Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional Development Program
| Published date | 11 October 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 54806 |
| Record Number | 2019-22075 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Education Department |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 198 (Friday, October 11, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54806-54816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22075]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 263
RIN 1810-AB54
[Docket ID ED-2019-OESE-0068]
Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional
Development Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to revise the regulations that govern
the Professional Development program, authorized under title VI of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), to
implement changes to title VI resulting from the enactment of the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). These proposed regulations would update,
clarify, and improve the current regulations. These regulations pertain
to Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.299B.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before November 12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``Help.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: The
Department strongly encourages commenters to submit their comments
electronically. However, if you mail or deliver your comments about
these proposed regulations, address them to Angela Hernandez-Marshall,
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W113,
Washington, DC 20202-6110. Telephone: (202) 205-1909.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly
available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Hernandez-Marshall, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W113,
Washington, DC 20202-6110. Telephone: (202) 205-1909. Email:
[email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations
that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in
the same order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result
from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways
we could reduce potential costs or increase
[[Page 54807]]
potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov.
You may also inspect the comments in person at 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. To schedule a time
to inspect comments, please contact one of the persons listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Background
The Secretary proposes to revise the regulations in 34 CFR part 263
that govern the Professional Development program to clarify certain
statutory changes made to section 6122 of the ESEA by the ESSA and to
better enable the Department and grantees to meet the objectives of the
program. We also propose changes that are technical only and therefore
will not be addressed in the preamble. For example, we will replace the
term ``Indian institution of higher education'' with ``Tribal College
or University (TCU)'' throughout in order to align with the
reauthorized statute.
The primary statutory change that we are addressing in this notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is the requirement that, after completing
their training as teachers or administrators, program participants must
work in local educational agencies (LEAs) that serve a high proportion
of Indian students. We propose a definition of ``LEA that serves a high
proportion of Indian students'' to provide clarity to applicants,
participants, and prospective employers.
We also propose adding new priorities that would allow work by
administrators in Tribal educational agencies (TEAs), or in entities
starting a new school to serve Indian students, to serve as qualifying
employment. We also propose to revise priorities and definitions to
allow projects to support Native American language certification for
teachers in States that offer this option. These changes would allow
for greater flexibility for grantees to recruit and retain Indian
teachers and administrators to serve in settings desired by Tribes
while meeting the statutory requirements.
Tribal Consultation
The Department held a blended in-person and virtual Tribal
Consultation on November 15, 2018, to solicit input on the future
direction of the Professional Development program, and continued to
solicit Tribal comment through December 31, 2018, via its
[email protected] mailbox. The Department also solicited Tribal
input by issuing several email messages to Tribal leaders from each of
the federally recognized Indian Tribes, all TCU presidents, current
grantees under ESEA Title VI formula and discretionary grant programs,
and external stakeholders. The topics on which we sought input included
how we should define ``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian
students''; whether we should establish a priority for training Indian
administrators to start new Indian-serving charter schools; and ways to
encourage opportunities for administrators to work with, and in, TEAs.
Most respondents were in favor of the Department defining the term
``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students'' in order to
allow as many LEAs as possible to serve as a qualifying job placement
for successful participants, and the Department concurs and proposes to
do so in these regulations. The Department had asked for specific input
on using Indian student population percentage thresholds to define
``high proportion'' (e.g. LEAs with 50 percent Indian student
population); Tribal consultation participants were generally opposed to
using any specific percentages in the definition. Several participants
and subsequent submitted written comments to the Department stated that
the options proposed by the Department would result in only schools on
reservations qualifying for the program, and would be a disadvantage to
urban or off-reservation schools that serve a large number but not a
high percentage of Indian students relative to the districtwide student
population. Many Tribal consultation participants expressed support for
administrator opportunities to work in an entity starting a new charter
school or transitioning a school to Tribally controlled, and to work
for TEAs under this program.
Significant Proposed Regulations
We group major issues according to subject, with the appropriate
sections of the proposed regulations referenced in parentheses. We
discuss other substantive issues under the sections of the proposed
regulations to which they pertain.
Qualifying Job Placements That Satisfy the Service Payback Obligation
Statute: Section 6122(e)(2) of the ESEA requires applicants to
describe how they will use grant funds to train teachers or principals
to work in LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students.
Similarly, the participant service payback requirement described in
section 6122(h) requires work that benefits Indian students in an LEA
that serves a high proportion of Indian students. The statute does not
define the phrase ``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian
students.''
Current Regulations: In Sec. 263.5(b)(1)(ii), the priority for
pre-service teacher training requires grantees to provide induction
services in schools with a ``significant'' Indian student population.
The selection criterion in Sec. 263.6(d)(1) addresses the likelihood
that the proposed project will prepare students for successful teaching
and/or administration in schools with significant Indian populations.
The selection criteria in Sec. 263.6(a), (c), and (d) (``need for
project,'' ``quality of project design,'' and ``quality of project
services'') do not reference the type of schools that can qualify for
service payback. Under Sec. 263.8(b), work in a school with a
significant Indian student population satisfies the requirement that
work-related payback benefits Indian people. The current regulations do
not define the phrase ``schools with a significant Indian student
population.'' The current regulations also make multiple references
(Sec. Sec. 263.4, 263.5 and 263.11) to the terms ``qualifying job[s]''
and ``qualifying employment'' but do not define these terms.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to establish a definition of ``LEA
that serves a high proportion of Indian students'' in Sec. 263.3 as an
LEA with either (1) a high proportion of Indian students in the LEA as
compared to other LEAs in the State; or (2) a high proportion of Indian
students in the school in which the participant works, even if the LEA
as a whole does not have a high proportion of Indian students. The
definition would make clear that ``LEA'' includes a BIE-funded school
for this purpose.
We propose to establish a definition of ``qualifying employment''
as
[[Page 54808]]
employment in an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students.
We also propose revising the definition of ``induction services'' to
require that such services be provided in an LEA that serves a high
proportion of Indian students; and revising the priorities in
renumbered Sec. 263.6(b)(1) and (2) to specify that induction services
are to be provided to participants completing work-related payback in
an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students.
We propose adding an application requirement in new 263.5 stating
that applicants must submit one or more letters of support from LEAs
that serve a high proportion of Indian students.
In the selection criterion renumbered 263.7(a), ``Need for
project,'' we propose adding a selection factor that would ask
applicants to describe the extent to which employment opportunities
exist in LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students in the
project service area. We also incorporate the new defined term ``LEAs
that serve a high proportion of Indian students'' in the selection
factor for ``quality of project design'' in renumbered 263.7(c)(3).
Finally, in renumbered Sec. 263.12(c)(1) we propose adding an
element to the required payback agreement that participants must sign,
clarifying that in order to qualify for the work payback requirement,
the job must be in an LEA ``that serves a high proportion of Indian
students.''
Reasons: First, we propose to define ``LEA that serves a high
proportion of Indian students'' broadly in order to maximize the number
of LEAs that would qualify under this definition. This proposed
definition, informed by Tribal Consultation feedback, would allow us to
consider whether an LEA's student body population has a high proportion
relative to the Indian population in the grantee's State, as opposed to
a nationwide comparison using a strict percentage. It would also permit
a comparison of whether the school in which the participant works has a
high percentage of Indian students compared to other LEAs in the State.
This approach would mitigate the potential for perceived
``competition'' between urban and rural areas, address the need for
serving Indian students in States where few to no schools have high
percentages of Indian student populations, and would still adhere to
the intent of this requirement.
In addition, we propose to add a definition of ``qualifying
employment'' because the current regulations use different terms, such
as ``qualifying employment'' and ``qualifying jobs,'' but do not define
either. Defining this term with reference to the new statutory
requirement of working in an LEA with a high proportion of Indian
students would provide clarity for grantees, participants, and
employers regarding which jobs will qualify for the work payback
requirement. For example, under 263.12(d) (as proposed to be renumbered
in this NPRM), grantees continue to have an obligation to assist
participants in obtaining qualifying employment (consistent with the
definition); but the definition would remove any ambiguity as to which
job placements meet the definition of ``LEA that serves a high
proportion of Indian students.''
The proposed revision to the definition of ``induction services,''
which would require that such services be provided in an LEA that
serves a high proportion of Indian students, would align that
definition to the statutory requirement that applicants describe how
they will support the preparation and professional development of
teachers or principals in LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian
students. We propose revising the priorities in renumbered Sec.
263.6(b)(1) and (2) to replace the current language concerning
induction services for participants ``in schools with significant
Indian populations'' with the new statutory ``high proportion''
language.
We propose adding the application requirement in Sec. 263.5 for
letters of support from LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian
students to help ensure that participants have actual opportunities for
jobs following their training, at schools that will qualify for the
work payback obligation. The letters of support would need to include
evidence, such as a school, district and State report card that
includes demographic information, that the LEA meets the definition of
``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students.'' We invite
comment on what type of evidence the Department should accept, and what
type of evidence is available to LEAs.
The proposed new element in the payback agreement (in proposed
Sec. 263.12(c)) would clarify in writing for participants that to
satisfy the work payback requirement, they must work in an ``LEA that
serves a high proportion of Indian students.'' This will increase the
potential for participants to successfully meet the service payback
requirement.
Native American Language Certificate
Statute: The ESEA, both prior to and after the ESSA amendments,
does not specify whether an applicant IHE for this program must be a
degree-granting institution. Although section 6122 of the ESEA does not
define the phrase ``institution of higher education,'' section 8101 of
the ESEA, which is also applicable to this program, contains a
definition of ``institution of higher education.'' The statute does not
define the term ``full-time student.''
Current Regulations: Under Sec. 263.2(c), eligibility of an
applicant requiring a consortium with any IHE, including a TCU,
requires that the IHE be accredited to provide the coursework and level
of degree required by the project. In Sec. 263.3, the current
definition of ``full-time student'' requires that a student be a
candidate for a baccalaureate or graduate degree. The definition of
``institution of higher education'' requires that the institution be
accredited to award a baccalaureate degree or higher. ``Pre-service
training'' is defined as training that results in licensing or
certification in a field requiring at least a baccalaureate degree. In
the priority for pre-service teacher training in Sec. 263.5(b)(1), the
training must be in a subject area that requires a degree.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec. 263.2(c),
regarding eligibility of an applicant requiring a consortium with any
IHE, would be broadened to include IHEs that are accredited to provide
the coursework and level of degree or Native American language
certificate required by the project.
In the definition of ``full-time student'' in Sec. 263.3, the
proposed regulations would add the option that students who are
candidates for a Native American language certificate can also qualify
as ``full-time students,'' for an applicant proposing a program that
awards a certificate of Native American language instruction rather
than a baccalaureate degree. For the definition of ``institution of
higher education,'' the proposed regulations would use the statutory
definition from ESEA section 8101. For consistency with that
definition, the list of eligible entities in Sec. 263.2(a)(1) would be
revised to use the word ``or'' between the phrase ``institution of
higher education'' and the phrase ``TCU,'' rather than the existing
word ``including.'' Conforming changes would be made to add ``or TCU''
following the phrase ``institution of higher education'' in paragraphs
(a)(2) through (a)(4) of Sec. 263.2, and in the definition of ``Indian
organization'' in Sec. 263.3.
The proposed regulations would add to the definition of ``pre-
service training'' the option that the training could be either in a
field that requires at least a baccalaureate degree, or
[[Page 54809]]
certification in Native American language instruction.
The proposed regulations would also revise the priority for pre-
service teacher training in Sec. 263.6(b)(1)(i), as renumbered, to add
the option of training in the field of Native American language
instruction. Finally, the proposed regulations would add definitions of
the terms ``Native American'' and ``Native American language.''
Reasons: The Department has learned, both from current grantees and
through Tribal consultation, that there is interest in providing
training for teachers of Native American languages, and that there is a
shortage of qualified teachers in this field. We understand that a
number of States now have a certificate or license for teaching Native
American languages, and that such certificates generally do not require
a bachelor's degree. This enables non-traditional students such as
Tribal elders to obtain the needed qualifications to teach Native
American languages in the public schools. These proposed changes to the
regulations would provide more flexibility to grantees, better
recognize Tribal sovereignty, and help fulfill the Department's
obligation under the Native American Languages Act (NALA) to support
efforts to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of
Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American
languages.
The proposed regulations contain several changes to facilitate this
flexibility in the Professional Development program. First, the
proposed regulations would change the definition of ``IHE'' to the
general definition in title VIII of the ESEA, which in turn uses the
definition in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA).
This proposed definition would eliminate the prior requirement in the
regulatory definition for this program that the institution must award
a baccalaureate degree or higher. The proposed definition would enable
an IHE that meets the HEA definition but does not award a baccalaureate
degree, such as a community college that has a Native American language
certificate or licensing program, to be eligible for this program. For
consistency with that definition, the list of eligible entities in
section 263.2(a) would be revised to use the word ``or'' between the
phrase ``IHE'' and the phrase ``TCU,'' because a TCU is generally not
included under the ESEA definition of IHE, which requires State
authorization of the entity. We understand that TCUs are generally
authorized by the Tribe and not the State.
Next, the proposed regulations would revise the definitions of
``full-time student'' and ``pre-service training'' to add the option of
a Native American language certificate that does not require a
baccalaureate degree. The proposed definition of ``Native American
language'' is taken from section 8101 of the ESEA, which references
section 103 of NALA (25 U.S.C. 2902). We have used the language from
NALA in the definition for user convenience. The proposed definition of
``Native American'' is also from section 8101 of the ESEA, which
references section 103 of NALA (25 U.S.C. 2902), which defines ``Native
American'' as an ``Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Native American Pacific
Islander.'' The NALA definition of ``Indian'' further references the
ESEA title VI definition of that term (ESEA section 6151). We propose a
definition that is a user-friendly compilation of these three discrete
sources; the proposed definition is also the same definition used in
the ESEA Title I regulations in 34 CFR 200.6(k).
Finally, the priority for pre-service teacher training in section
263.6(b)(1)(i), as renumbered, would add the option of training in the
field of Native American language instruction.
Application Requirements
Section 263.5 What are the application requirements?
Statute: Under section 6122 of the ESEA, the Secretary requires
applicants to describe how they will recruit qualified Indian
individuals, such as students who may not be of traditional college
age, to become teachers, principals, or school leaders; use funds made
available under the grant to support the recruitment, preparation, and
professional development of Indian teachers or principals in LEAs that
serve a high proportion of Indian students; and assist participants in
meeting the payback obligation requirement.
Current Regulations: The current regulations do not include a
specific section that describes application requirements. However,
under the current section 263.5 there is a priority for applicants that
include a letter of support from an LEA or BIE-funded school that
agrees to consider program graduates for qualifying employment.
Proposed Regulations: We plan to include this list of statutory
requirements under a new section 263.5. In addition, we propose that
the current priority for applicants that include a letter of support
now be made an application requirement.
Reasons: First, adding a new section that describes the application
requirements provides applicants with one place to reference multiple
requirements. Second, we are proposing adding to the statutorily-
mandated requirements a requirement that applicants include a letter of
support from prospective LEAs, including BIE-funded schools, that meet
the qualifying employment definition, in order to increase applicants'
understanding, at the outset, of their statutory obligation to support
participants' placement in qualifying employment, should they receive a
grant. One reason we are proposing this change is that, when we
included a competitive preference priority for letters of support in
each of the last two grant competition cycles in Fiscal Years (FYs)
2016 and 2018, the competitive preference priority points did not help
to discern which applications were of the highest quality. Second, in
the past, applicants have provided letters from LEAs that may no longer
be considered locations for qualifying employment under the new
definition of ``LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students.''
Requiring, rather than providing an incentive for, applicants to
provide letters of support from LEAs that serve a high proportion of
Indian students would help to ensure that participants will find
qualifying employment.
Number of Years of Induction Services
Statute: Section 6122(d) of the ESEA permits grant funds to be used
for teacher induction services during the first three years of
teachers' employment.
Current Regulations: The definition of ``induction services'' in
current section 263.3 includes only services provided during the first
year of teaching. The priorities for pre-service teacher training and
pre-service administrator training in current 263.5(b)(1)(ii) and
(b)(2)(ii) also require one year of induction services.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed definition of ``induction
services'' would include services provided during a teacher's first one
to three years of qualifying employment; the Department would announce
the number of years of required induction services in the applicable
notice inviting applications. The allowable costs provision in proposed
Sec. 263.4(c)(4) would include the new statutory language concerning
induction services but would indicate that induction services can be
provided for up to the first three years of a teacher's employment.
Similarly, the priorities for pre-service teacher training and pre-
service administrator training in 263.6(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii), as
renumbered, would include language stating that induction services are
to be
[[Page 54810]]
provided for the period of time stated in the applicable notice
inviting applications.
Reasons: The proposed change would provide flexibility in tailoring
the length of induction services to the total grant period. Prior to
the ESSA amendments, the Department had awarded four-year grants, and
grantees were required to provide induction services to graduated and
employed participants during the fourth year of the grant. In the
latest competition, for FY 2018, the Department awarded five-year
grants because the statute now authorizes grants for an initial period
of up to three years, with possible renewal for up to two years for
grantees that are achieving the objectives of the grant. In the FY 2018
competition, the Department required three years of training and two
years of induction services, assuming the grantee makes substantial
progress towards the objectives. A longer period of induction services
should provide more support to new teachers and lead to fewer
participants leaving the teaching profession.
Priority for Administrator Training for Work in TEAs
Statute: The Secretary has the authority to establish regulatory
priorities for the Indian Education Professional Development Program
under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
Current Regulations: The current regulations in section 263.5
contain one priority required by statute, and three regulatory
priorities. There is no priority for administrator training for work in
TEAs. Section 263.3 does not include a definition of TEA. Current Sec.
263.8(b) provides the requirements for work-related payback but does
not address TEAs.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in section 263.6(b),
as renumbered, would include a priority for training administrators to
work for TEAs. Under this priority, grantees would be required to
provide opportunities for participants to work with or for TEAs during
the training period, and to make efforts to place participants in
administrator jobs in TEAs following program completion.
The proposed regulations would also add a definition of TEA to the
definitions in Sec. 263.3. In addition, the proposed regulations would
include a note following Sec. 263.9(b), as renumbered, regarding work-
related payback, stating that for grants that provide administrator
training, if a graduate works for a TEA that provides administrative
control or direction of public schools (e.g., BIE-funded schools or
charter schools), such employment would satisfy the requirements for
work payback.
Reasons: We understand from Tribal consultation that many Tribes
have established or are seeking greater control over education. In some
cases, TEAs are in control of BIE-funded schools or Tribally funded
schools. Under the current regulations, it has been unclear to grantees
whether graduates are permitted to work in a TEA to satisfy the work
payback obligation, or whether they must obtain employment in a State-
funded LEA. The proposed change would provide clarity on this issue,
increase flexibility for applicants interested in administrator
training, and better recognize Tribal sovereignty.
The proposed definition of TEA in Sec. 263.3 is taken from the
definition in ESEA section 6132. The proposed note following Sec.
263.9(b), as renumbered, would clarify that graduates who work for a
TEA would satisfy the work payback obligation, if the TEA has
administrative control or direction of schools. This clarification is
needed due to the statutory requirement that work payback take place in
an LEA; the note would explain that the work payback requirement is
satisfied if the graduate is employed by a TEA that satisfies the
requirements in the statutory definition of LEA in ESEA section 8101.
Priority for Administrator Training for School Start-Ups
Statute: The Secretary has the authority to establish regulatory
priorities for the Indian Education Professional Development Program
under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
Current Regulations: The current regulations in section 263.5
contain one priority required by statute, and three regulatory
priorities. There is no priority for administrator training for school
start-ups.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in section 263.6(b),
as renumbered, would include a priority for training administrators to
start new schools that serve Indian students, such as charter schools
or schools transitioning from BIE-operated to Tribally controlled.
Grantees would be required to make efforts to place participants in
administrator jobs working for an entity planning to start a school to
serve Indian students or transitioning an existing school to one under
Tribal control.
Reasons: We heard through Tribal consultation that Tribes are
interested in opportunities to train administrators in ways to expand
choice in Indian country, including specifically how to establish new
charter schools, or how to change a BIE-funded school that is currently
BIE-operated to one that is Tribally operated. A priority for such
training would enable the Department to provide a competitive advantage
to projects that include this focus. Because of the statutory
requirement for work payback, a project doing such training would need
to ensure that its graduates obtain jobs in which they would be
administering schools, as opposed to merely planning for future
administration. Thus, if the graduate worked for an entity such as a
TEA that is planning to open a new school, that person would also need
to be in a position that involves current school administration duties.
The proposed change would provide more flexibility to applicants
interested in administrator training and would better recognize Tribal
sovereignty.
Section 263.7 How does the Secretary evaluate applications for the
Professional Development Program?
Statute: The Secretary has the authority to establish regulatory
selection criteria for the Indian Education Professional Development
program under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
Current Regulations: Under the current section 263.6 there are five
criteria, each with corresponding factors specific to the Professional
Development program, including need for the project, significance,
quality of the project design, quality of project services, and quality
of project personnel.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would add under the
selection criterion (d), ``Quality of Project Design,'' a selection
factor regarding the extent to which the proposed project has a plan
for recruiting and selecting participants, including students who may
not be of traditional college age, that ensures that program
participants are likely to complete the program. The proposed
regulations in Sec. 263.7(d), as renumbered, would also include a
sixth factor to address the extent to which the applicant will assist
participants in meeting the service obligation requirements.
Reasons: One of the statutory changes made by ESSA is to add the
requirement that applicants describe how they will recruit and select
participants. Adding this as a selection criterion will help ensure
that projects include participants who are likely to complete the
program. Another statutory change requires applicants to describe how
they will assist participants in meeting the work payback obligation.
By including this as
[[Page 54811]]
a selection factor, we can encourage applicants to increase their focus
on placement in qualifying employment. Our review of current and past
projects shows that participants' ability to meet the service
obligation can be better supported when grantees give more time and
attention to planning for how they will support participants' placement
in jobs that meet the service obligation requirements.
Other Significant Issues
Bureau-Funded School
Statute: Section 6122 of the ESEA includes Bureau-funded schools,
as defined in section 1146 of the Educational Amendments of 1978, among
eligible entities of the Professional Development program.
Current Regulations: Section 263.3 defines Bureau-funded school as
a Bureau of Indian Education school, a contract or grant school, or a
school that receives support under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act
of 1988. Section 263.2 also uses the term in the list of eligible
entities. However, the priority described in Sec. 263.5(b)(3) makes
reference to a BIE-funded school.
Proposed Regulation: The proposed regulations would change the term
from Bureau-funded school to BIE-funded school throughout the
regulations and would change the term to BIE-funded school in the
definitions in Sec. 263.3, but the content of the definition would
remain unchanged.
Reasons: Using the term BIE-funded school throughout the
regulations would ensure consistency. And although the statute refers
to Bureau-funded school, the term ``BIE-funded school'' is a term more
commonly used and more familiar to grantees, participants and other
stakeholders.
Quality of Project Personnel--Project Consultants
Statute: The Secretary has the authority to establish regulatory
selection criteria for the Indian Education Professional Development
program under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
Current Regulations: Section 263.6(e)(3) is a selection factor that
considers the qualifications of subcontractors and consultants who may
be included in the proposed project.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would eliminate this
selection factor.
Reasons: Most applicants do not identify subcontractors and
consultants who are not already in the role of project director or key
personnel. Consequently, any applicant whose proposed project does not
include subcontractors or consultants cannot receive peer review points
because they lack this non-required element. Eliminating this
evaluation factor would eliminate this negative impact on such
projects.
Payback Agreement Submission
Statute: The Secretary has the authority to regulate post-award
requirements that apply to the Professional Development program under
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 263.11(c)(1) requires that
grantees obtain a signed payback agreement from each participant and
submit it to the Department within seven days of signing.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would extend the
timeframe for grantees to submit the signed payback agreement to the
Department to 30 days.
Reasons: Based on current grantee feedback, participant orientation
and related administrative processes generally take more than seven
days due to grantees holding related activities. Addressing all related
administrative duties for a part-time staff has proven challenging.
Based on Department analysis of submission times over the last four
years, 30 days is more reasonable and is adequate for the time period
needed for grantees to adhere to this requirement.
Technical Changes
The ESSA amendments to Title VII of the ESEA also necessitate
multiple technical changes to the current program regulations. As a
result, this NPRM includes the following technical changes:
(1) In Sec. 263.1, we add language regarding the purposes of the
program as stated in ESEA section 6122(a)(2).
(2) In Sec. Sec. 263.2(a), 263.3, and 263.6, we reflect changes to
the eligible entities listed in ESEA section 6122(b)(1). We remove
references to ``Indian institution of higher education'' and replace
them with ``TCU'' throughout. In section 263.2(a) we also add the
statutory language requiring BIE-funded schools to apply in consortium
with at least one TCU, where feasible.
(3) We revise the definition of induction services in Sec. 263.3,
and we add to section 263.4 new paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5), to
reflect authorized activities described in ESEA section 6122(d)(1)(B).
(4) We add new Sec. 263.5 to reflect application requirements
described in ESEA section 6122(e). We also revise the selection
criteria in redesignated Sec. 263.7 to add the element regarding
recruiting participants, from ESEA section 6122(e)(1), to redesignated
Sec. 263.7(c)(2) and (d)(5), and we add the element regarding helping
participants with payback, from ESEA section 6122(e)(3), to
redesignated Sec. 263.7(d)(6).
(5) We revise Sec. Sec. 263.1-263.3, and redesignated Sec. Sec.
263.6, 263.7, 263.9, 263.11, and 263.12 to reflect the service
obligation described in ESEA section 6122(h)(1)(A)(ii), which requires
that work must benefit Indian students in an LEA that serves a high
proportion of Indian students.
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 proposed 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 Fiscal Year 2020, any new incremental costs
associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. The
proposed regulations are not a significant regulatory action.
[[Page 54812]]
Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these proposed regulations 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 these proposed regulations are
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We have also determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated
with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have determined as necessary for
administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The potential costs associated
with the proposed regulatory changes would be minimal, while there
would be greater potential benefits.
For Professional Development grants, applicants may anticipate
minimal additional costs in developing their applications due to the
new required letter of support that the applicant must obtain from an
LEA in proposed section 263.5, estimated at two hours of additional
work. We anticipate no additional time spent reporting participant
payback information in the Professional Development Program Data
Collection System (PDPDCS) and the costs of carrying out these
activities would continue to be paid for with program funds.
The benefits include enhancing project design and quality of
services to better meet the objectives of the programs with the result
being more participants successfully completing their programs of study
and obtaining employment as teachers and administrators. Elsewhere in
this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we identify and
explain burdens specifically associated with information collection
requirements.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following:
Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
stated?
Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce
their clarity?
Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example,
Sec. 263.3 What definitions apply to the Professional Development
program?)
Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
What else could we do to make the proposed regulations
easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions
in the ADDRESSES section.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a substantial economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government
overseeing a population below 50,000.
The small entities that would be affected by these proposed
regulations are LEAs, institutions of higher education, TCUs, tribes,
and tribally operated schools receiving Federal funds under this
program. The proposed regulations would not have a significant economic
impact on the small entities affected because the regulations do not
impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
supervision. The proposed regulations would impose minimal requirements
to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds, including reporting
of participant payback information. We note that grantees that would be
subject to the minimal requirements that these proposed regulations
would impose would be able to meet the costs of compliance using
Federal funds provided through the Indian Education Discretionary Grant
programs.
However, the Secretary specifically invites comments on the effects
of the proposed regulations on small entities, and on whether there may
be further opportunities to reduce any potential adverse impact or
increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed regulations
without impeding the effective and efficient administration of Indian
Education Discretionary Grant
[[Page 54813]]
programs. Commenters are requested to describe the nature of any effect
and provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to
the extent possible.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: the public
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact
of collection requirements on respondents.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 263.5, 263.6, and 263.7, as renumbered, contain
information collection requirements for the program application
package, and proposed Sec. Sec. 263.12 and 263.13 contain information
collection requirements renewed by OMB on August 12, 2019. Table A-1
illustrates the status of both the current and proposed collections
associated with this program:
TABLE A-1--PD Program Information Collection Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed action
OMB Control No. Relevant Expiration Current burden Proposed burden under final
regulations (total hours) (total hours) rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1810-0580........... Proposed Sec. June 30, 2021.... Applicants: 0............... Discontinue this
Sec. 263.5, 1,500. collection and
263.6, and 263.7. use 1894-0006
1894-0006........... Proposed Sec. January 31, 2021. 0............... Applicants: Use this
Sec. 263.5, 1,500. collection.
263.6, and 263.7.
1810-0698........... Proposed Sec. August 31, 2022.. Grantees: 2,040. Grantees: 2,040. Use this
Sec. 263.12. Participants: Participants: collection.
660. 660.
Employers: 304.. Employers: 304..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the proposed revisions to Sec. Sec. 263.5, 263.6,
and 263.7, we would transfer the grant application package information
collection burden from 1810-0580 to 1894-0006, resulting in
discontinuation of 1810-0580.
Proposed Sec. 263.12 contains information collection requirements
that will continue in order to:
Fulfill six Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
performance measures and reporting requirements;
Ensure that participants fulfill the statutory payback
requirements; and
Collect budget and project-specific performance
information from grantees for project monitoring.
This information collection was recently renewed by OMB. We expect
that the proposed amendments will slightly change, but not increase,
the current OMB approved data collection burden. Because the changes
impact only information collection requirements for post-award
induction activities that would not occur prior to FY 2022, and in
order to mitigate revisions due to any possible changes to the proposed
regulations, we plan to submit the revised information collection for
OMB approval once final regulations are published.
If your comments relate to the ICR for these proposed regulations,
please specify the Docket ID number and indicate ``Information
Collection Comments'' on the top of your comments.
Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal
mail or delivery related to the information collection requirements
should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection
Clearance Program, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW,
room 9086, Washington, DC 20202.
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.
Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local elected officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. These proposed regulations may have federalism
implications. We encourage State and local elected officials to review
and provide comments on these proposed regulations.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on
whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of
information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.299B Professional
Development Program.)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR part 263
Business and industry, College and universities, Elementary and
secondary education, Grant programs--education, Grant programs--
Indians, Indians--education, Reporting and recordkeeping
[[Page 54814]]
requirements, Scholarships and fellowships.
Dated: October 4, 2019.
Frank Brogan,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
Education proposes to amend part 263 of title 34 of the Code of the
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 263--INDIAN EDUCATION DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 263.1 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(1).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 263.1 What is the Professional Development program?
(a) * * *
(2) Provide pre- and in-service training and support to qualified
Indian individuals to become effective teachers, principals, other
school leaders, administrators, teacher aides, paraprofessionals,
counselors, social workers, and specialized instructional support
personnel;
(3) Improve the skills of qualified Indian individuals who serve in
the education field; and
(4) Develop and implement initiatives to promote retention of
effective teachers, principals, and school leaders who have a record of
success in helping low-achieving Indian students improve their academic
achievement, outcomes, and preparation for postsecondary education or
employment.
(b) * * *
(1) Perform work related to the training received under the program
and that benefits Indian students in a local educational agency that
serves a high proportion of Indian students, or to repay all or a
prorated part of the assistance received under the program; and
* * * * *
0
3. Section 263.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Adding the words ``or a TCU'' after the phrase ``institution of
higher education'' in paragraphs (a)(2), (3), and (4);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
0
d. Removing the phrase ``Bureau-funded'' and adding in its place the
phrase ``BIE-funded'' in paragraph (b);
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 263.2 Who is eligible to apply under the Professional
Development program?
(a) * * *
(1) An institution of higher education, or a Tribal College or
University (TCU);
* * * * *
(5) A Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded school in consortium
with at least one TCU, where feasible.
(b) * * *
(2) A pre-service training program when the BIE-funded school
applies in consortium with an institution of higher education that
meets the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Eligibility of an applicant that is an institution of higher
education or a TCU, or an applicant requiring a consortium with any
institution of higher education or TCU, requires that the institution
of higher education or TCU be accredited to provide the coursework and
level of degree or Native American language certificate required by the
project.
0
4. Section 263.3 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the words ``Bureau-funded'' in the definition of ``Bureau-
funded school'' and adding, in their place, the words ``BIE-funded'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Full-time student'';
0
c. Removing the definition of ``Indian institution of higher
education'';
0
d. In paragraph (5) of the definition of ``Indian organization'',
adding the phrase ``or TCU'' after the phrase ``any institution of
higher education'';
0
e. Revising the definitions of ``Induction services'' and ``Institution
of higher education'';
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Local educational
agency (LEA) that serves a high proportion of Indian students'',
``Native American'', and ``Native American language'';
0
g. Adding, in the definition of ``Pre-service training'' the words ``,
or licensing or certification in the field of Native American language
instruction'' after the word ``degree''; and
0
h. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``qualifying
employment'', ``Tribal College or University (TCU)'', and ``Tribal
education agency''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 263.3 What definitions apply to the Professional Development
program?
* * * * *
Full-time student means a student who--
(1) Is a candidate for a baccalaureate degree, graduate degree, or
Native American language certificate, as appropriate for the project;
(2) Carries a full course load; and
(3) Is not employed for more than 20 hours a week.
* * * * *
Induction services means services provided--
(1)(i) By educators, local traditional leaders, or cultural
experts;
(ii) For the one, two, or three years of qualifying employment, as
designated by the Department in the notice inviting applications; and
(iii) In local educational agencies (LEAs) that serve a high
proportion of Indian students;
(2) To support and improve participants' professional performance
and promote their retention in the field of education and teaching, and
that include, at a minimum, these activities:
(i) High-quality mentoring, coaching, and consultation services for
the participant to improve performance;
(ii) Access to research materials and information on teaching and
learning;
(iii) Assisting new teachers with use of technology in the
classroom and use of data, particularly student achievement data, for
classroom instruction;
(iv) Clear, timely, and useful feedback on performance, provided in
coordination with the participant's supervisor; and
(v) Periodic meetings or seminars for participants to enhance
collaboration, feedback, and peer networking and support.
* * * * *
Institution of higher education (IHE) has the meaning given that
term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)).
Local educational agency (LEA) that serves a high proportion of
Indian students means--
(1) A local educational agency, including a BIE-funded school, that
serves a high proportion of Indian students in the LEA as compared to
other LEAs in the State; or
(2) A local educational agency, including a BIE-funded school, that
serves a high proportion of Indian students in the school in which the
participant works compared to other LEAs in the State, even if the LEA
as a whole in which the participant works does not have a high
proportion of Indian students compared to other LEAs in the State.
Native American means ``Indian'' as defined in section 6151(3) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which includes Alaska
Native and members of Federally-recognized or
[[Page 54815]]
State-recognized Tribes; Native Hawaiian; and Native American Pacific
Islander.
Native American language means the historical, traditional
languages spoken by Native Americans.
* * * * *
Qualifying employment means employment in a local educational
agency that serves a high proportion of Indian students.
* * * * *
Tribal college or university (TCU) has the meaning given that term
in section 316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059c(b)).
Tribal educational agency (TEA) means the agency, department, or
instrumentality of an Indian Tribe that is primarily responsible for
supporting Tribal students' elementary and secondary education.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 263.4 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(2).
0
b. Removing the ``.'' at the end of paragraph (c)(3) and adding a
``;''; and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 263.4 What costs may a Professional Development program
include?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Teacher mentoring programs, professional guidance, and
instructional support provided by educators, local traditional leaders,
or cultural experts, as appropriate for teachers for up to their first
three years of employment as teachers; and
(5) Programs designed to train traditional leaders and cultural
experts to assist participants with relevant Native language and
cultural mentoring, guidance, and support.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 263.5 through 263.12 [Redesignated]
0
6. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 263.5 through 263.12 as Sec. Sec. 263.6
through 263.13.
0
7. Add a new Sec. 263.5 to read as follows:
Sec. 263.5 What are the application requirements?
An applicant must--
(a) Describe how it will--
(1) Recruit qualified Indian individuals, such as students who may
not be of traditional college age, to become teachers, principals, or
school leaders;
(2) Use funds made available under the grant to support the
recruitment, preparation, and professional development of Indian
teachers or principals in local educational agencies that serve a high
proportion of Indian students; and
(3) Assist participants in meeting the payback requirements under
Sec. 263.9(b);
(b) Submit one or more letters of support from LEAs that serve a
high proportion of Indian students. Each letter must include--
(1) A statement that the LEA agrees to consider program graduates
for employment;
(2) Evidence that the LEA meets the definition of ``LEA that serves
a high proportion of Indian students''; and
(3) The signature of an authorized representative of the LEA;
(c) If applying as an Indian organization, demonstrate that the
entity meets the definition of ``Indian organization'' in these
regulations; and
(d) Comply with any other requirements in the application package.
0
8. Newly redesignated Sec. 263.6 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the phrase ``Indian institution of higher education'' and
adding, in its place, the phrase ``TCU'' in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2)(i).
0
b. Removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B).
0
c. Adding the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C).
0
d. Adding new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(D).
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
0
f. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(D), remove the word ``jobs'' and add in its
place ``employment''.
0
g. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
0
h. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(D), remove the word ``jobs'' and add in
its place ``employment''.
0
i. Revising paragraph (b)(3).
0
j. Adding a new paragraph (b)(4).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 263.6 What priority is given to certain projects and applicants?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Training in the field of Native American language instruction;
(ii) Provide induction services, during the award period, to
participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, for the
period of time designated by the Department in the notice inviting
applications, while participants are completing their work-related
payback in schools in local educational agencies that serve a high
proportion of Indian students; and
(2) * * *
(ii) Provide induction services, during the award period, to
participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, for the
period of time designated by the Department in the notice inviting
applications while administrators are completing their work-related
payback as administrators in local educational agencies that serve a
high proportion of Indian students; and
* * * * *
(3) Pre-service administrator training for work in Tribal
educational agencies. The Secretary establishes a priority for projects
that--
(i) Meet the requirements of the pre-service administrator training
priority in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
(ii) Include training on working for a TEA, and opportunities for
participants to work with or for TEAs during the training period; and
(iii) Include efforts by the applicant to place participants in
administrator jobs in TEAs following program completion.
(4) Pre-service administrator training for school start-ups. The
Secretary establishes a priority for projects that--
(i) Meet the requirements of the pre-service administrator training
priority in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
(ii) Include training to support the capacity of school leaders to
start new schools that serve Indian students, such as charter schools
or schools transitioning from BIE-operated to Tribally controlled; and
(iii) Include efforts by the applicant to place participants in
administrator jobs with entities planning to start or transition a
school to serve Indian students.
* * * * *
0
9. Newly redesignated Sec. 263.7 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
0
b. Removing the word ``jobs'' in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) and adding in its
place ``employment''.
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3).
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(1) by removing the phrase ``schools with
significant Indian populations'' and adding in its place the phrase
``LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students''.
0
e. Adding to the end of paragraph (d)(3) the phrase ``and that offer
qualifying employment opportunities''.
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (d)(5) and (d)(6).
0
g. Removing paragraph (e)(3).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 263.7 How does the Secretary evaluate applications for the
Professional Development program?
(a) * * *
(2) The extent to which LEAs with qualifying employment
opportunities
[[Page 54816]]
exist in the project's service area, as demonstrated through a job
market analysis, and have provided a letter of support for the project.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) The extent to which the proposed project has a plan for
recruiting and selecting participants, including students who may not
be of traditional college age, that ensures that program participants
are likely to complete the program.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project will incorporate the
needs of potential employers, as identified by a job market analysis,
by establishing partnerships and relationships with LEAs that serve a
high proportion of Indian students and developing programs that meet
their employment needs.
(d) * * *
(5) The extent to which the proposed project has a plan for
recruiting and selecting participants, including students who may not
be of traditional college age, that ensures that the program
participants are likely to complete the program.
(6) The extent to which the applicant will assist participants in
meeting the service obligation requirements.
* * * * *
0
10. Newly redesignated Sec. 263.9 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the word ``people'' and adding, in its
place, the word ``students'' and removing the words ``school that has a
significant Indian population'' and adding, in their place, the words
``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students''.
0
b. Adding a note at the end of this section.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 263.9 What are the payback requirements?
* * * * *
Note to Sec. 263.9: For grants that provide administrator
training, a participant who has received administrator training and
subsequently works for a Tribal educational agency that provides
administrative control or direction of public schools (e.g., BIE-funded
schools or charter schools) satisfies the requirements of paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
Sec. 263.11 [Amended]
0
11. Newly redesignated Sec. 263.11 is amended by removing the word
``people'' in paragraph (b)(1) and replacing it with the phrase
``students in an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian
students''.
0
12. Newly redesignated Sec. 263.12 is amended by
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(1)(ii).
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(1)(iii) as paragraph (c)(1)(iv) and
adding a new paragraph (c)(1)(iii).
0
c. Removing in paragraph (c)(2) the word ``seven'' and adding, in its
place, the word ``thirty''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 263.12 What are the grantee post-award requirements?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) A statement explaining that work must be in an ``LEA that
serves a high proportion of Indian students,'' and the regulatory
definition of that phrase; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-22075 Filed 10-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
