[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45621-45629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15993]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2020-OESE-0025]
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definition, and Selection
Criteria--Education Innovation and Research--Teacher-Directed
Professional Learning Experiences
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definition, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria
under the Education Innovation and Research (EIR) program, Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers 84.411A/B/C. The Assistant
Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria for a competition in fiscal year (FY) 2020 and in
later years. The Department intends these priorities, requirements,
definition, and selection criteria to support competitions under the
EIR program for the purpose of developing, implementing, and evaluating
teacher-directed professional learning projects designed to enhance
instructional practice and improve achievement and attainment for high-
need students.
DATES: These priorities, requirements, definition, and selection
criteria are effective August 28, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Brizzo. U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E325, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-7122. 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:
Purpose of Program: The EIR program, established under section 4611
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA),
provides funding to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to
scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to
improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students; and
rigorously evaluate such innovations. The EIR program is designed to
generate and validate solutions to persistent education challenges and
to support the expansion of those solutions to serve substantially
larger numbers of students.
Program Authority: Section 4611 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7261.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definition, and selection criteria for this program in the Federal
Register on April 13, 2020 (85 FR 20455) (the NPP). That document
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria for
Education Innovation and Research--Teacher-Directed Professional
Learning Experiences.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 89
parties submitted comments pertinent to the proposed priorities,
requirements, definition, and selection criteria. We group major issues
according to subject. Generally, we do not address comments that are
outside the scope of the proposed priorities, requirements, definition,
and selection criteria.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.
General Comments; Priority 1--Teacher-Directed Professional Learning
Comments: Among the 19 comments of general support, commenters
indicated overall support for the
[[Page 45622]]
concept of teachers choosing their own professional learning,
emphasized the need for flexibility, and acknowledged the insufficiency
of the current status of teacher professional development. Five
commenters expressed that one-size-fits-all professional development
does not work and that the ability for teachers to differentiate and
customize their learning is important. Two commenters specifically
noted having participated in similar stipend programs in the past that
those commenters found to be successful. In addition to the 19 comments
of support, 33 commenters also expressed support for the general idea
but offered specific feedback, and their comments are accounted for in
the sections that follow.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for these proposed
priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria and agree
that teachers' differentiation and customization of their learning is
important.
Changes: None.
Comments: Thirty-seven commenters opposed the general idea of
teacher-driven professional learning stipends, including Proposed
Priority 1. Commenters opposed the use of EIR funds for this purpose
based on the need for prior evidence of the success of stipend programs
(15 comments) and expressed concern about narrowing the focus of EIR or
undermining other investments such as ESEA title II, part A (14
comments). Commenters also offered input about a preference to support
collaborative learning (such as a training for all mathematics teachers
at a school to uniformly adopt a new approach) instead of individually
driven learning (such as one mathematics teacher learning about an
innovative approach and applying different methods from the other
mathematics teachers) (17 comments). Other commenters expressed concern
that not all teachers would have the opportunity to get a stipend,
which could exacerbate between-classroom inequities (8 comments). Six
commenters expressed their opinion that teacher choice already exists;
in their school or district teachers already have a great deal of
discretion regarding the professional learning in which they engage.
Another six commenters suggested that it is the role of principals,
rather than the teachers, themselves, to make decisions about
professional development for their teachers given the principal's
awareness of school-level needs. Five commenters stated concerns that
the concept of teacher-driven professional learning assumes that
teachers know what kinds of professional development they need but that
they need guidance and support from school and district leaders to
identify areas for growth. Related to these comments of general
opposition were comments about the need for districts and school
leaders to set professional learning priorities aligned to district and
school priorities and that the quality of professional learning funded
by the stipends might vary; those comments are specifically addressed
in the relevant sections that follow.
Discussion: We appreciate these commenters' perspectives. The
Department does not agree with the argument that the lack of robust
evidence on teacher-driven professional learning is a reason not to
hold a competition in this area. For any EIR competition that uses the
proposed priorities, the Department intends to build evidence about
teacher-selected professional learning consistent with the EIR
program's purpose of supporting innovation in education. Additionally,
the Department believes that there is sufficient evidence about
teacher-directed professional learning that would meet the
``demonstrates a rationale'' evidence requirement should this priority
be used in an Early-phase competition; furthermore, applicants must
submit sufficient evidence to that end to be eligible for that grant.
Moreover, we do think that applicants will apply to meet this lower
evidence tier and that the evidence requirement will not be a barrier
for applicants.
Regarding comments about narrowing the focus of EIR, the Department
annually examines the needs of the field and the existing projects in
the EIR portfolio to determine the priorities in that year's
competitions. Although commenters raised concerns that such a priority
could undermine title II, part A, the Department notes that title II,
part A was funded by Congress in FY 2020 and is a separate funding
stream with separate statutory requirements. These final priorities
provide the Department an opportunity to complement those investments
and contribute ideas for ways that teacher voice can be better included
in how professional learning is delivered. The Department also includes
an assurance that grantees will maintain current fiscal and
administrative levels of effort in teacher professional development to
help ensure that this program offers an added value to professional
learning.
The Department agrees that there is value in collaborative
learning, and these priorities allow for teacher-driven decisions to
use stipends in such ways including coaching, job shadows, and other
peer learning opportunities. Applicants also have the discretion to
continue implementing effective collaborative professional learning
that already exists.
Although concerns were raised about not all teachers having access
to the stipend, the Department believes the applicant is best situated
to propose the pool of teachers their proposed program focuses on
(i.e., which teachers may request a stipend). If an applicant were
concerned about between-classroom inequities, they could recruit
teachers who would most likely benefit from personalized support. EIR's
focus on innovation is designed to iteratively test feasibility of
projects before they are scaled to larger settings and populations.
Should the program demonstrate success, such practices could be scaled
for broader use. The Department believes this structure is a strategic
and responsible means of piloting innovation at a small scale at the
nascent phase.
The Department understands that there are a few existing cases of
some degree of teacher choice in professional learning. However, it is
not a broadly adopted policy or practice in education and is in need of
further evaluation. The use of these priorities in EIR is intended to
support field-initiated innovations that either build on existing
efforts for, or initiate systemic changes that increase, teacher
agency. Entities that believe they already have robust systems of
teacher-selected professional learning are not required to apply for a
grant.
Principals continue to have an important role in supporting
teachers and this program is intended to provide an additional set of
resources that reinforce principals' efforts to recruit and retain a
talented pool of professionals. Given that teachers also can have a
vital role in professional learning decisions, this program focuses on
enhancing the ways in which teachers are involved in identifying
professional learning opportunities.
In response to comments about the ability of teachers to be
reflective and self-aware enough to know their needs, the Department
highly respects the teaching profession and teachers as professionals.
As such, we believe that the teachers who request a stipend are likely
to be individuals who are reflective practitioners eager to continue to
hone their craft in a way that best supports the students they teach.
The Department has structured this priority in a way that would
encourage teachers to use data such as student achievement trends,
evaluation or observation results, and other feedback about their
performance to determine what types of
[[Page 45623]]
professional learning the stipend could support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Commenters noted a few areas that were not addressed in
the NPP. Nine commenters emphasized a need for an evaluation
requirement. Four commenters suggested that the Department encourage
piloting or iteration of projects. Four other commenters noted the need
for teacher input on project designs. Three commenters expressed
concerns about equitable access to the program and the need for an
outreach plan to ensure that teachers are aware of the opportunity.
Discussion: The EIR statute includes a requirement for an
independent evaluation; as such, it was not necessary to include an
evaluation requirement in the proposed priorities, but it is included
in EIR notices inviting applications (NIAs). Regarding iterative
development of project ideas, EIR already allows for a planning period
and specifically encourages continuous improvements in project design
and implementation before conducting full-scale implementation and an
evaluation of effectiveness. Additionally, the Department may, in EIR
competitions that use these final priorities, include selection
criteria from the Education Department General Administrative
Regulations related to continuous improvement and periodic assessment
of progress. The Department appreciates the suggestion for honoring
teacher voice and agency by recommending ways that teachers could have
input on proposed projects conducted under these priorities; such input
is likely to help make systems more relevant and user friendly for
teachers. Regarding outreach plans, the Department already included in
the NPP a requirement that applicants describe their planned outreach
(application requirement (b)) and has maintained that requirement.
Changes: The Department has added new requirements (b)(3) and
(b)(4) that provide that applicants must include a summary of the ways
in which teachers were involved in the grant application and the ways
teachers will be involved in key decisions about the proposed project.
Priority 2--State Educational Agency Partnership
Comments: Fourteen commenters supported a priority for State
Educational Agency (SEA) partnerships, including comments such as the
necessity of involving SEAs in projects that include teacher-directed
professional learning in order to coordinate such learning with
certification requirements. Two commenters stated that the SEA role was
not necessary for project success due to local control in their State;
in these settings there are not statewide professional development
requirements, and there is State-mandated district control over
professional development.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments regarding SEA
partnerships and will use these comments to consider including this as
a competitive preference priority for any year in which this program is
in effect. Regardless of how this priority is used to incentivize SEA
partnerships in future competitions, an applicant retains the
discretion of deciding whether or not to enter into a partnership with
an SEA consistent with the program's eligibility requirements.
Changes: None.
Priority 3--Local Educational Agency Partnership
Comments: Eighteen commenters stated that the local educational
agency (LEA) role is critical to teacher-directed professional learning
projects. Commenters noted that teachers are employees of the LEA.
Other commenters explained that an advantage of such a priority would
be that district leaders would ``be able to design the project based on
district goals and priorities. Similarly, there were comments about
how, through this priority, the LEA would have an opportunity to effect
systemic change in that district leaders could create the flexibilities
and conditions to support such a project. One commenter stated that an
LEA partnership is not necessary if the SEA is engaged.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments regarding LEA
partnerships and will use these comments to consider including this as
a competitive preference priority for any year in which this program is
in effect. Regardless of how this priority is used to incentivize LEA
partnerships in future competitions, an applicant retains the
discretion of deciding whether or not to enter into a partnership with
an LEA consistent with the program's eligibility requirements.
Changes: None.
Requirement (a)--Pool of Eligible Teachers
Comments: Two commenters suggested expanded eligibility beyond
teachers to included specialized instructional support personnel and
school leaders. Another commenter suggested that stipends be paid
directly from the Department to teachers.
Discussion: The Department understands that specialized
instructional support personnel and school leaders play important roles
in schools. However, the Department is interested in exploring this
potentially promising idea of teacher-directed professional learning
and, pending the successes of such program, will explore opportunities
to expand the program to a broader set of school-based professionals.
The Department is required to award grants to eligible entities in
a manner consistent with its authorizing statute and thus cannot award
funds, such as stipends, directly to teachers.
Changes: None.
Requirement (c)(3)--Mechanisms To Protect Against Fraud, Waste, and
Abuse
Comments: Three commenters expressed general concerns about the
waste or misuse of stipends, but those comments did not specifically
mention application requirement (c)(3).
Discussion: Under application requirement (c)(3), applicants must
describe mechanisms to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse (e.g.,
monitoring systems, reviews for conflicts of interest). The Department
believes this requirement, in addition to general requirements for
grantees to have fiscal management controls, is sufficient to ensure
grantees monitor the usage of funds and guard against misuse.
Changes: None.
Requirement (d)(1)--Replacing No Less Than a Majority
Comments: Proposed application requirement (d)(1) specified how an
applicant will be expected to update its policies to offer stipends to
teachers such that no less than a majority of existing mandatory
professional development would be replaced by teacher-directed
professional learning. Three commenters supported allowing teachers to
replace a majority of mandatory professional development with teacher-
directed professional development, stating that it will allow teachers
to fulfill certification requirements while recognizing that there is
limited available time for additional professional development. One
commenter stated that, because their State requirements are limited, it
would not be an issue to replace at least a majority of required
professional development with teacher-directed professional
development.
Thirty-six commenters opposed the requirement to replace no less
than a majority of required professional development. One primary
reason for
[[Page 45624]]
this concern was the need for States and local leaders to
systematically prioritize professional learning based on educational
plans and organizational needs such as data trends that reflect a need
for more training in a particular area. For example, a few commenters
described that there are many required ``non-content'' trainings (e.g.,
child abuse, bloodborne pathogens) that leave little room for content-
based learning. Others noted that the employer (i.e., district) needs
to manage their workforce by identifying areas of skills development.
Relatedly, a few commenters shared that teacher input should be at the
forefront of professional learning decisions, but it should not be the
only voice, as district context is also important. Without a mechanism
to sufficiently address district-wide or school-wide needs,
professional learning could be disjointed (some teachers having
training on a district-wide program and others not), incoherent
(teacher-selected learning conflicting with locally determined
approach), or incomplete (important topics being ignored) according to
some of the commenters who opposed the majority replacement
requirement. Two commenters specifically stated that meeting this
requirement would require a legislative change (namely, the in-service
training and licensing requirements set forth by the State legislature)
that would be outside of the authority of an applicant. Additional
concerns included that the requirement would undermine existing
successful collaborative professional learning programs already in
place; in particular, that the districts would be forced to release
teachers from a team-based coaching program. Commenters proposed
alternative approaches, including allowing a smaller portion of
professional development to be teacher-directed (e.g., one teacher-
selected session per year and the remaining district-selected) or
revising the requirement to limit grantees to replacing no more than a
majority of the existing mandatory professional development, stating
that personalized professional learning is only one aspect of high-
quality professional learning.
Discussion: The Department appreciates various comments about the
potential challenges in replacing a majority of required professional
development. The Department believes there continues to be a need for a
systemic change in how teachers engage in professional learning. This
change includes discontinuing requirements that result in ineffective
or irrelevant professional development and do not serve the learning
needs of teachers. The Department appreciates that requiring that
teachers be allowed to replace at least a majority of the existing
mandatory professional development with teacher-directed professional
development may not always be feasible and, in response to the comments
raised, is making revisions. We believe that a 20 percent threshold (in
place of ``majority'') supports incremental, but significant change,
and this percentage balances the need to move the needle while still
keeping it at a level that a majority of eligible applicants will be
able to implement.
Many of the Department's established priorities entail activities
that many eligible applicants lack the authority or capacity to do. We
recognize that professional development is uniquely tied to rules set
by States that most of our eligible applicants will not, if those rules
are a barrier, be able to alter. However, the Department has
established this priority with the express purpose of altering the way
in which teachers engage in professional learning. Each eligible
applicant must assess, based on their own unique needs and
capabilities, whether to respond to this particular funding
opportunity. We note that the EIR NIAs have to date always offered more
than two absolute priorities, so applicants that do not feel they are
in a position to respond to this priority could consider applying under
other priorities.
Changes: The Department has revised language in Proposed Priority 1
and Application Requirement (d)(1) to replace the requirement that
teachers be allowed to replace at least a majority of the existing
mandatory professional development with teacher-directed professional
development with a requirement that teachers be allowed to replace a
``significant portion (no less than 20 percent).'' The Department also
revised the language in Selection Criterion (a), including the addition
of Selection Criterion (i) to tease out the separate components within
the initial criterion.
Requirement (g)(2)--Scaling Practices
Comments: One commenter suggested replacing ``effective'' with
``evidence-based'' in the requirement for applicants to describe
mechanisms for incorporating effective practices discovered through
teacher-directed professional learning into the professional
development curriculum for all teachers.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important to scale
``evidence-based'' practices. However, we also intend for this program
to allow for innovative professional learning to be tested and, if
early indicators show it holds potential promise, then scaling such
practices. Applying the rigorous definitions associated with the
various evidence tiers could have an unintended consequence of stifling
that iterative process.
Changes: None.
Requirement (h)--Assurances
Comments: Regarding the required assurance that an SEA or LEA
involved in the project will maintain current fiscal and administrative
investments in teacher professional development, one commenter stated
that only the State legislature has budget authority, and, as such, the
applicant does not have control over whether it can make the assurance.
Related to the assurance that stipends will not be limited to a
restrictive set of professional learning choices, one commenter noted
that applicants need to maintain an ability to restrict use of the
stipend so that funds are used for professional development that is
instructionally relevant, high quality, and aligned to the identified
needs of high-need students. Two commenters stated that grantees should
not limit or restrict choices.
Discussion: The Department continues to believe it is critical that
this investment does not result in reductions in teacher professional
development spending; if a potential applicant is unable to meet the
conditions included in this assurance, they are not required to apply.
Like many other programs the Department administers, the grant funds
are intended to supplement, and not replace the State's professional
development investment. While the Department seeks to ensure that
grantees do not impose overly restrictive limits on professional
learning, the Department agrees that applicants are also required to
ensure stipends are used for professional learning that is
instructionally relevant, high quality, and aligned to the identified
needs of high-need students. As a result, the Department is adding
language to application requirement (h)(3) to make clear that the
learning options offered may not be ``overly'' restrictive.
Changes: The Department has revised application requirement (h)(3)
to clarify that the allowed learning options may not be ``overly''
restrictive.
Definition--Professional Learning
Comments: Nineteen commenters noted that the definition of the term
``professional learning'' did not include elements that they saw as
helpful (e.g., collaborative, sustained, and data
[[Page 45625]]
driven) and had been included in other legislation. Thus, they
suggested using the definition of ``professional development'' in
section 8101(42) of the ESEA. Eleven commenters emphasized the
importance for teachers to engage in professional learning that is
collaborative. A few commenters also stated that it is important that
professional learning decisions be informed by data. Commenters also
expressed an interest in continuing progress in moving away from ``one-
off'' trainings and instead supporting sustained and intensive
professional learning.
Discussion: The Department agrees that we should revise the
definition of ``professional learning'' to reinforce core elements of
high-quality professional learning. However, the Department does not
adopt the suggestion to use the ESEA definition of ``professional
development'' because this definition includes language about
professional development that is not aligned to the focus on teacher
agency and voice in professional learning decisions; for example, the
ESEA definition references activities that support recruitment efforts
and connections to district improvement plans. Instead, the Department
has added language to the final definition of ``professional learning''
to require that the learning be ``collaborative,'' ``data-driven,'' and
``part of a sustained and intensive program'' to address points raised
in the comments.
Changes: We have revised the definition of ``professional
learning'' to require that the learning be ``collaborative,'' ``data-
driven,'' and ``part of a sustained and intensive program.''
Selection Criterion (b)--Ensuring Professional Learning Is
Instructionally Relevant, High Quality, and Aligned to the Needs of
High-Need Students
Comments: We received 11 comments related to the quality of the
teacher-directed professional learning funded by the stipends.
Commenters emphasized that grantees would need to review requests to
ensure the teacher-selected use of the stipend was for high-quality
professional learning, given an already saturated market of
professional development vendors that range in quality. Those
commenters were also concerned that teachers might select professional
learning not related to teaching. Another commenter suggested that
requested professional learning should not focus on high-need students.
Discussion: The Department agrees that supporting high-quality
professional learning is important and, as such, intends to maintain
application requirements (f)(2) and (h)(2). Under requirement (f)(2),
applicants must describe how teachers' requests meet the ``professional
learning'' definition, which includes requirements of being
instructionally relevant. Under requirement (h)(2), applicants must
assure that project funds will be used for instructionally relevant
learning and not activities such as personal enrichment. We also
include selection criterion (b) regarding how applicants plan to ensure
that professional learning is instructionally relevant, high quality,
and aligned to the identified needs of high-need students. The
Department will also maintain a focus on high-need students consistent
with EIR's authorizing statute,\1\ which includes a focus on high-need
students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESEA Sec. 4611(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: The Department did not make substantive changes to this
definition but did make a technical edit to remove duplicative language
in the criterion that is already addressed in the ``professional
learning'' definition.
Selection Criterion (d)--Ease of Process for Teachers
Comments: Three commenters expressed concern about the potential
burden on teachers to seek professional learning given the expansive
set of options available, potentially making the onus on teachers high
and the task of identifying opportunities time consuming.
Discussion: The Department agrees about the importance of
minimizing the burden on teachers as reflected in selection criterion
(d). Additionally, only eligible teachers who volunteer will
participate in the stipend program. Furthermore, application
requirements (d)(3) and (f)(1) outline expectations for applicants to
have a menu or list of professional learning options. We have included
these requirements as a way to support teacher awareness of available
opportunities.
Changes: None.
FINAL PRIORITIES:
This notice contains three final priorities.
Priority 1--Teacher-Directed Professional Learning.
Under this priority, an applicant must propose a project in which
classroom teachers receive stipends to select professional learning
alternatives that are instructionally relevant and meet their
individual needs related to instructional practices for high-need
students. Additionally, teachers receiving stipends must be allowed the
flexibility to replace a significant portion (no less than 20 percent)
of existing mandatory professional development with such teacher-
directed learning, which must also be allowed to fully count toward any
mandatory teacher professional development goals (e.g., professional
development hours required as part of certification renewal, designated
professional days mandated by districts).
Priority 2--State Educational Agency Partnership.
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate it has
established a partnership between an eligible entity and an SEA (with
either member of the partnership serving as the applicant) to support
the proposed project.
Priority 3--Local Educational Agency Partnership.
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate it has
established a partnership between an eligible entity and an LEA (with
either member of the partnership serving as the applicant) to support
the proposed project.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year
in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
[[Page 45626]]
Final Requirements
This notice contains eight requirements. We may apply one or more
of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
An applicant must--
(a) Describe the pool of teachers eligible to request a stipend,
including whether the applicant intends to prioritize eligibility based
on content areas, strategic staffing initiatives, or other factors (and
including a rationale for how such a determination addresses the needs
of high-need students, as defined by the applicant);
(b) Describe the anticipated level of teacher participation,
including--
(1) Current information on teacher satisfaction with existing
professional learning;
(2) Details on the planned outreach strategy to communicate the
stipend opportunity to eligible teachers;
(3) A summary of the ways in which teachers were involved in
developing the proposed project; and
(4) A plan for how to include teachers in key decisions about the
stipend system;
(c) Describe the proposed stipend structure, including--
(1) Estimated dollar amount per stipend, including associated
expenses related to the professional learning (e.g., materials,
transportation, etc.);
(2) A rationale for how the estimated dollar amount per stipend is
sufficient to ensure access to professional learning activities that
are, at minimum, comparable in quality, frequency, and duration to the
professional development other non-participating teachers will receive
in a given year;
(3) Mechanisms to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse (e.g.,
monitoring systems, reviews for conflicts of interest); and
(4) Plans for how the applicant will select participants if there
is more interest than available stipends (e.g., prioritizing by student
need or teacher need, content area, human capital priorities, rubric-
based review of requests, lottery);
(d) Describe details about the stipend system, including--
(1) How the applicant will update its policies to offer stipends to
teachers such that a significant portion (no less than 20 percent) of
existing mandatory professional development is replaced by teacher-
directed professional learning, including--
(i) The professional development days or activities from which
participating teachers will be released in order to enable teacher-
directed learning opportunities and to ensure that teacher-directed
learning replaces a significant portion of existing mandatory
professional development; or
(ii) Other methods in which participating teachers will be given
the flexibility to participate in teacher-directed learning (e.g., by
providing release from and substitute teacher coverage during regular
instructional days) and how such methods will also ensure participating
teachers are released from a significant portion of existing
professional development requirements;
(2) How the applicant will ensure that teacher-directed learning
will fully substitute for mandatory professional development in meeting
mandatory professional development goals or activities (e.g.,
professional development hours required as part of certification
renewal, district- or contract-required professional development
hours);
(3) How the applicant will provide information to teachers about
professional learning options not previously available to teachers
(e.g., list of innovative options, qualified providers, other
resources); and
(4) In addition to any list of professional learning options or
providers identified by the applicant, mechanisms for teachers to
independently select different high-quality, instructionally relevant
professional learning activities connected to the achievement and
attainment of high-need students (based on teacher-identified needs
such as self-assessment surveys, student assessment data, and
professional growth plans);
(e) Describe strategies for supporting teachers' implementation of
changes in instructional practice as a result of their professional
learning;
(f) Describe the process for managing the stipend system,
including--
(1) For professional learning options that are among a list of
options identified by the applicant: The processes for teachers to
submit their requests to participate in those options in place of a
previously required training and the processes for direct vendor
payment using the stipend; and
(2) For professional learning options selected by a teacher that
are not on the applicant's list of options: How the applicant will
determine that the activity meets the definition of ``professional
learning'' and is reasonable, and what processes the applicant will
implement to ensure payment or timely reimbursement to teachers;
(g) Describe the proposed strategy to expand the use of
professional learning stipends (pending the results of the evaluation),
including--
(1) Plans for continuously improving the stipend system in order
to, over time, offer more teachers the opportunity to engage in
teacher-directed professional learning and, for participating teachers,
ensure a higher percentage of all mandatory professional learning is
teacher-directed; and
(2) Mechanisms for incorporating effective practices discovered
through teacher-directed professional learning into the professional
development curriculum for all teachers; and
(h) Provide an assurance that--
(1) At a minimum, the SEA or LEA involved in the project (as an
applicant, partner, or implementation site) will maintain its current
fiscal and administrative levels of effort in teacher professional
development and allow the professional learning activities funded
through the stipends to supplement the level of effort that is
typically supported by the applicant;
(2) Project funds will only be used for instructionally relevant
professional learning activities and not solely for obtaining advanced
degrees, taking or preparing for licensure exams, or for pursuing
personal enrichment activities; and
(3) Projects will allow for a variety professional learning options
for teachers and not limit use of the stipend to an overly restrictive
set of choices (for example, professional learning provided only by the
applicant or partners, specific pedagogical or philosophical
viewpoints, or organizations with specific methodological stances). The
applicant and any application partners will not be the primary
financial beneficiaries of the professional learning stipends, and
there is no conflict between the applicant, any application partner,
and the purpose of providing teachers the autonomy to select their own
professional learning opportunities.
FINAL DEFINITION:
This notice includes one final definition. We may apply this
definition in any year in which this program is in effect.
Professional learning means instructionally relevant activities to
improve and increase classroom teachers'--
(1) Content knowledge;
(2) Understanding of instructional strategies and intervention
techniques for high-need students, including how best to analyze and
use data to inform such strategies and techniques; and
(3) Classroom management skills to better support high-need
students.
[[Page 45627]]
Professional learning must be job-embedded or classroom-focused,
collaborative, data-driven, part of a sustained and intensive program,
and related to the achievement and attainment of high-need students.
Professional learning may include innovative activities such as peer
shadowing opportunities, virtual mentoring, online modules,
professional learning communities, communities of practice, action
research, micro-credentials, and coaching support.
FINAL SELECTION CRITERIA:
This notice contains eight selection criteria for evaluating an
application under this program. We may apply one or more of these
selection criteria in any year in which this program is in effect.
(a) The sufficiency of the stipend amount to enable professional
learning funded through the stipend to replace a significant portion of
existing mandatory professional development for participating teachers.
(b) The adequacy of plans to ensure that stipends are appropriately
used for high-quality professional learning.
(c) The extent to which the proposed project will offer teachers
flexibility and autonomy regarding the extent of the choice teachers
have in selecting their professional learning.
(d) The likelihood that the procedures and resources for teachers
result in a simple process to select or request professional learning
based on their professional learning needs and those identified needs
of high-need students.
(e) The likelihood that the professional learning supported through
the stipends will result in sustained positive changes in teachers'
instructional practices.
(f) The likelihood that the professional learning supported through
the stipends will result in improved student outcomes.
(g) The extent to which the proposed payment structure will enable
teachers to have an opportunity to apply for and use the stipend with
minimal burden.
(h) The adequacy of procedures for leveraging the stipend program
to inform continuous improvement and systematic changes to professional
learning.
(i) The extent to which professional learning funded through the
stipend will replace existing mandatory professional development for
participating teachers.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as
not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new rule that the Department
proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and that
imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two
deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2020, any new incremental costs
associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because the
regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of Executive
Order 13771 do not apply.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definition,
and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Summary of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that these
final priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria will
not impose significant costs on the entities eligible to apply for EIR.
We also believe that the benefits of implementing the final priorities
justify any associated costs.
[[Page 45628]]
The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements
and those we have determined as necessary for administering the
Department's programs and activities. Entities selected for awards
under section 4611 of the ESEA will be able to pay the costs associated
with implementing projects related to teacher-directed professional
learning experiences with grant funds. Thus, the costs of these final
priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria will not
be a significant burden for any eligible applicant.
Priority 1 gives the Department the opportunity to elevate the
teaching profession by increasing the available funds for professional
learning while requiring that applicants maintain current levels of
investment. Additionally, by acknowledging teachers' ability to
identify their professional learning needs and empowering them to
select professional learning opportunities to meet those needs, we
believe that this priority could result in a number of changes
including reducing personal costs that teachers incur when they must
pay for professional learning that they want through their own means if
their school, district, or State will not pay for the professional
learning. We also believe that teachers are more likely to have a
committed investment in professional learning that they select, thereby
enhancing the benefits of professional learning, including, but not
limited to, increased knowledge and skills. Such changes have the
potential to change instructional practices in ways that will improve
student outcomes.
Priorities 2 and 3 may have the result of shifting at least some of
the Department's grants among eligible entities by giving the
Department the opportunity to prioritize partnerships that might be
well suited to achieve the purposes of Priority 1. By prioritizing
projects that are supported by an SEA or LEA--entities that establish
professional development requirements--the Department is increasing the
likelihood that such teacher-driven approaches can be implemented more
widely, should they be determined as more effective. Because these
final priorities would neither expand nor restrict the universe of
eligible entities for any Department grant program, and since
application submission and participation in our discretionary grant
programs is voluntary, there are not costs associated with this
priority.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small
Business Administration Size Standards define ``small entities'' as
for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts),
with a population of less than 50,000.
The small entities that this regulatory action would affect are
public or private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including
institutions of higher education, that may apply. We believe that the
costs imposed on an applicant by the final priorities, requirements,
definition, and selection criteria will be limited to paperwork burden
related to preparing an application and that the benefits of
implementing these final priorities will outweigh any costs incurred by
the applicant.
Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible
entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the
availability of teacher-selected professional learning. Therefore, we
do not believe that the final priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria will significantly impact entities beyond the
potential for receiving additional support should the entity receive a
competitive grant from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
of information, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact
of collection requirements on respondents.
The final program priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria contain information collection requirements (ICR)
for the program application package. As a result of the revisions to
these sections, we are submitting the grant application package with
OMB control number 1855-0021 for a reinstatement with change. In Table
1 below, we assume 50 applicants each spend 30 hours preparing their
applications.
Table 1--EIR Grants Program Information Collection Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
OMB control No. Expiration Current burden burden (total Proposed action under
(total hours) hours) final rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1855-0021....................... July 31, 2023......... 1,500 1,500 Reinstatement with
change of 1855-0021.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 program contact 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 free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal
[[Page 45629]]
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.
Frank T. Brogan,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2020-15993 Filed 7-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P