Proposed Priorities-Effective Educator Development Division Programs
| Citation | 86 FR 20471 |
| Record Number | 2021-08193 |
| Published date | 20 April 2021 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Education Department |
Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 74 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20471-20475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08193]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0045]
Proposed Priorities--Effective Educator Development Division
Programs
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes priorities
for the following programs of the Effective Educator Development
Division (EED): Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (TSL),
Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.374A; Teacher Quality Partnerships
(TQP), ALN 84.336S; and Supporting Effective Educator Development
(SEED), ALN 84.423A. We may use these priorities for competitions in
fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years. We propose these priorities to
focus on educator development, leadership, and diversity in the various
EED programs in order to improve the quality of teaching and school
leadership.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 20, 2021.
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 ``FAQ.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priorities, address
them to Orman Feres, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue
SW, Room 3C124, Washington, DC 20202.
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: Orman Feres, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3C124, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-6921. Email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
the proposed priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to
clearly identify the specific section of the proposed priorities that
each comment addresses.
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 the
proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further ways we could
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving
the effective and efficient administration of our programs.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about the proposed priorities by accessing Regulations.gov.
Due to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Department
buildings are currently not open to the public. However, upon reopening
you may also inspect the comments in person in room 3C124, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
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 the proposed priorities. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Purpose of Programs: We are proposing priorities for use in three
Department programs: TSL, SEED, and TQP. The purpose of TSL is to
assist States, local educational agencies, and nonprofit organizations
to develop, implement, improve, or expand comprehensive performance-
based compensation systems (PBCS) or human capital management systems
(HCMS) for teachers, principals, and other school leaders (especially
for teachers, principals, and other school leaders in high-need schools
who raise student academic achievement and close the achievement gap
between high- and low-performing students). In addition, a portion of
TSL funds may be used to study the effectiveness, fairness, quality,
consistency, and reliability of PBCS or HCMS for teachers, principals,
and other school leaders (educators). The SEED program provides funding
to increase the number of highly effective educators by supporting the
implementation of evidence-based practices that prepare, develop, or
enhance the skills of educators. SEED grants allow eligible entities to
develop, expand, and evaluate practices that can serve as models to be
sustained and disseminated. The purposes of the TQP program are to
improve student achievement; improve the quality of prospective and new
teachers by improving the preparation of prospective teachers and
enhancing professional development activities for new teachers; hold
teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education
accountable for preparing teachers who meet applicable State
certification and licensure requirements; and recruit highly qualified
individuals, including minorities and individuals from other
occupations, into the teaching force.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3. TSL: Section 2211-2213 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 20
U.S.C. 6631-6633. SEED: Section 2242 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 6672. TQP:
Sections 200-204 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20
U.S.C. 1021-1022c.
Proposed Priorities: This document contains two proposed
priorities.
[[Page 20472]]
Proposed Priority 1--Supporting Educators and Their Professional
Growth.
Background:
In Proposed Priority 1, the Department emphasizes the importance of
promoting the continued development and growth of educators, including
through leadership opportunities. It is well established that teacher
effectiveness contributes greatly to student academic outcomes, yet
there is variation in teacher effectiveness within and across schools,
including significant inequity in students' access to effective
teachers, particularly for students from low-income backgrounds,
students of color, and students with disabilities.
As such, it is essential to attract and retain a well-qualified,
experienced, effective, and diverse pool of skilled educators, to
ensure that they have access to high-quality comprehensive preparation
programs that have high standards for successful completion, and to
ensure that they are prepared to teach diverse learners (e.g., through
co-teaching models, dual certifications, universal design for
learning). Equally important is supporting and retaining qualified and
effective educators through practices such as creating or enhancing
opportunities for professional growth, including through leadership
opportunities, reforming compensation and advancement systems, creating
conditions for successful teaching and learning, advanced educator
certification such as national board teacher or principal
certification, and through paying the tuition of effective current
teachers seeking an additional certification in these areas.
This proposed priority focuses on strengthening teacher
recruitment, selection, preparation (such as through partnerships with
institutions of higher education to implement educator residencies that
include one year of high-quality clinical experiences (prior to
becoming the teacher of record) in high-need schools), support,
development, effectiveness, recognition, and retention in ways that are
consistent with the Department's policy goals of supporting teachers as
the professionals they are, improving outcomes for all students, and
ensuring that students from low-income backgrounds, students of color,
students with disabilities, and other historically underserved students
have equal access to qualified, experienced, and effective educators.
Proposed Priority:
Projects that are designed to increase the number and percentage of
well-prepared, experienced, effective, and diverse educators--which may
include one or more of the following: Teachers, principals,
paraprofessionals, or other school leaders as defined in section
8101(44) of the ESEA--through evidence-based strategies (as defined in
34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) incorporating one or more of the following:
(a) Adopting, implementing, or expanding efforts to recruit,
select, prepare, support, and develop talented, diverse individuals to
serve as mentors, instructional coaches, principals, or school leaders
in high-need schools (as may be defined in the program's authorizing
statute or regulations) who have the knowledge and skills to
significantly improve instruction.
(b) Implementing practices or strategies that support high-need
schools (as may be defined in the program's authorizing statute or
regulations) in recruiting, preparing, hiring, supporting, developing,
and retaining qualified, experienced, effective, diverse educators.
(c) Increasing the number of teachers with State or national
advanced educator certification or certification in a teacher shortage
area, as determined by the Secretary, such as special education or
bilingual education.
(d) Providing high-quality professional development opportunities
to all educators in high-need schools (as may be defined in the
program's authorizing statute or regulations) on meeting the needs of
diverse learners, including students with disabilities and English
learners.
Proposed Priority 2--Increasing Educator Diversity.
Background:
In Proposed Priority 2, the Department recognizes that diverse
educators will play a critical role in ensuring equity in our education
system, as discussed in ``The State of Racial Diversity in the Educator
Workforce'' report published by the Department in 2016: www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf. As that report highlights, research shows that diversity
in schools, including racial diversity among teachers, can provide
significant benefits to students. While students of color are expected
to make up 56 percent of the student population by 2024, the elementary
and secondary educator workforce is still overwhelmingly white.\1\ In
fact, the most recent U.S. Department of Education National Teacher and
Principal Survey (NTPS), a nationally representative survey of teachers
and principals, showed that 80 percent of public school teachers
identified as white. This figure has hardly changed in more than 15
years as a similar survey conducted by the Department in 2000 found
that 84 percent of teachers identified as white.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``white'' in this report refers to a socially
constructed category of individuals who self-identify as white and
non-Hispanic. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. ``Table 209.10: Number and percentage
distribution of teachers in public and private elementary and
secondary schools, by selected teacher characteristics: Selected
years, 1987-88 through 2017-18.'' Digest of Education Statistics,
2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_209.10.asp?current=yes.
\2\ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. ``Table 209.10: Number and percentage distribution of
teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools, by
selected teacher characteristics: Selected years, 1987-88 through
2017-18.'' Digest of Education Statistics, 2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_209.10.asp?current=yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving educator diversity--including racial, cultural, and
linguistic diversity--can help all students. Diverse educators are
positive role models for all students in breaking down negative
stereotypes and preparing students to live and work in a multiracial
society. In addition to providing advantages for all students, the
racial diversity of the teaching workforce can help to close the
achievement gap,\3\ emerging research \4\ suggests. Both quantitative
and qualitative studies find that diverse educators can improve the
school experiences of all students; further, diverse educators \5\
contribute to improved academic outcomes while serving as strong role
models for students.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Redding, Christopher. ``A Teacher Like Me: A Review of the
Effect of Student-Teacher Racial/Ethnic Matching on Teacher
Perceptions of Students and Student Academic and Behavioral
Outcomes.'' Review of Educational Research, 89 (2019) 499-535.
\4\ Egalite, Anna, Brian Kisida, and Marcus A. Winters.
``Representation in the Classroom: The Effect of Own-race Teachers
on Student Achievement,'' Economics of Education Review, 45 (April
2015) 44-52.
\5\ Grissom, Jason, Sarah Kabourek, and Jenna Kramer. ``Exposure
to same-race or same-ethnicity teachers and advanced math course-
taking in high school: Evidence from a diverse urban district,''
Teachers College Record, 122 (2020) 1-42.
\6\ Grissom, Jason and Christopher Redding. ``Discretion and
disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-
achieving students of color in gifted programs.'' AERA Open, 2,
(2016) 1-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One report suggests that, compared with their peers, educators of
color are more likely to (1) have higher expectations of students of
color (as measured by higher numbers of referrals to gifted programs);
\7\ (2) confront issues of racism; (3) They also serve as
[[Page 20473]]
advocates and cultural brokers; and (4) develop more trusting
relationships with students, particularly those with whom they share a
cultural background.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Lindsay, Constance and Cassandra Hart. ``Exposure to Same-
race Teachers and Student Disciplinary Outcomes for Black Students
in North Carolina.'' Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39
(2017) 485-510.
\8\ Ferguson, Ronald. ``Teachers' Perceptions and Expectations
and the Black-White Test Score Gap.'' Urban Education, 38, (2003)
460-507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2014 report shows that, despite the critical role that teachers
of color can play in helping students of color succeed, every State has
a higher percentage of students of color than educators of color.\9\
The teaching force has become slightly more diverse in recent years.
But recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) estimates that the elementary and secondary student population
will continue to become less white and more diverse.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Boser, Ulrich. ``Teacher Diversity Revisited: A New State-
by-State Analysis,'' Center for American Progress (2014).
\10\ Hussar, William, and Tabitha Bailey. Projections of
Education Statistics to 2028 (NCES 2020-024). U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
Author (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless current trends change, the disparity between the racial
makeup of students and teachers may increase further, fueling the need
for substantially more progress in increasing teacher diversity.
This proposed priority is designed to address educator diversity
through a broader lens of equity and inclusion due to emerging evidence
that emphasizing diversity without a parallel focus on equity and
inclusion can minimize the potential benefits of such efforts. As one
recent reported concluded: ``While the data shows important differences
in the practices of organizations with greater diversity, a singular
focus on diversity without a commensurate focus on equity and inclusion
will not maximize the potential benefits. We see striking evidence that
organizations that approach diversity, equity, and inclusion in
parallel have the greatest likelihood of realizing the benefits, such
as staff engagement and retention.'' \11\ To this end, the proposed
priority focuses on addressing recruitment, outreach, preparation,
support, retention, and advancement of educators while advancing
diversity, equity, and inclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Padamsee, Xiomara, and Becky Crowe. ``Unrealized Impact:
The Case for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,'' Oakland, CA:
Promise54, July 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priority:
Under this priority, applicants must develop projects that are
designed to improve the recruitment, outreach, preparation, support,
development, and retention of a diverse educator workforce through
adopting, implementing, or expanding one or more of the following:
(a) Educator diversity goals, timelines, and action plans at the
State, district, or school level, including incorporating input from
diverse educators.
(b) High-quality, comprehensive teacher preparation programs that
have a track record of attracting, supporting, graduating, and placing
underrepresented teacher candidates, and that include one year of high-
quality clinical experiences (prior to becoming the teacher of record)
in high-need schools (as may be defined in the program's authorizing
statute or regulations).
(c) High-quality, comprehensive teacher preparation programs in
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (eligible institutions
under part B of title III and subpart 4 of part A title VII of the
HEA), Hispanic Serving Institutions (eligible institutions under
section 502 of the HEA), Tribal Colleges and Universities (eligible
institutions under section 316 of the HEA), or other Minority Serving
Institutions (eligible institutions under title III and title V of the
HEA) that include one year of high-quality clinical experiences (prior
to becoming the teacher of record) in high-need schools as may be
defined in the program's authorizing statute or regulations) and that
incorporate best practices for attracting, supporting, graduating, and
placing underrepresented teacher candidates.
(d) Reforms to teacher preparation programs to improve the
diversity of teacher candidates, including changes to ensure
underrepresented teacher candidates are fully represented in program
admission, completion, placement, and retention as educators.
(e) Educator candidate support and preparation strategies and
practices focused on underrepresented teacher candidates, and which may
include ``grow your own programs,'' which typically recruit middle or
high school students, paraprofessionals, or other school staff and
provide them with clear pathways and intensive support to enter into
the teaching profession.
(f) Professional growth and leadership opportunities for diverse
educators, including opportunities to influence school, district, or
State policies and practices in order to improve educator diversity.
(g) High-quality professional development on addressing bias in
instructional practice and fostering an inclusive, equitable, and
supportive workplace and school climate for educators.
(h) Data systems and reporting structures to provide accurate,
public, and timely data about the racial and other demographics of the
educator workforce that can be used to support efforts to diversify the
workforce and to measure progress toward teacher and school leader
diversity at the State, district, or school level.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Priorities:
We will announce the final priorities in a document published in
the Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities after
considering responses to the proposed priorities and other information
available to the Department. This document does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year
in which we choose to use the priorities, we invite applications
through a notice inviting applications in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
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--
[[Page 20474]]
(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.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on 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 the proposed priorities 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 an analysis of
anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that the proposed priorities
are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with the Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this proposed regulatory action would
not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation
in our programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with
grant funds. As a result, the proposed priorities would not impose any
particular burden except when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for
a grant. The proposed priorities would help ensure that the
Department's Effective Educator Development programs select high-
quality applicants to implement activities that meet the goals of the
respective programs. We believe these benefits would outweigh any
associated costs.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed
priorities 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?
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 the
proposed priorities easier to understand, see the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section.
Intergovernmental Review: These programs are 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 these programs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government
overseeing a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would
affect are school districts, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit
organizations. Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or
eligible entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase
in the number of applications prepared and submitted annually for
competitive grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the
proposed priorities would significantly impact small entities beyond
the potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and
receiving, competitive grants from the Department.
[[Page 20475]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed priorities contain information collection requirements
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006; the
proposed priorities do not affect the currently approved data
collection.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible
format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of the Department published in
the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use
PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Ruth Ryder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-08193 Filed 4-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
