Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; (Demonstration Grants for Indian Children and Youth Program)
| Published date | 31 March 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 17794 |
| Record Number | 2020-06224 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Education Department |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 62 (Tuesday, March 31, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 62 (Tuesday, March 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17794-17805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06224]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 263
RIN 1810-AB54
[Docket ID ED-2019-OESE-0126]
Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; (Demonstration
Grants for Indian Children and Youth Program)
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes to revise
the regulations that govern the Demonstration Grants for Indian
Children and Youth Program (Demonstration 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.
The Secretary also proposes a new priority, and accompanying
requirements and selection criteria, for applicants proposing to
empower Tribes and families to decide which education services will
best support their children to succeed in college and careers.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 30, 2020.
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 Bianca Williams, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W237,
Washington, DC 20202-6110. Telephone: (202) 453-5671.
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: Bianca Williams, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W237, Washington, DC 20202-
6110. Telephone: (202) 453-5671.
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 and 13563 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
[[Page 17795]]
costs or increase 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 Ave. SW,
Room 3W327, Washington, DC 20202-6110, 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 the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. To schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background
The Department proposes to revise the regulations that govern the
Demonstration Grants for Indian Children and Youth Program authorized
under title VI of ESEA to implement changes to title VI resulting from
the enactment of ESSA and to better enable the Department and grantees
to meet the objectives of the program. As described in the Tribal
Consultation section of this document, Tribes favored expanding the
ability of families to choose high-quality educational opportunities
during recent consultation sessions on the topic. Accordingly, the
Department proposes a new priority and accompanying requirements and
selection criteria for applicants proposing to empower parents and
students to choose education services best suited to their needs.
Applicants addressing the proposed priority on education choice
would have the flexibility to determine which academic outcomes are
most critical for students in their communities, including students
with disabilities, in the overall effort to promote college and career
readiness. Applicants would then identify education service options
they believe are most likely to help students achieve those outcomes
and provide parents and students with the options to choose the
services best suited to their needs, while also allowing parents to
request a particular service or provider not already identified. Under
the proposed priority, applicants would propose to use grant funds to
pay for the services that parents or students select. The applicant
would need to explain how it would transfer funds directly to the
selected service provider, such as an individual providing tutoring
services or a service provider offering supplemental counseling, which
could be through an online payment portal.
Because Tribes are not the only eligible applicants for the
Demonstration Grants program, we propose to require a non-Tribal
applicant addressing the proposed priority to partner with a Tribe. If
the student population to be served by the applicant consists of
students from multiple Tribes and less than half of the students to be
served are from one Tribe, the applicant could partner with a Tribal
organization rather than a Tribe. We note that for projects that will
serve primarily students who are members of federally recognized
Tribes, grantees would be required to give preference in hiring and
contracting to Indian persons and entities. (25 U.S.C. 5307(b); 34 CFR
263.23)
Under the proposed priority, the grantee, or the non-Tribal grantee
and its partnering Tribe, would identify the services and specific
providers from which parents and students would choose and institute a
method by which a parent may request a service or provider not included
among those identified by the grantee or partnering Tribe. If a grantee
or Tribe does not permit the provider or service a parent requests, it
must explain in writing to the parent the rationale for that denial.
The grantee would set up a service selection method, such as an online
portal, walk-in center, or other method by which parents and students
would choose from the list of preapproved providers.
The proposed priority would recognize Tribal sovereignty by giving
Tribes a lead role in identifying both the range of services to be
provided and the pre-approved providers of those services. For example,
one Tribe may determine, based on an analysis of community-level data,
that its largest barrier to student success is the lack of school
counseling services and mentoring in schools attended by its students.
That Tribe could then enter into agreements with entities that would
provide students with access to individual counseling services or
mentoring when selected by students and parents. As another example, a
Tribal applicant may determine that its greatest local need is
improving the high school graduation rate. That Tribe could select
multiple services and providers to meet that project objective, such as
tutoring, and courses provided by a community college from which a
parent could choose. Applicants can identify multiple project
objectives.
For all proposed projects, we propose language in this priority
that would require services to be supplemental to existing school
services and existing funding sources. For example, if there is an
existing Native American language course during the school day, grant
funds could not be used to pay for the existing teacher but could be
used to expand the number of educators offering language classes.
Grantees could also establish a new after-school Native American
language instruction program.
We would permit applicants addressing the proposed priority to
request a planning period within the first year of funding to allow
grantees to develop a service selection process and finalize written
agreements with service providers before beginning implementation.
We note that, under ESEA section 6121(e), no more than five percent
of funds awarded for a grant under this program may be used for
administrative purposes, and for grants made using FY 2020 funds this
administrative cost cap applies only to direct administrative costs,
not indirect costs.
As further described in the proposed regulation, we propose in
Sec. 263.25(h) to require grantees to spend at least 80 percent of
their grant funds on direct services to eligible students. If
applicants propose a planning year in the first year of the grant, this
80 percent limit would not apply to that first year. Grantees would
also be prohibited from spending more than 15 percent of grant funds on
the service selection method or the parent involvement and feedback
process.
We invite comment specifically on the following issues:
(1) We are interested in ensuring that we review all applications
in a fair and equitable manner. Would asking applicants to self-select
into ``rural'' and ``non-rural'' categories help ensure we fairly
evaluate applicants with greater or fewer relevant resources to support
this work? If not, are there other ways for the Department to
objectively and fairly consider applicants?
(2) The Department is considering establishing new performance
measures for this program under the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (GPRA). While we are not required to seek comment on GPRA
performance measures, the Department believes the development of
effective performance measures can benefit from public input and
invites public comment to help
[[Page 17796]]
inform the final performance measures for this program. Although the
Department will consider the public comments, the Department is not
limited by the terms of the proposed performance measures or public
comment on those measures in establishing final performance measures.
We specifically invite comment on whether the following measures would
provide meaningful data, and also on the feasibility for grantees of
collecting and reporting data that would inform the measures:
A. The total number of options offered through the project from
which participating students can choose.
B. The percentage of options offered through the project from which
participating students can choose education-related services that are
culturally relevant, as determined by the grantee.
C. The number of grantees that met their educational outcomes
objective(s) (e.g., decreased school suspension rates, increased
graduation rates), as defined by the grantee.
D. The total number of students served.
E. The percentage of parents who report that the number, variety,
and quality of options offered meet their children's needs.
F. The average time it took a grantee to respond to requests for
specific services.
G. The percentage of parent requests for additional services that
resulted in adding new services to the offerings (submission should
include both numerator and denominator).
(3) The Department is considering conducting a national study of
the Demonstration program to learn more about how grantees expand
educational choice in Tribal communities. How might the Department best
implement such a study to yield helpful information about promising
practices related to increased educational choice?
Tribal Consultation
The Department solicited Tribal input on whether to add a new
priority focused on educational choice to the Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children and Youth Program by issuing several email messages to
Tribal leaders from each of the federally recognized Indian Tribes, all
Tribal College or University (TCU) presidents, current grantees under
ESEA title VI formula and discretionary grant programs, and other
stakeholders.
The Department held a blended in-person and virtual Tribal
consultation in Seattle on May 2, 2019, and another in Washington DC,
on May 7, 2019, and continued to solicit Tribal comment through June 7,
2019, through the [email protected] mailbox. Specifically, we
sought input on whether to add a priority to this program that would
allow for opportunities for grantees to give students and parents more
choice in deciding which education services will better help their
children become ready to succeed in college and careers, and on the
best ways to design and implement such a program, taking into account
the current needs of Indian students for such services, the capacity of
eligible entities to implement such a program, and the types of
education options currently available to help Indian children become
ready to succeed in college and career.
The Department requested responses to nine specific questions. We
list each question below, followed by a summary of the input we
received from the in-person and virtual consultations and from written
comments, and provide our response. Several of the written comments
provided helpful suggestions for improvement of the proposed priority,
and we have incorporated several of the suggestions into these proposed
regulations, as indicated below.
1. Do you support a priority to permit grantees to operate a
project through which parents of eligible Indian students could choose
education services for their child, from a list of Tribally chosen
education services?
In total, 63 comments on this topic were received, a majority of
which were in favor. The comments in opposition included helpful
suggestions for improving the priority.
One Tribe stated in its written comments that it does not have
either State-funded charter schools or private schools in its service
area, and there are no commercial options that are culturally relevant.
The proposed priority would not require that specific education
options, such as charter schools or private schools, be present for an
applicant to receive a grant. Applicants would be able to propose
services that meet the needs of the local community.
Several Tribal participants objected to using contractors for
services rather than letting the Tribe provide all services; one stated
that it would be preferable to use the funds to build Tribal capacity
for providing all services. Under the proposed priority, applicants
could propose to provide services directly, but would also need to name
at least one independent provider of the proposed services. Applicants
would be required to enter into written agreements with service
providers, other than the applicant, to ensure accountability of the
funds and oversight of services. If Tribes are interested in grants
that support building capacity to administer education programs, the
Department also offers grants through the State Tribal Education
Partnership grants.
2. Which of the following possible services would your Tribe be
interested in including in such a project?
a. Native language, history, or culture courses.
b. Advanced, remedial, and elective courses, including those
offered exclusively online.
c. Apprenticeships and industry certifications.
d. Concurrent and dual enrollment.
e. Private or home education.
f. Special education or related services such as speech or physical
therapy.
g. Education technology, including learning software or hardware.
h. Transportation needed to access supplemental school services,
such as after-school or summer services.
i. Tutoring, especially for students in low-performing schools.
j. Summer and after-school education programs.
k. Testing preparation and fees and application fees.
Tribal leaders expressed interest in all of these services,
although the ones most favored were Native language, history, or
culture (a), tutoring, especially for students in low-performing
schools (i), summer and after-school education programs (j), and
apprenticeships and industry certifications (c). Several Tribal leaders
also emphasized the importance of transportation (h), including being
able to support student travel for summer and after-school
opportunities, such as a late bus.
One Tribe submitted written comments expressing opposition to
including home schooling as a service that could be funded under the
proposed priority because in its State there is limited support or
monitoring to ensure that home-schooled children are being educated. In
addition, the Tribe stated that, instead of permitting tutoring
services, the focus should be on improved teaching. The proposed
priority would allow home schooling to be an option, but would not
require applicants to offer home schooling under their project.
Additionally, while this proposed priority could not support educator
professional development since it focuses on expanding the ability of
families to choose high-quality educational opportunities, the
[[Page 17797]]
Department shares the commenter's interest with regard to improving
instruction. The Department also provides Indian Education Professional
Development grants to train Indian individuals to become effective
teachers and administrators serving Indian students.
Another Tribe opposed the idea of encouraging parents to choose
off-reservation schools for their students. The proposed priority would
not require applicants to offer any particular services from the list
above; rather, the applicant would choose which services to offer to
parents based on the needs of the local community and would establish a
method by which a parent may request a service not included on such a
list. The list of services in this consultation question was provided
to illustrate examples of the types of services an applicant might
consider.
One Tribe stated that online courses do not have appropriate
content for the Tribe's needs but that a hybrid of online and on-site
project-based learning would be invaluable. We think that Tribes are
best suited to determine a range of education options that would work
well for students in their community and that parents are best suited
to select services for their children. We note that the model described
by the commenter could satisfy the proposed priority.
3. Are there any other education services that you would be
interested in including in a project?
At the Seattle consultation, several participants suggested that
student counseling services be included in the list, due to the lack of
school mental health or counseling services in Indian country. We have
added individual counseling as a service that could be included,
provided it would be supplemental to existing services. Additionally,
grantees would need to offer more than one type of service.
Participants also suggested we allow grantees to spend grant funds
on books and other materials. Books and other materials would be an
allowable cost for certain services from which parents could choose
under the proposed priority, for example, for homeschooling or
afterschool reading services.
One Tribe stated in its written comments that it would be
interested in using funds for curricula that address decolonization and
resiliency programming. The option to select services that teach these
topics could be provided as a service choice to parents under the
proposed priority; the Department does not dictate curricula.
Another Tribe suggested that we add intensive in-service
professional development in literacy for grades pre-K through 4. As
described above, the Department shares the commenter's interest with
regard to improving instruction. The Department also provides Indian
Education Professional Development grants to train Indian individuals
to become effective teachers and administrators serving Indian
students. Educators supported by the Professional Development program
can include those focused on literacy in grades pre-K through 4. In
addition, Indian Education formula grants to LEAs can support educator
professional development, including for literacy educators in grades
pre-K through 4. The proposed priority would focus on services that
parents could choose rather than ones that schools provide to all
teachers.
One Tribe suggested that we permit certifications and trainings
given by Tribal governments to build the next generation of Tribal
administrators. Assuming that this service would target high school
students and not postsecondary adult learners, this could be a possible
service that parents could choose, if it met the local needs of the
community.
One Tribal leader suggested that the funds be used to support
student participation in after-school sports, arts, and music programs.
Because the purpose of the Demonstration grant program is to improve
educational opportunities and achievement of Indian children and youth,
the proposed priority would permit the use of funds for such activities
if the applicant can demonstrate that the activity is culturally
relevant or is supported by evidence that ties the activity to relevant
education outcomes, and if there is parental interest in the activity.
4. From the list in question 2 above, which are currently available
in your area? Are the current options adequate, and are there adequate
secular options in your area?
Responses on the issue of current availability varied a great deal
depending on the size and location of the Tribe. Many current
Demonstration grantees felt that, given their local graduation and
dropout rates, even if some of the services are currently being
offered, the options provided are insufficient to meet demand. One
Tribe noted it currently offers home education and special education
services and therapies; however, the local community is greatly lacking
in Native American language courses, advanced and remedial academic
courses, access to online courses, summer educational programs, and
transportation services for after-school programs. We did not receive
any responses to the specific question about secular options.
5. To ensure accountability and allowability of expenses, should
the Tribe be responsible for approving providers of the education
services? Do you have other ideas for how to ensure that funds are
spent on allowable expenses?
Most Tribal leaders supported the concept that Tribes be
responsible for approving service providers, although several
participants opposed the idea, stating that if a non-Tribal applicant
receives a grant, it should be the responsible party, rather than
putting the burden on the partnering Tribe to select or approve
providers. One commenter suggested in its written comments that the
grantee be responsible, through a subcommittee, rather than requiring
the Tribe to be responsible. Under the proposed priority, a Tribal
applicant would choose the project focus and specific services based on
local needs, but for a non-Tribal applicant, such as a State
educational agency (SEA), the applicant and its Tribal partner would
jointly make these decisions.
One Tribe suggested in its written comments that, to ensure funds
are spent on allowable expenses, the approved providers should provide
pre- and post-project assessment data, including student and parent
perception surveys as well as budget line-items and budget summaries.
We have incorporated this suggestion into a proposed selection
criterion under which applicants would be awarded points based on the
extent to which the project is designed to improve student and family
satisfaction with the student's overall education experience through
means such as pre- and post-project surveys. We note that applicants
for all Department discretionary grant programs are required to submit
detailed information about their proposed budgets (34 CFR 75.117), so
we do not need program-specific regulations on that point.
Another Tribe stated that service providers should go through a
competitive process at the local level. One Tribe stated that services
should be approved for a limited period of time, subject to review and
renewal by the Tribe. We think that applicants will be in the best
position to determine how to appropriately select providers while also
giving parents the option to request a provider not included on an
approved list, subject to written approval or disapproval by the
grantee. The selection and oversight process would be up to the
applicant to design under
[[Page 17798]]
the proposed priority, consistent with applicable procurement policies.
Another Tribe that is a current Demonstration program grantee wrote
in favor of the proposed priority and suggested that projects include a
liaison with parents to address issues and mediate disputes, such as in
situations in which a parent is unhappy with the services provided. We
have added a proposed requirement for a parent feedback process under
this priority. In addition, we note that an applicant could establish a
parent liaison position to support this important work, which we
propose to include in Sec. 263.25 as an example of ways an applicant
may implement parent outreach. Such a role would be especially helpful
in assisting grantees as they identify options parents can select, or
in responding to requests for specific services from individual
parents. An individual serving as a parent liaison could also assist
with outreach and communications to parents regarding the availability
of services through this program.
6. The Department is considering incentivizing or requiring
grantees to establish a website (which could be managed through a
contractor) that would allow families to choose how to apply an
allotted stipend to certain preapproved education expenses, so that
families would not receive payments directly. Do you support the
inclusion of such an incentive or requirement for a website in the new
priority? Would families have internet access to make that feasible?
Tribal leaders were generally opposed to requiring grantees to
create a website portal for families to choose services; they preferred
that it be an option, due to lack of internet availability in many
areas. However, one participant stated that an online portal would make
it easier for parents to choose services and would improve
accountability.
One Tribal leader was concerned that requiring grantees to contract
with a third party would create additional unnecessary bureaucracy and
stated that the Tribe already has a system for paying vendors. Some
stated that a better way to have parents select services would be at
community meetings, or through home visits. Accordingly, we are not
proposing to require service selection systems to be web-based. Tribes
could create or use existing systems or websites or use a different
method for choosing services that better fits the needs of their
community. Regardless of the mechanism, applicants should ensure that
parents are empowered to select individual services for each
participating student. These services selected will likely vary among
participating students.
7. Should the new priority require eligible entities that are not
Tribal (e.g., State educational agencies (SEAs) or LEAs) to partner
with a Tribe, Indian organization, or TCU?
Comments were uniformly in favor of requiring non-Tribal applicants
to partner with a Tribe. Several written comments urged that we permit
only Tribes to be lead applicants. We cannot restrict the statutory
eligibility for this program, which permits SEAs and LEAs to apply, in
addition to Tribally connected entities (i.e., Tribes, TCUs, Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE)-funded schools, and Indian organizations). We
propose requiring an applicant that is not a Tribe to partner with a
Tribe if it proposes to serve primarily students from that Tribe; if it
proposes to serve students from many different Tribes, the applicant
would be required to partner with a Tribally connected entity.
One Tribe suggested that the proposed priority would create a risk
that a non-Tribal entity could target a vulnerable Indian school
population for monetary gain while providing poor-quality services.
Under the proposed priority, the grantee would be responsible for
overseeing all providers and ensuring quality. We have added to the
proposed requirements a plan for how the applicant would oversee
service providers and ensure that students are receiving high-quality
services under the project, and a description, in the requirement for
an agreement with providers, of how the grantee will hold the provider
accountable to the terms of the agreement. We have also proposed a
selection factor evaluating the quality of an applicant's proposed plan
to oversee the service providers.
8. How should grant amounts be determined?
a. Should the grant amounts for projects planning to fund a full-
time education program be based on a percentage of the per-pupil
expenditure in your area or State multiplied by the number of students
to be served?
One Tribe, in its written comments, opposed this idea on the basis
that per-pupil expenditures do not consider local and geographic
constraints; another stated that due to differences between urban and
rural areas, consideration should be given to regional rather than
State-average expenditures. Accordingly, we propose a selection
criterion related to the way an applicant determines the appropriate
requested amount for their projects, which should generally reflect the
average per-pupil amount to be made available, and the number of
students whom the applicant intends to serve.
b. How should grant amounts for applicants who propose to provide
supplemental services be calculated?
One Tribal leader stated that this should be based on the Tribe's
capacity and budget. We agree.
c. On what other factors should the budget be based?
One Tribe suggested in its written comments that in awarding grants
we use the factors of innovation, reproducibility, and post-grant
sustainability. We agree that the ability to sustain the project
following the grant period, as well as the applicant's plans and
ability to share the project design and results with others, are
important considerations, and we will take those into account when
choosing which selection criteria to include in the NIA.
9. What other considerations should go into the design of this
priority?
Several Tribes commented that the program should reflect Tribal
sovereignty, in particular the sovereign right to determine education
programming and services. We agree with these comments and have drafted
the proposed priority in a way that we believe reflects Tribal
sovereignty, but we welcome feedback on the specific language in the
proposed regulations.
One Tribe suggested that we consider urban and rural applicants
separately, as rural applicants often face higher costs and have fewer
existing resources, and that we consider the applicant's capacity and
infrastructure. Another stated that we should take into account a
Tribe's existing capacity. The existing regulations already include a
priority for rural applicants, so we are not proposing such a priority
for rural applicants in this NPRM. We are proposing a priority for
applicants who do not meet the existing rural priority; this proposed
``non-rural'' priority would allow us to consider rural and non-rural
applicants separately in future competitions. We have included in this
NPRM a targeted question regarding whether differentiating between
rural and non-rural applicants is an appropriate proxy for discerning
between applicants with limited resources and applicants with multiple
resources.
Another Tribe that is a current Demonstration grantee, writing in
favor of the proposed priority, stated that the Department should
consider outcomes as a factor when making award decisions, and that
continued communication and ongoing feedback should be used for
planning and implementation of the projects. We agree that measurable
project objectives
[[Page 17799]]
and clear plans for continuous improvement should be important parts of
an applicant's proposal and will consider including selection criteria
in the NIA to ensure that peer reviewers consider these factors.
Significant Proposed Regulations
We group major issues according to section of the regulations.
What definitions apply to the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children
and Youth program? (Sec. 263.20)
Statute: ESEA section 6121(d)(3) requires that applications include
a description of how parents and family of Indian children have been
and will be involved in implementing the project activities. ESEA
section 8101(38) contains a definition of ``parent.''
Current Regulations: The current regulations do not define
``parent.''
Proposed Regulations: We propose to add the definition of
``parent'' from section 8101 of the ESEA.
Reasons: We propose to add the ESEA definition of ``parent'' to
make it clear that the term includes a legal guardian or other person
standing in loco parentis, such as a grandparent (Sec. 263.20).
What priority is given to certain projects and applicants? (Sec.
263.21)
Statute: ESEA section 6121(a) provides that the purpose of the
program is to support projects to develop, test, and demonstrate the
effectiveness of services and programs to improve education
opportunities and achievement of Indian children and youth. Section
6143 requires the Secretary to give a preference to Indian Tribes,
Tribal organizations, and TCUs in making grants under this program.
Current Regulations: Section 263.21 contains three mandatory
priorities in paragraphs (a) and (b), and five optional priorities in
paragraph (c) that the Secretary may choose in any year in which there
is a new competition.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to add BIE-funded schools to the
list of entities in Sec. 263.21(b)(1) that receive competitive
preference. We also propose to add a priority in Sec. 263.21(c) for
entities that are not rural, that is, that do not meet the existing
priority for rural entities.
In addition, we propose to add a priority for projects that would
expand educational choice for parents, allowing them to direct funding
to particular education services to expand the ability of parents to
choose high-quality educational opportunities to meet the needs of
Native youth. The requirements pertaining to this proposed priority
would be in a new Sec. 263.25.
Reasons: We propose to add BIE-funded schools to the list of
entities for which we give competitive preference in order to clarify
in the regulations our long-standing interpretation of section 6143 of
the ESEA in this regard. That statutory provision requires that, in
making grants under the Demonstration program as well as under certain
other programs, the Department must give preference to Indian tribes,
organizations, and institutions of higher education. The Department
treats all BIE-funded schools as ``Indian organizations'' for purposes
of this provision, and this regulation would provide clarity to
applicants that are BIE-funded schools.
We propose to add a priority for entities that do not meet the
existing rural priority in order to give the Department the ability to
consider rural and non-rural applicants separately. The regulations
already contain a priority for rural applicants in Sec. 263.21(c). The
proposed priority would define the inverse population and would be used
in conjunction with the priority for rural applicants; the Department
could use multiple absolute priorities to create separate funding
slates for applicants that propose to serve rural communities compared
with applicants that do not. This would give the Department the ability
to distribute the grants fairly among high-scoring rural and non-rural
applicants, so as not to disadvantage rural entities that may not have
access to the same resources as non-rural applicants.
We propose the new educational choice priority in order to support
Tribal communities in designing projects to meet their goals and
objectives while giving parents the opportunity to select the specific
services that best meet the needs of their own children. Under the
priority used in the Demonstration Grants program for fiscal years (FY)
2015-2018, the Native Youth Community Projects, the applicant, whether
an LEA, a Tribe, or a Tribal organization, designed the objectives and
services and arranged to provide those services. The proposed priority
would include parents and families in the decision-making process by
providing them with a choice of services or of service providers,
consistent with the statutory provision in section 6121(d)(3) of the
ESEA that requires all applicants for Demonstration Grants to describe
how parents and families of Indian children will be involved in
developing and implementing the activities in each project.
The proposed priority would give to Tribes and other grantees the
ability to select local entities that can provide high-quality services
to students. The grantee would enter into a contract with these
providers and oversee the providers to ensure quality. Parents would
then select the specific service(s) and provider(s) for their child.
The grantee would also establish a process by which a parent may
request a service or provider not specifically offered. The process
would include a response, in writing, from the grantee to the parent if
such a request cannot be accommodated, which must explain the reason
for denying the request, as further described in new Sec. 263.25.
We are not proposing to remove any of the existing priorities from
the regulations. The new proposed priority would be added to the
regulations to provide an additional option from which the Department
may choose, for any competition under the Demonstration Grants program.
Because the purpose of the Demonstration Grants program is to test and
demonstrate the effectiveness of various programs in improving
education opportunities and achievement of Indian children and youth,
adding this proposed priority would provide a new way to potentially
improve outcomes and may provide the Department with new information to
disseminate to the field to inform future local efforts to improve
students' outcomes. The details of this proposed priority, as reflected
in these proposed regulations, were informed by the Tribal
consultations held on this topic.
What are the application requirements for these grants? (Sec. 263.22)
Statute: ESEA section 6121 includes four specific application
requirements, in addition to other assurances and information as the
Secretary may reasonably require.
Current Regulations: Section 263.22 contains the statutory
application requirements.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to add two application
requirements in new Sec. 263.22(b)(4) that could be used in any year,
although they are designed to accompany the proposed priority for
educational choice. Under the first proposed application requirement, a
non-Tribal applicant would be required to partner with a Tribe or
Tribal organization in order to receive a grant; if 50 percent or more
of the students to be served are from one Tribe, the application must
include that Tribe as a partner. If the majority of students are from
different Tribes, however, then the applicant could choose as a partner
a single local Tribe, local or national
[[Page 17800]]
Tribal organization, a TCU, or a BIE-funded school. Under the second
proposed application requirement, an applicant would be required to
include in its application a plan for how the applicant will oversee
service providers and ensure that students are receiving high-quality
services under the project.
Reasons: We agree with the input received from Tribes during
consultation that, in order to maximize opportunities for Tribal
sovereignty, projects that serve Native students must include a Tribal
partner. We propose the 50 percent cutoff for Tribal affiliation in
order to provide clear guidance for applicants that are not Tribes
regarding when they are required to partner with a specific Tribe. We
chose 50 percent because that is the percentage of the school district
enrollment that is set forth in section 8538 of the ESEA to distinguish
school districts that must consult with Tribes from those that do not.
To the extent that certain areas lack local Tribal organizations, we
acknowledge that an applicant might need to partner with a national
Tribal organization. We propose the requirement that applicants provide
a plan to oversee service providers in order to ensure that applicants
carry out their oversight responsibilities and that students receive
high-quality services.
How does the Secretary evaluate applications for the Demonstration
grant program? (Sec. 263.24)
Statute: ESEA section 6121 does not include selection criteria.
Current Regulations: The current regulations do not include
selection criteria for this program.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 263.24 would add three
selection criteria, for this program. Under the selection criterion
relating to project services, we propose three selection factors. The
proposed selection factor in Sec. 263.24(a)(1), which would be
specific to the priority for educational choice, would allow us to
evaluate an application based on the extent to which the project would
offer high-quality choices of services, including culturally relevant
services, and providers that build on existing options. The second and
third proposed selection factors could be applied regardless of which
priority is used: the factor in Sec. 263.24(a)(2) would require
applicants to describe the extent to which the services to be offered
meet the needs of the local population, as demonstrated by an analysis
of community-level data, including input from students and/or parents;
the factor in Sec. 263.24(a)(3) would allow applications to be judged
on the quality of their response to the statutory provision in section
6121(d)(3) of the ESEA regarding evidence-based projects. The
definition of ``evidence-based'' in section Sec. 77.1 would apply;
this definition includes all four levels of evidence: strong, moderate,
and promising evidence as well as evidence that demonstrates a
rationale. The definition of ``demonstrates a rationale'' in the same
section clarifies that it ``means a key project component included in
the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation
findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve
relevant outcomes.'' Accordingly, an applicant may provide a logic
model for the proposed project, including at least one component
informed by research, and receive points under this proposed criterion.
We propose four selection factors under the criterion relating to
project design. One proposed factor could be used with any priority and
would allow us to evaluate applicants based on the extent to which
their project is designed to improve student and parent satisfaction
with the student's overall education experience through pre- and post-
project data. Two of the proposed factors would be specific to the
priority for educational choice and would ask applicants to describe
(1) their process for selecting providers and (2) their method for
informing parents of the choices available to them. The fourth proposed
factor would allow us to evaluate the quality of the applicant's plan
to oversee service providers and ensure that students are receiving
high-quality services under the project.
Finally, we propose a selection criterion relating to
reasonableness of budget, with two sub criteria. The first relates to
the reasonableness of the proposed per-pupil amount for services in
relation to the project objectives, and the second concerns the
transparency of those per-pupil costs for parents.
Reasons: By establishing in the regulations selection factors that
are tailored to the needs of Tribal applicants, the Department would
have the ability to choose, in any grant competition, from the unique
selection criteria established through these proposed regulations as
well as from the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210.
What are the program requirements when the Secretary uses the priority
for educational choice in Sec. 263.21(c)(7)? (Sec. 263.25)
Statute: ESEA section 6121 does not address educational choice.
Current Regulations: The current regulations do not address
educational choice.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 263.25 would add eight
requirements that would apply to any competition in which the Secretary
uses the proposed priority for educational choice. Section 263.25(a)
would require grantees to choose a project focus and specific service
providers that are based on the needs of the local community. In Sec.
263.25(b) we propose to require grantees to offer more than one
education-related option for services from among the twelve listed in
that paragraph. Multiple service providers may address a single
education-related option. Separately, we propose in Sec. 263.26(d) to
require multiple service providers, including service providers that
are not the applicant, though the applicant may also provide services.
We propose in Sec. 263.25(c) to ensure that all services would
supplement and not supplant existing services and funding sources.
We further propose in Sec. 263.26(d) to require grantees to
establish a method through which parents could select from various
services and providers tailored to the project objective. The service
selection method could not include direct financial transfers to
parents. Grantees would also be required under proposed Sec. 263.25(e)
to have a system in place for parents to advocate for services their
children need, such as a parent feedback process, that would require
the grantee to provide a written explanation for not providing the
requested service; the explanations would need to be provided within
thirty (30) days.
We also propose in Sec. 263.25(f) a requirement that grantees
enter into a written agreement with each service provider under the
project, and that the agreement include a nondiscrimination clause,
including a provision prohibiting the provider from discriminating
against Indian students who are eligible for services under this
program on the basis of affiliation with a particular Tribe. The
agreement would also be required to contain a description of the
oversight to be provided by the grantee, a description of how students'
progress will be measured, and provide for the termination of the
agreement if the provider is unable to meet the terms of the agreement.
In the event that the number of requests from parents of eligible
students for services under the project exceeds the available capacity,
we would require in proposed Sec. 263.25(g) that the grantee or
provider include a fair and documented process to choose students to be
served, such as a lottery,
[[Page 17801]]
or another transparent set of consistently-applied criteria, such as
first-come, first-served, or need-based criteria.
Finally, we propose in Sec. 263.25(h) to require grantees to spend
at least 80 percent of their grant funds on direct services to eligible
students. If applicants propose a planning year in the first year of
the grant, this 80 percent limit would not apply to that first year.
Grantees would also be prohibited from spending more than 15 percent of
grant funds on the service selection method or the parent involvement
and feedback process described in paragraph (e) of this section. If an
applicant proposes a planning year in the first year of the grant, this
15 percent limit would not apply to that first year.
Reasons: We propose to require that services be based on local
needs because we heard from Tribes that it is important that projects
be tailored to the unique needs of each community. We propose the
requirement that grantees offer more than one specific service to
ensure that families have adequate choices. We propose to require that
services supplement existing options in the community to ensure that
these funds are not used to supplant other funding sources that already
exist. We propose to require a service selection method to help ensure
that grantees have a carefully planned administrative system through
which parents can access the services. It is important that grant funds
go only to service providers and not the parents, as there will be an
agreement with service providers that includes expectations for
reporting activities and financial oversight. We propose to require a
system for parent input, in response to suggestions from Tribal
consultation, to ensure that parent voices are heard and responded to
with regard to quality of services, the administrative convenience of
the system, choice of providers and specific services, and other
matters. This system must include a mechanism by which parents can
request specific services or providers and receive responses in writing
indicating the reason for denying any request the grantee cannot
satisfy.
We propose to require that grantees enter into written agreements
with each provider to ensure that grantees have the necessary
programmatic and fiscal oversight of all services under the project and
that grantees and providers are held accountable to the terms of the
agreement. In addition, the proposed requirement that agreements
include a nondiscrimination clause, including a provision prohibiting
the service provider from giving priority to members of one Tribe over
another, is designed to ensure that all American Indian and Alaska
Native students who are eligible for services under this program
(pursuant to the definition of Indian in ESEA section 6151) have an
equal opportunity to obtain services. We propose the requirement of a
fair and documented selection process, such as a lottery, to ensure
there would be no favoritism in choosing which students are included in
the project.
We propose that at least 80 percent of grant funds be used for
direct services so that most of the grant funds are used to support
services for students, not to implement the service selection process.
Under the proposed rule, grantees could use up to 15 percent of the
award for the service selection method or the parent involvement and
feedback process. We propose that the 80 percent requirement would not
apply in the planning year, if the grantee requests and obtains
permission for the first year of the grant to be used for planning,
because we understand that setting up a service selection method can
require a large amount of funds at the start of the grant that would
not be continued in subsequent years. Thus, if a grantee uses the first
year of the grant as a planning year, it will not have its costs
limited to a total of 20 percent of the grant for the service selection
method, its indirect cost rate, and its direct administrative costs, as
will be the case in future grant years.
Technical Changes
We are also making minor technical changes to these program
regulations, some of which are required to align the regulations with
the ESEA, as amended by ESSA. The technical changes to align the
regulations with the ESSA amendments to title VI of ESEA are as
follows:
1. We add ``and youth'' to the name of the program in the title for
subpart B of part 263, in the title of Sec. 263.20, and in the
definitions in Sec. 263.20, to align with ESEA section 6121(a)(1).
2. In Sec. 263.20, we delete the definition of ``Indian
institution of higher education'' and replace it with the statutory
definition of ``Tribal college or university,'' and make conforming
changes to Sec. 263.21, in alignment with ESEA section 6121(b).
3. In Sec. 263.22, we add to the application requirements the
expansion from involvement of parents to include family members, and we
change ``scientifically-based'' to ``evidence-based,'' in alignment
with ESEA section 6121(d)(3)(B).
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a
rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
OMB has determined that 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 FY 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. Therefore, the requirements of
Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
We have also reviewed these proposed 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);
[[Page 17802]]
(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.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
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. The potential
costs associated with the proposed priorities and requirements would be
minimal, while the potential benefits are significant.
We have determined that these proposed regulations would impose
minimal costs on eligible applicants. Program participation is
voluntary, and the costs imposed on applicants by these proposed
regulations would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing
an application. The potential benefits of implementing the programs--
for example, expanding the choices available to parents and students,
and improving access to services such as Native language programs or
providing new internship or apprenticeship programs--would outweigh any
costs incurred by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities
associated with the application would be paid for with program funds.
For these reasons, we have determined that the costs of implementation
would not be excessively burdensome for eligible applicants, including
small entities.
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. 263.2 What definitions apply to the Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children and Youth 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 significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities that would be affected by these
regulations are LEAs, TCUs, Tribes, Indian organizations, and BIE-
funded 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 would not impose excessive
regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.
Participation in the Demonstration Grant program is voluntary and the
Department believes that the costs imposed on an applicant by the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
would be limited to the costs related to providing the documentation
outlined in the proposed definitions and requirements when preparing an
application and that those costs would not be significant. We note that
those 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
Demonstration Grant program.
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 the
Indian Education Demonstration Grant program. 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
[[Page 17803]]
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact
of collection requirements on respondents.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 263.22 (Application Requirements) and 263.24
(Selection Criteria) contain information collection requirements (ICR)
for the program application package. As a result of the proposed
revisions to these sections, we would transfer the grant application
package information collection burden from 1810-0722 to 1894-0006,
resulting in discontinuation of 1810-0722. In Table 1 below, we assume
100 applicants each spend 30 hours preparing their applications.
Table 1--Demonstration Grants Program Information Collection Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current burden (total Proposed burden Proposed action under
OMB control No. Relevant regulations Expiration hours) (total hours) final rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1810-0722.................. Proposed Sec. Sec. 07/31/2021.................... For Applicants: 4,000 0.................... Discontinue by 07/31/
263.22 and 263.24. hours. 2021.
1894-0006.................. Proposed Sec. Sec. January 31, 2021.............. 0.................... Applicants: 3,000 Obtain approval under
263.22 and 263.24. hours. 1894-0006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Education 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 portable document format PDF. To
use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for
free on 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: 84.299A
Demonstration Grants for Indian Children and Youth Program.)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 263
Business and industry, Colleges and Universities, Elementary and
secondary education, Grant programs--education, Grant programs--
Indians, Indians--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Scholarships and fellowships.
Frank T. 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:
0
1. The authority citation for Part 263 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. The title of subpart B is revised to read as follows:
Subpart B--Demonstration Grants for Indian Children and Youth
Program
0
3. Section 263.20 is amended by:
0
a. In the section heading, adding the words ``and Youth'' after the
word ``Children'';
0
b. Removing the definition of ``Indian institution of higher
education'';
0
c. In paragraph (6)(i) of the definition of ``Native Youth community
project'', adding the words ``and Youth'' after the word ``Children'';
0
d. Adding a definition of ``Parent'';
0
e. In the definition of ``Professional development activities'', adding
the words ``and Youth'' after the word ``Children''; and
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Tribal College or
University (TCU)''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 263.20 What definitions apply to the Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children and Youth program?
* * * * *
Parent includes a legal guardian or other person standing in loco
parentis (such as a grandparent or stepparent with whom the child
lives, or a person who is legally responsible for the child's welfare).
[[Page 17804]]
Tribal College or University (TCU) means an accredited college or
university within the United States cited in section 532 of the Equity
in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, any other institution
that qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled College or
University Assistance Act of 1978, and the Navajo Community College,
authorized in the Navajo Community College Assistance Act of 1978.
0
4. Section 263.21 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the number ``7121(c)'' and adding, in its
place, the number ``6121(c)'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1), adding the words ``school funded by the Bureau
of Indian Education,'' after the words ``Indian organization,'' each
time they appear, and removing the words ``Indian institution of higher
education'' and replacing them with ``TCU'' each time they appear;
0
c. In paragraph (b)(2)(i), adding the words ``school funded by the
Bureau of Indian Education,'' after the words ``Indian organization,''
each time they appear, and removing the words ``Indian institution of
higher education'' and replacing them with ``TCU''.
0
d. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the number ``7116'' and adding, in its
place, ``6116'';
0
e. In paragraph (c)(4), removing the number ``7121(c)'' and adding, in
its place, the number ``6121(c)'';
0
f. Revising paragraph (c)(5)(i) and (ii); and
0
g. Adding paragraphs (c)(6) and (7).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 263.21 What priority is given to certain projects and
applicants?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) An LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural School
Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS)
program authorized under title V, part B of the ESEA; or
(ii) A BIE-funded school that is located in an area designated with
locale code of either 41, 42, or 43 as designated by the National
Center for Education Statistics.
(6) Non-rural projects that do not meet the priority in paragraph
(c)(5) of this section. This priority can only be used in competitions
where the priority in paragraph (c)(5) of this section is also used.
(7) Projects to expand educational choice by enabling a Tribe, or
the grantee and its Tribal partner, to select a project focus that
meets the needs of their students and enabling parents of Indian
students, or the student, to choose education services by selecting the
specific service and provider desired.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 263.22 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (3).
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (5).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 263.22 What are the application requirements for these grants?
(a) * * *
(1) A description of how Indian Tribes and parents and families of
Indian children and youth have been, and will be, involved in
developing and implementing the proposed activities;
(2) * * *
(3) Information demonstrating that the proposed project is
evidence-based, where applicable, or is based on an existing evidence-
based program that has been modified to be culturally appropriate for
Indian students;
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) A plan for how the applicant will oversee service providers and
ensure that students receive high-quality services under the project.
(5) For an applicant that is not a Tribe--
(i) If 50 percent or more of the student body to be served consists
of members of one Tribe, the applicant must include that Tribe as a
documented partner for the proposed project; or
(ii) If less than 50 percent of the student body to be served
consists of members of one Tribe, the applicant must include a local
Tribe, local or national Tribal organization, TCU, or BIE-funded school
as a documented partner for the proposed project.
0
6. Revising the authority citation to Sec. 263.23 to read as follows:
(Authority: 25 U.S.C. 5304, 5307)
0
7. Adding Sec. 263.24 to read as follows:
Sec. 263.24 How does the Secretary evaluate applications for the
Demonstration Grants for Indian Children and Youth grants program?
The Secretary uses the procedures in 34 CFR 75.200 through 75.210
to establish the selection criteria and factors used to evaluate
applications submitted in a grant competition for the Demonstration
Grants for Indian Children and Youth program. The Secretary may also
consider one or more of the criteria and factors in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section to evaluate applications.
(a) Quality of project services. The Secretary considers one or
more of the following factors in determining the quality of project
services:
(1) The extent to which the project would offer high-quality
choices of services, including culturally relevant services, and
providers, for parents and students to select.
(2) The extent to which the services to be offered would meet the
needs of the local population, as demonstrated by an analysis of
community-level data, including direct input from parents and families
of Indian children and youth.
(3) The extent to which the services to be offered are evidence-
based.
(b) Quality of the project design. The Secretary considers one or
more of the following factors in determining the quality of the project
design:
(1) The extent to which the project is designed to improve student
and parent satisfaction with the student's overall education
experience, as measured by pre- and post-project data.
(2) The extent to which the applicant proposes a fair and neutral
process of selecting service providers that will result in high-quality
options from which parents and students can select services.
(3) The quality of the proposed plan to inform parents and students
about available service choices under the project, and about the
timeline for termination of the project.
(4) The quality of the applicant's plan to oversee service
providers and ensure that students receive high-quality services under
the project.
(c) Reasonableness of budget. The Secretary considers one or more
of the following factors in determining the reasonableness of the
project budget:
(1) The extent to which the budget reflects the number of students
to be served and a per-pupil amount for services, not including funds
for project administration, that is reasonable in relation to the
project objectives; and
(2) The extent to which the per-pupil costs of specific services
and per-pupil funds available are transparent to parents and other
stakeholders.
0
8. Adding Sec. 263.25 to read as follows:
Sec. 263.25 What are the program requirements when the Secretary
uses the priority in Sec. 263.21(c)(7)?
In any year in which the Secretary uses the priority in Sec.
263.21(c)(7) for a competition, each project must--
(a) Include the following, which are chosen by the grantee, or the
grantee and its partnering Tribe if the grantee is not a Tribe:
(1) A project focus and specific services that are based on the
needs of the local community; and
(2) Service providers;
[[Page 17805]]
(b) Include more than one education option from which parents and
students may choose, which may include--
(1) Native language, history, or culture courses;
(2) Advanced, remedial, or elective courses, which may be online;
(3) Apprenticeships or training programs that lead to industry
certifications;
(4) Concurrent and dual enrollment;
(5) Tuition for private school or home education expenses;
(6) Special education and related services that supplement, and are
not part of, the special education and related services, supplementary
aids and services, and program modifications or supports for school
personnel required to make available a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) to a child with a disability in conformity with
the child's individualized education program (IEP) or the regular or
special education and related aids and services required to ensure FAPE
under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504);
(7) Books, materials, or education technology, including learning
software or hardware that are accessible to all children;
(8) Tutoring;
(9) Summer or afterschool education programs, and student
transportation needed for those specific programs. Such programs could
include instruction in the arts, music, or sports, to the extent that
the applicant can demonstrate that such services are culturally related
or are supported by evidence that suggests the services may have a
positive effect on relevant education outcomes;
(10) Testing preparation and application fees, including for
private school and graduating students;
(11) Supplemental counseling services, not to include psychiatric
or medical services; or
(12) Other education-related services that are reasonable and
necessary for the project;
(c)(1) Provide additional services that are supplemental to the
education program provided by local schools attended by the students to
be served;
(2) Ensure that funding is supplemental to existing sources, such
as Johnson O'Malley funding; and
(3) Ensure that the availability of funds for supplemental special
education and related services (i.e., services that are not part of the
special education and related services, supplementary aids and
services, and program modifications or supports for school personnel
that are required to make FAPE available under Part B of the IDEA to a
child with a disability in conformity with the child's IEP or the
regular or special education and related aids and services required to
make FAPE available under a Section 504 plan, if any) does not affect
the right of the child to receive FAPE under Part B of the IDEA or
Section 504, and the respective implementing regulations;
(d) Provide a method to enable parents and students to select
services. Such a method must--
(1) Ensure that funds will be transferred directly from the grantee
to the selected service provider;
(2) Include service providers other than the applicant, although
the applicant may be one of the service providers; and
(3) Be supplemental to any existing service selection method;
(e) Include a parent involvement and feedback process that:
(1) Describes a way for parents to request services or providers
that are not currently offered and provide input on services provided
through the project, and describes how the grantee will provide parents
with written responses within thirty days; and
(2) May include a parent liaison to support the grantee in outreach
to parents and assist parents and the grantee with the process by which
a parent can request services or providers not already specified by the
grantee.
(f) Include a written agreement between the grantee and each
service provider under the project. The agreements must include--
(1) A nondiscrimination clause that--
(i) Requires the provider to abide by all applicable
non[hyphen]discrimination laws with regard to students to be served,
e.g., on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or
disability; and
(ii) Prohibits the provider from discriminating among students who
are eligible for services under this program, i.e., that meet the
definition of ``Indian'' in section 6151 of the ESEA, on the basis of
affiliation with a particular Tribe;
(2) A description of how the grantee will oversee the service
provider and hold the provider accountable for--
(i) The terms of the written agreement; and
(ii) The use of funds, including compliance with generally accepted
accounting procedures and Federal cost principles;
(3) A description of how students' progress will be measured; and
(4) A provision for the termination of the agreement if the
provider is unable to meet the terms of the agreement;
(g) Include a fair and documented process to choose students to be
served, such as a lottery or other transparent criteria (e.g., based on
particular types of need), in the event that the number of requests
from parents of eligible students for services under the project
exceeds the available capacity, with regard to the number or intensity
of services offered; and
(h) Ensure that--
(1) At least 80 percent of grant funds are used for direct services
to eligible students, provided that, if a grantee requests and receives
approval for the first year of its grant to be a planning year, the 80
percent requirement does not apply to that planning year; and
(2) Not more than 15 percent of grant funds are used on the service
selection method described in paragraph (d) of this section or the
parent involvement and feedback process described in paragraph (e) of
this section, except in an authorized planning year.
[FR Doc. 2020-06224 Filed 3-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
