
points out, there are many organizations focused on making credentials
transparent and available to users. We note the white papers hosted on
the U.S. Department of Commerce website as examples of the efforts to
promote credential transparency and interoperability, in this case in
the context of learner employment records: ``White Paper on
Interoperable Learning Records'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_FINAL_EBOOK.pdf) and ``Learning and Employment
Records: Progress and the path forward'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf). We, thus, do not
think a separate definition or additional clarification of the
definition is needed.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Building Capacity for Remote Learning
Under this priority, an applicant must propose a project that is
designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Adopting and supporting models that leverage technology (e.g.,
universal design for learning, competency-based education (as defined
in this notice), or hybrid/blended learning) and provide high-quality
digital learning content, applications, and tools.
(b) Providing personalized and job-embedded professional learning
to build the capacity of educators to create remote learning
experiences that advance student engagement and learning through
effective use of technology (e.g., synchronous and asynchronous
professional learning, professional learning networks or communities,
and coaching).
(c) Providing access to any of the following, in particular to
serve learners without access to such technologies: Reliable, high-
speed internet, learning devices, or software applications that meet
all students' and educators' remote learning needs while inside the
school building and in remote learning environments.
(d) Developing performance-based assessments that promote
competency-based education and can be delivered remotely or in-person
to students and yield valid and reliable results that accurately
document students' skills (e.g., inquiry/game-based assessment or data
visualization tools for monitoring ongoing learning).
(e) Supporting the development of digital interoperable credentials
(as defined in this notice) that make transparent the competencies
achieved through remote learning experiences and allow students to
access, control, and share their achievements across a variety of
education and training processes (formal or informal, classroom-based,
remote, or workplace-based). Information on these credentials must be
publicly accessible using linked open data formats to ensure their
transferability and the continuity of learning for students.
(f) Providing high-quality remote learning specifically for one or
more of the following student subgroups:
(i) Students from low-income (as may be defined in the program's
authorizing statute) families;
(ii) Children or students with disabilities (as may be defined in
the program's authorizing statute);
(iii) English learners (as may be defined in the program's
authorizing statute);
(iv) Native American (as may be defined in the program's
authorizing statute) students;
(v) Homeless (as may be defined in the program's authorizing
statute) students ; or
(vi) Students attending schools in rural (as may be defined in the
program's authorizing statute) areas.
The remote learning environment must be accessible to individuals
with disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as
applicable. The remote learning environment must also provide
appropriate remote learning language assistance services to English
learners.
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)).
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 the priority and definitions, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Final Definitions
The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any
Department discretionary grant competition in which the final priority
is used:
Competency-based education (also called proficiency-based or
mastery-based learning) means learning based on knowledge and skills
that are transparent and measurable. Progression is based on
demonstrated mastery of what students are expected to know (knowledge)
and be able to do (skills), rather than seat time or age.
Interoperable credentials are those credentials built using open
standards so that they are shareable, verifiable, portable, and secure.
The credentials describe the specific achievements, such as credential
type, skill level, or other information, using common, standardized
frameworks so that the data are machine readable, exchangeable, and
actionable across technology systems and, when appropriate, on the web.
When
[[Page 86550]]
credentials are interoperable, a full range of an individual's skills
and achievements, earned through formal and informal learning
experiences or workplace-based training, can be collected together and
verified, regardless of available technology systems, reducing
challenges as individuals transition between education and employment.
These credentials include traditional academic credentials, as well as
micro-, stackable, and other types of short-term credentials earned
through short-term, professional development, or non-credit bearing
educational experiences.
Remote learning means programming where at least part of the
learning occurs away from the physical building in a manner that
addresses a learner's education needs. Remote learning may include
online, hybrid/blended learning, or non-technology-based learning
(e.g., lab kits, project supplies, paper packets).
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866,
and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two
deregulatory actions. For FY 2021, any new incremental costs associated
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of
existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order
13771 does not apply to ``transfer rules'' that cause only income
transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those
regarding discretionary grant programs. Because the priority and
definitions would be used in connection with one or more discretionary
grant programs, Executive Order 13771 does not apply.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its 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 this final priority and definitions only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's
programs and activities.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this regulatory action will not impose
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in our
programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with grant
funds. As a result, the priority and definitions will not impose any
particular burden except when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for
a grant. The benefits of the priority and definitions will outweigh any
associated costs because they will help ensure that the Department's
discretionary grant programs select high-quality applicants to
implement activities that are designed to address critical remote
learning needs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business
Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small
businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not
dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue
below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities
if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their
field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small
organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a
population below 50,000.
Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible
entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the
number of applications prepared and submitted annually for competitive
grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the final
priority and definitions will
[[Page 86551]]
significantly impact small entities beyond the potential for increasing
the likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, competitive grants
from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These final priority and definitions contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0009; the final priority and definitions do not affect the currently
approved data collection.
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 the Department's discretionary grant programs.
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.
Betsy DeVos,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28820 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
