# Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-31189 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** December 15, 2010 - **Citation:** 75 FR 78486 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket ID ED-OS-2010-0011] RIN 1894-AA00 Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs. SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education announces priorities and definitions to be used for any appropriate discretionary grant program in fiscal year (FY) 2011 and future years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on expanding the number of Department programs and projects that support activities in areas of greatest educational need. We are establishing these priorities on a Department-wide basis. This action permits the Department to use, as appropriate for particular discretionary grant programs, one or more of these priorities in any discretionary grant competition. We also announce definitions of key terms used in these priorities. DATES: Effective Date: These priorities and definitions are effective January 14, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margo Anderson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W311, Washington, DC 20202-5910. Telephone: (202) 205-3010 or by e-mail at: Margo.Anderson@ed.gov. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The President has set a clear goal for our education system: By 2020, the United States will once again lead the world in the proportion of citizens holding college degrees or other postsecondary credentials. To support the national effort to meet this goal, the Secretary has outlined an ambitious, comprehensive education agenda that includes early learning programs that help ensure that children are ready to succeed in school, elementary and secondary schools that keep children on track to graduate from high school with the knowledge and skills needed for success in college and careers, and a higher education system that gives every individual the opportunity to attend and graduate from a postsecondary program. To ensure that the Department's discretionary grant programs effectively spur innovation, promote the development and implementation of effective and sustainable practices, and support adoption and implementation of necessary reforms, the Secretary announces priorities in three key areas: advancing key cradle-to-career educational reforms, addressing the needs of student subgroups, and building capacity for systemic continuous improvement. 1 1 Reminder of Accountability Requirements: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the Secretary may consider the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds and its compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality. Under 34 CFR 74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary may impose special conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 34 CFR part 74 or 80, as applicable; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible. In making a continuation award, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the extent to which a grantee has made “substantial progress toward meeting the objectives in its approved application.” This consideration includes the review of a grantee's progress in meeting the targets and projected outcomes in its approved application, and whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget. In making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances and, in making a continuation award, considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with its current assurances, including those under applicable Federal civil rights laws and the regulations in 34 CFR parts 100 through 110 that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474. We published a notice of proposed priorities and definitions (NPP) for the Department in the Federal Register on August 5, 2010 (75 FR 47284). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities and definitions. The Department has made several significant changes from the NPP. We explain these changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in this notice. Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, approximately 150 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities and definitions. We discuss substantive issues that pertain to all of the priorities generally under a “General Comments” section. We discuss substantive issues that are specific to a particular priority under the title of the priority to which those issues pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes or comments that are outside of the scope of the proposed priorities and definitions. Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities and definitions since publication of the NPP follows. General Comments Comment: We received a number of comments that appeared to reflect that commenters may have misunderstood the purpose and intended use of these priorities. One commenter stated that it was unclear how the priorities would “interact” with current and future discretionary grant programs. Another commenter asked whether the Department intended for these priorities to supersede authorizing language that establishes the purpose, eligibility, and use of funds that Congress typically includes in legislation. Some commenters asked whether the discretionary grant programs funded under Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) would be superseded by the priorities and argued that the IDEA Part D programs should remain as separate discretionary grant programs to ensure that the unique needs of students with disabilities are met. Other commenters asked how the Department would select the programs that would be subject to these priorities. Discussion: We want to be clear that the focus of any discretionary grant program is established by its authorizing legislation. Congress, through its actions, determines how funds are to be used, and the Department develops application notices and awards grants in a manner consistent with the authorizing statute and Congressional intent. Within the parameters of the authorizing statute, the Department often has flexibility in shaping the uses of funds for a specific discretionary grant program or in targeting funds for specific entities or needs and may, and often does, exercise that discretion by choosing to issue regulations for an individual program. The Department also has the flexibility under its general rulemaking authority to establish more general priorities that could apply to a number of different programs, and the Department has chosen to take that path with the establishment of these priorities. In any given discretionary program, the Department may decide to include one or more of these priorities in a notice inviting applications for a grant competition, but only if doing so is consistent with the program statute and applicable regulations. When a priority includes several priority areas, the Department may choose to include all of the priority areas or select those that are most appropriate and applicable, consistent with the program statute and applicable regulations. For example, Priority 1 (Improving Early Learning Outcomes) includes the following five priority areas: (a) Physical well-being and motor development; (b) social-emotional development; (c) language and literacy development; (d) cognition and general knowledge, including early numeracy and literacy development; and (e) cognition and general knowledge, including numeracy and early scientific development. The Department could select all or some of the priority areas (a) through (e) to include in a given notice, assuming that doing so would be consistent with the program statute and applicable regulations. These priorities will not supersede the discretionary grant programs authorized under Part D of the IDEA. Rather, in administering competitions for particular discretionary grant programs, including those authorized under Part D of the IDEA ( e.g., teacher preparation programs, technical assistance programs), the Department may use one or more of these priorities to focus the competition on a particular area consistent with the overall intent and the applicable statutory parameters of the program. The Department will select the programs that will use these priorities based on this framework. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters requested clarification regarding how the Department decides whether to designate a priority as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority. Discussion: Under the Department's regulations (34 CFR 75.105), the Department has the authority to select the programs that would be subject to these priorities and to designate each priority as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority, consistent with the authorizing statute that establishes the program. The Department considers the relative importance, appropriateness, and significance of a priority in determining whether to consider only applications that meet the priority ( i.e., an absolute priority); to award additional points to an application meeting the priority or to select an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority ( i.e., a competitive preference priority); or to encourage applications that address the priority, but to give no preference to applications that do so ( i.e., an invitational priority). Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that issuing these priorities as final would preempt the opportunity for the public to comment on how the priorities will be used in particular programs and urged the Department to clarify whether there will be opportunities for the public to comment on how the priorities will be used on a program-by-program basis. Several commenters expressed concern that the priorities appear to effectively create and implement education policy outside of the legislative process and without the involvement of stakeholders and elected officials. One commenter recommended that there be a more complete and open review of the proposed priorities and that Congressional hearings be held to review the notice before it is finalized; absent such hearings, the commenter recommended that the Department provide Congressional committees with periodic reports or appear at oversight hearings to review the impact of these priorities and definitions on education. Discussion: As stated in the NPP, the purpose of establishing these priorities is to permit the Department to use, as appropriate for particular discretionary grant programs, one or more of these priorities in any discretionary grant competition. Establishing these final priorities will permit the Department to include one or more of them in a notice inviting applications without having to go through a public notice-and-comment process each time the Department wishes to use one or more of these priorities in a discretionary grant program. This action, therefore, generally will allow the Department to conduct grant competitions and make awards in a timelier manner and thereby better serve States, districts, institutions, and other grantees. The Secretary is not establishing these priorities outside of the legislative process but rather pursuant to his general authority to promulgate regulations (20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474). We disagree that stakeholders have not had the opportunity to provide sufficient input. Approximately 150 commenters offered feedback and recommendations on the proposed priorities. We received valuable input from the public and took commenters' recommendations into account in drafting these final priorities and definitions. Indeed, as explained elsewhere in this notice, we are making several changes to the final priorities and definitions to address commenters' feedback, as well as adding several priorities in response to comments received. Changes: None. Comment: We received several comments from individuals who construed the priorities to be part of the Department's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization proposal and objected to what they believed was the consolidation and conversion of existing formula grant programs into competitive grants. Discussion: These priorities will provide flexibility for the Department to include one or more of these priorities in a notice inviting applications for existing competitive grant programs if doing so is consistent with the program statute and regulations. With these priorities, we do not intend to consolidate or convert existing ESEA formula grant programs into competitive grant programs. Changes: None. Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that projects proposing to serve students with disabilities were not proposed as a separate priority. Other commenters stated that the needs of students with disabilities should be addressed in all of the proposed priorities, not just in a few. Discussion: These priorities serve all students, including students with disabilities. Additionally, students with disabilities are specifically referred to in several of the priorities. For example, new Priority 9 (proposed Priority 6) (Improving Achievement and High School Graduation Rates) specifically focuses on projects that accelerate learning and help improve high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates for students with disabilities. New Priority 10 (proposed Priority 7) (Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education) specifically refers to individuals with disabilities as one of the groups that are traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers and for which this priority could be used to increase the number of such students that have access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM and are prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM. In addition, we have included a specific reference to students with disabilities in the definition of high-need children and high-need students, which is used in Priority 1 (Improving Early Learning Outcomes), new Priority 8 (proposed Priority 5) (Increasing Postsecondary Success), and new Priority 9 (proposed Priority 6) (Improving Achievement and High School Graduation Rates). In sum, we believe that we have included specific references to students with disabilities where such references are most appropriate and would be most helpful in targeting funds on activities that would improve services to, and outcomes for, such students. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that only Priority 1 (Improving Early Learning Outcomes) included a focus on literacy. The commenter stated that literacy instruction is a fundamental instructional priority for elementary and secondary students and recommended that literacy instruction and professional development be added as a separate priority or integrated throughout the priorities. Discussion: We agree that literacy is essential to students' success in school. Although literacy instruction is not specifically referenced in every priority, the purpose of these priorities is to help improve student achievement and ensure that all children are ready to succeed in school and are on track to graduate from high school with the knowledge and skills needed for success in college and careers. Thus, we think that literacy instruction is encompassed within the priorities. We, therefore, do not believe that a separate priority with a specific focus on literacy instruction is needed. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern about using any of the priorities for the Federal TRIO Programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The commenter recommended that these priorities be incorporated into separate, specialized competitions that would provide supplemental funds to currently-funded TRIO grantees. The commenter stated that imposing these priorities could potentially deny services to students who are otherwise eligible to participate in TRIO programs and that the legislative history of TRIO clearly rejects the use of any priorities other than those that promote continuity of student services through the consideration of the prior experience of grant applications in successfully providing TRIO services. Discussion: These priorities are not intended to replace the priorities applicable to the TRIO programs under Title IV of the HEA. As mentioned earlier, this action will provide flexibility for the Department to include one or more of these priorities in a notice inviting applications if doing so is consistent with the authorizing statute. We do not agree with the commenter's suggestion that these priorities should not be applied to the TRIO programs. The Department has the authority to establish appropriate priorities for the TRIO programs and has done so in the past. We believe that certain of these priorities are fully consistent with and will contribute to achieving the goals of the TRIO programs and accordingly may apply the priorities to one or more of the TRIO programs, as appropriate. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that new Priority 11 (proposed Priority 8) (Promoting Diversity), which focuses on projects that are designed to promote student diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, will provide significant educational benefits to all students. However, the commenter expressed concern about the absence of a priority on achieving gender equity. Discussion: We agree that all students should have equal access to high-quality education programs and have made this explicit in new Priority 10 (proposed Priority 7) (Promoting STEM Education), which specifically refers to groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women. Given this priority and new Priority 11 (proposed Priority 8) (Promoting Diversity), we do not believe it is necessary to have a separate priority on gender equity. Changes: None. Comment: We received a number of recommendations to add other priorities to this notice. One commenter recommended including in all of the priorities a requirement that applicants use “universal design for learning” in their projects. Another commenter stated that the priorities lack a substantive focus on the arts, history, social science, and physical education. One commenter recommended adding a priority that focuses on increasing and protecting the rights of young people by ending domestic and dating violence. Discussion: While we appreciate the commenters' recommendations for additional priorities, we believe that the priorities included in this notice have the greatest potential to significantly improve student achievement and student outcomes, and to ensure that the Department's discretionary grant programs effectively spur innovation and promote the development and implementation of effective and sustainable practices. In addition, we believe these priorities support adoption of the reforms needed to meet the President's goal for the U.S. by 2020 to once again lead the world in the proportion of citizens holding college degrees or other postsecondary credentials. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Department did not provide sufficient time for public comment on the proposed priorities. This commenter also stated that because the Department published the proposed priorities at the beginning of the school year, school leaders and educators did not have enough time to provide meaningful feedback on the proposed priorities. The commenter requested that the Department provide an additional 30 days for comment on the proposed priorities. Discussion: As we stated earlier, we believe the 30-day comment period was sufficient to ensure timely and meaningful comment on the proposed priorities. We understand that the timing of Department notices may not always be optimal for all education stakeholders. The Department strives to balance the needs of our stakeholders with our desire for public input. In addition, we take into consideration our need to publish discretionary grant notices in a timely manner so that applicants have sufficient time to prepare their applications and the Department has sufficient time to conduct a thorough peer review of those applications. We decline to provide an additional 30 days for public comment because to do so would limit our ability to use these priorities in our notices inviting applications for discretionary grants as early as possible in FY 2011, while also making timely awards. Changes: None. Priority 1—Improving Early Learning Outcomes Comment: One commenter expressed concern that Priority 1 could be used for projects that are focused solely on children in the early elementary years rather than on projects that address the needs of early learners from birth through third grade. Another commenter stated that rather than focusing on the entire birth-through-third grade continuum, the priority should focus on distinct age groups within the continuum ( i.e., infants and toddlers, three- and four-year old children, and primary-grade children). Discussion: Our intent is to use this priority across a number of different programs. Therefore, we do not want to unnecessarily limit its focus by requiring all projects to address the entire birth-through-third grade continuum. We are adding language to make this clear. Changes: We have added the parenthetical, “(or for any age group of high-need children within this range)” following “birth through third grade.” The introduction to Priority 1 now reads: “Projects that are designed to improve school readiness and success for high-need children (as defined in this notice) from birth through third grade (or for any age group of high-need children within this range) through a focus on one or more of the following priority areas.” Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the priority's option for projects to address one or more of the priority areas ( e.g., physical well-being and motor development, social-emotional development, language and literacy development), rather than requiring projects to address all of the priority areas. The commenter stated that projects focusing on only one of the priority areas might not improve school readiness for high-need children. Discussion: The focus of each of the Department's discretionary grant programs is determined by the program's authorizing statute that directs, and generally determines, how funds can be used. For example, there are discretionary grant funds that can only be used to support literacy activities but cannot be used for activities focused on physical well-being and motor development. We intend to ensure that Priority 1 can be used in a range of Department programs. Therefore, we have chosen to allow programs to select one or more of the priority areas under Priority 1 and decline to make the change requested by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended that Priority 1 include topics that are the subject of other proposed priorities. One commenter recommended adding a focus on improving the effectiveness of teachers who teach young children. Another commenter recommended adding a focus on the needs of young children with parents who are serving in the military. One commenter recommended including a focus on improving and aligning State standards in all early learning domains and ensuring that curricula and instructional assessments are consistent with expert recommendations. Another commenter recommended including a focus on effective collaboration, coordination, and data-based decision-making. Discussion: The priority does not preclude applicants from proposing the projects suggested by the commenters, so long as the proposals address one or more of the priority areas identified and comply with the applicable statute and program regulations. We believe that it is unnecessary to add a focus in Priority 1 on areas that are the same as those covered in other priorities because the Department can use more than one priority for a particular discretionary grant program competition. For example, if the Department wishes to focus a competition on improving the effectiveness of teachers who teach young children, it can include both Priority 1 (Improving Early Learning Outcomes) and Priority 3 (Improving the Effectiveness and Distribution of Effective Teachers and Principals) in its notice inviting applications. On the other hand, in some competitions it might not be appropriate or legally allowable to focus Priority 1 on specific issues or populations; framing the priority in a flexible manner, as we have done, would allow the Department to use it in such a context. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended that language be added to the priority to emphasize meeting the diverse needs of children, including those who exhibit early signs of disabilities or giftedness. Another commenter stated that Priority 1 should address the special needs of English learners. Discussion: Priority 1 focuses on high-need children from birth through third grade. As defined in this notice, the term high-need children and high-need students includes children and students at risk of educational failure, and specifically refers to English learners and children and students with disabilities as examples of high-need children. As written, the definition would also encompass children who are gifted if those children are at risk of educational failure. Therefore, we have concluded that it is unnecessary to include the additional language suggested by the commenters. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended replacing “education” with “early learning and education” to emphasize the importance of improving the quality of education from “cradle to career.” Discussion: In this priority, we believe “education” broadly includes “early learning” and, therefore, decline to make the change suggested by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that children participating in camp programs show significant growth in such areas as self-esteem, independence, and leadership, and recommended that outcome-based camp programs be deemed eligible recipients of funds under any of the Department's discretionary grant programs that use Priority 1. Another commenter stated that Priority 1 should be an absolute priority or a competitive preference priority in all Department discretionary grant programs in order to emphasize the importance of investments in young children. One commenter recommended that reviewers of proposals submitted in competitions that apply Priority 1 should include professionals with expertise in each phase of child development, including the development of infants and toddlers. Discussion: This notice does not address the issue of who is eligible to apply for particular grants or whether a priority is designated as an absolute priority, competitive preference priority, or invitational priority. Those decisions are determined by the authorizing legislation and by the Department in announcing individual competitions. In addition, it would not be appropriate to apply Priority 1 to every Department competition as many of our competitive programs (such as those in the areas of higher education and vocational rehabilitation) have no real connection to early learning. Similarly, we will not address the peer review process here, other than to reassure the commenter that as part of the Department's competitive grant process, the Department selects reviewers based on their expertise in the area or areas to be addressed in each discretionary grant program. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended adding “creative arts” to the priority areas included in Priority 1. The commenter stated that engaging children in creative arts can improve their learning in other developmental areas. Another commenter recommended including a priority area that focuses on curricula that encourage communication and reasoning and provide children with an “atmosphere of respect, encouragement, and enthusiasm for learning.” Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to make the changes requested by the commenters because the priority areas in Priority 1 already include “approaches toward learning,” which refers to a child's disposition over a range of attitudes, habits, and learning styles, including the capacity for invention, creativity, and imagination. These are demonstrated through all domains, including creative arts. Priority 1 could, therefore, be used to fund projects that use creative arts or other curricula in order to improve school readiness and success for high-need children, provided such a focus was supported by the program statute and regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add “early career exploration” as a priority area to Priority 1. The commenter stated that it is important to expose children to role models early in life and to avoid the development of biases and stereotypes that could possibly evolve into barriers for students' success in their careers and life in general. Discussion: We believe that adding language on early career exploration to Priority 1 would unnecessarily limit the focus of the priority. However, a project that focuses on early career exploration for high-need children from birth through third grade could be responsive to priority area (d) if the project used early career exploration as an approach to learning that would improve school readiness and success for high-need children, and if such a focus was authorized by the program statute and regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended revising Priority 1 to emphasize alignment and coordination with existing early childhood programs that are serving infants, toddlers, and young children ( e.g., programs under the IDEA). Discussion: While we agree that early childhood programs should coordinate with each other, we decline to make the suggested change because the priority focuses on the outcomes to be achieved—improving school readiness and success—rather than on the specific strategies that an applicant may choose for attaining an outcome. Changes: None. Priority 2—Implementing Internationally Benchmarked, College- and Career-Ready Elementary and Secondary Academic Standards Comment: We received several comments regarding the content and nature of the academic standards supported by projects under this priority. One commenter expressed concern that the priority would support projects using only academic standards developed under the Common Core State Standards initiative; this commenter recommended that the Department use the priority to support implementation of other rigorous academic standards commonly used in States, such as standards for Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses. Two commenters suggested that the Department revise the priority to include support for projects using academic standards that are rigorous but might not be common among multiple States; one of these commenters expressed concern that, with this priority, the Department is advocating for national academic standards that might not be suitable in all States or regions of the country. Discussion: The Department does not require that any specific academic standards be supported to meet this priority, only that they be internationally benchmarked, ensure that students graduate from high school college- and career-ready, and be held in common by multiple States. While we are not mandating the use of specific academic standards, and will not apply Priority 2 to restrict applicants to using only one set of standards, the Department believes strongly that adoption of common K-12 academic standards by States will provide a foundation for more efficient and effective creation of the assessment, instructional, and professional development resources needed to implement a coherent system of teaching and learning. The Department intends to use this priority to support the implementation of academic standards that are common among multiple States and are adopted voluntarily by States and their local educational agencies (LEAs). Changes: None. Comment: A number of commenters recommended that the Department revise the priority to include support for projects advancing the implementation of a broader range of standards. Commenters recommended standards in the following areas: social, emotional, cultural, vocational, physical skills, civics, and health and sexuality. In addition, one commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to include support for “21st Century skills” standards, including critical thinking and other skills relating to employment. Some of these commenters argued that mastery of these standards is also needed if students are to be career-ready. Discussion: The Department recognizes that development of standards in many of the areas mentioned by the commenters is important, and we commend the work that States and other stakeholders may be undertaking to develop common and rigorous standards in these areas. This priority could be used to support implementation of those standards as well, if they are internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready, and held in common by multiple States. Changes: None. Comment: We received several comments recommending that the Department provide greater specificity in terms of the projects that the priority could support. One commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to mention specifically that projects in career and technical education may support the implementation of college- and career-ready standards. Another commenter suggested that the Department revise paragraph (a) of the priority to support the development and implementation of specific types of assessments including: Longitudinal assessments ( i.e., assessments that measure student growth over time); assessments that include performance tasks; portfolio assessments; and assessments that incorporate classroom-based observations. Another commenter recommended that the Department revise paragraph (c) of the priority to specify the types of professional development or preparation programs that may be used to meet the priority; the commenter recommended that only programs that are research-based and include clinical experiences (such as teacher residency programs) be permitted under the priority. We also received several comments recommending that we provide greater specificity on the types of student subgroups that projects under the priority should serve. Several commenters recommended that we revise the priority to include a focus on projects implementing college- and career-ready academic standards for students with diverse learning needs, including gifted, talented, and other advanced students, as well as students with disabilities. Another commenter recommended that we revise the priority to include a focus on projects implementing standards for highly mobile students. Discussion: We decline to revise the priority in the manner recommended by the commenters as such changes could unnecessarily limit the applicability of the priority across Department programs. We note that the types of projects mentioned by the commenters would not be prohibited under this priority and that, in a program using the priority, such projects may be allowable provided they comply with applicable program statutes and regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise paragraph (a) of the priority to support the development and implementation of assessments that are both aligned with college- and career-ready academic standards and designed to improve teaching and learning. The commenter asserted that this revision would help clarify that assessments can be used for instructional improvement as well as for accountability purposes. Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the importance of supporting projects that improve instruction and learning. To promote this goal, we are revising the priority so that the goal of improved instruction and learning applies to all projects covered by the priority. Changes: We have revised the introduction to Priority 2 by adding “and to improve instruction and learning” following “held in common by multiple States.” With this revision, the introduction reads as follows: “Projects that are designed to support the implementation of internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready academic standards held in common by multiple States and to improve instruction and learning, including projects in one or more of the following priority areas.” Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise paragraph (b) of the priority to include support for the development and implementation of curricula as well as instructional materials. The commenter asserted that more attention should be paid to the development of curricula aligned with new college- and career-ready standards. Discussion: We agree with the commenter and are revising this paragraph of the priority to include support for the development and implementation of curricula aligned with college- and career-ready standards. Changes: We have added “curriculum or” before “instructional materials” in paragraph (b) of this priority. With this revision, paragraph (b) reads as follows: “The development or implementation of curriculum or instructional materials aligned with those standards.” Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise paragraph (d) of the priority to include support for ongoing school-level support systems, as well as strategies that translate standards into classroom practice. The commenter asserted that more attention should be paid to the support structures needed to implement new college- and career-ready academic standards with fidelity. Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concerns; however, we do not believe we should specify the strategies that may be used under paragraph (d) as this could limit the applicability of the priority across Department programs. Further, we believe that implementing school-level support systems is a strategy for translating standards into classroom practice and, therefore, is already covered under the priority. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to include an additional paragraph promoting equity of conditions and resources for implementing college- and career-ready academic standards across schools. Discussion: We believe that funding projects through programs using this priority promotes equity in schools' abilities to implement college- and career-ready academic standards and, accordingly, that the revision recommended by the commenter is unnecessary. Changes: None. Priority 3—Improving the Effectiveness and Distribution of Effective Teachers or Principals Comment: Several commenters recommended that we revise this priority to include preparation, recruitment, retention, professional development, and increasing salaries as ways of improving teacher and principal effectiveness or ensuring the equitable distribution of teachers and principals. Other commenters suggested more specific methods for improving the effectiveness of teachers and principals, such as: Providing teachers with opportunities to mentor each other to prevent isolation; training teachers and principals to identify and address unique learning needs; supporting professional development programs; providing teachers with a daily planning period; supporting teacher preparation programs; and requiring teachers to acquire different credentials for different geographic areas. Discussion: The Department agrees that improving the preparation, recruitment, retention, and professional development of teachers and principals, and improving their compensation systems can be effective methods for improving teacher and principal effectiveness and the equitable distribution of teachers and principals. We also believe that improving the evaluation of teachers and principals and implementing performance-based certification and retention systems can improve the effectiveness and distribution of teachers and principals. Therefore, we are revising the priority to include these activities as examples of methods that a project might use under this priority. However, we do not believe it is necessary to reference the more specific activities suggested by the commenters as this level of specificity may inadvertently limit the focus of the priority. We note that this priority would not preclude an applicant from focusing its project on these specific activities, provided such a focus was authorized by the program statute and regulations. Changes: We have added “improving the preparation, recruitment, development, and evaluation of teachers and principals; implementing performance-based certification and retention systems; and reforming compensation and advancement systems” as examples of the types of methods that might be used to improve teacher and principal effectiveness. Comment: Several commenters suggested that we revise the priority to clarify how States and school districts should evaluate teachers and principals. A number of these commenters expressed concern that student test scores would be the only evaluation measure that would be supported under the priority. One commenter recommended that continued and sustained growth in student achievement is the best way to evaluate teachers and principals. Several commenters suggested that the Department provide more flexibility in the definitions of effective teacher and effective principal to take into account different State and local contexts. Other commenters suggested that the Department revise the priority to include the use of positive learning conditions as an example of a supplemental evaluation measure. A number of commenters expressed concerns regarding the proposed definitions of effective principal, effective teacher, highly effective principal, and highly effective teacher. Several commenters objected to assessing principal and teacher effectiveness based in significant part on student achievement on standardized tests and questioned the validity and reliability of “value-added” measures. Others stated that measures of growth in student achievement have not been adequately studied for the purposes of evaluating teachers and principals and expressed concerns about implementing such systems in a manner that is fair, reliable, and valid. Discussion: We agree that the priority should take into account the varied contexts of States and districts, including the fact that some States have made great strides toward establishing high-quality teacher and principal evaluation systems that take into account student growth, in significant part, along with multiple measures of effectiveness, while other States have not yet progressed to that point. Thus, to clarify the Department's intent, we are revising the priority to ensure that the priority is applicable to States and districts that have in place high-quality teacher and principal evaluation systems, as well as States and districts where such systems are not yet established. The new language focuses on measuring teacher and principal effectiveness using data that include student growth in significant part, but does not require student achievement or student growth data to be the only measure of teacher or principal effectiveness; other measures, such as those proposed by the commenters, could be included as measures of effectiveness under this priority. Given these changes, the definitions of effective principal, effective teacher, highly effective principal, and highly effective teacher are no longer needed and we are removing them from this priority. Changes: We have revised Priority 3 to read as follows: “Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas: (a) Increasing the number or percentage of teachers or principals who are effective or reducing the number or percentage of teachers or principals who are ineffective, particularly in high-poverty schools (as defined in this notice) including through such activities as improving the preparation, recruitment, development, and evaluation of teachers and principals; implementing performance-based certification and retention systems; and reforming compensation and advancement systems. (b) Increasing the retention, particularly in high-poverty schools (as defined in this notice), and equitable distribution of teachers or principals who are effective. For the purposes of this priority, teacher and principal effectiveness should be measured using: (1) Teacher or principal evaluation data, in States or local educational agencies that have in place a high-quality teacher or principal evaluation system that takes into account student growth (as defined in this notice) in significant part and uses multiple measures that, in the case of teachers, may include observations for determining teacher effectiveness (such as systems that meet the criteria for evaluation systems under the Race to the Top program as described in criterion (D)(2)(ii) of the Race to the Top notice inviting applications (74 FR 59803)); or (2) Data that include, in significant part, student achievement (as defined in this notice) or student growth (as defined in this notice) data and may include multiple measures in States or local educational agencies that do not have the teacher or principal evaluation systems described in paragraph (1).” Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department revise the priority to identify other types of educational support staff, such as administrators, therapists, and early learning practitioners. Discussion: We agree that a wide array of educators and school personnel is critical to student success. However we have decided to focus this priority on improving the effectiveness of classroom teachers and principals because of their critical importance in raising student achievement. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority be revised to take into consideration applicable negotiated labor agreements and other legal obligations. Discussion: It is the responsibility of each applicant to ensure that its proposed project under this or any other priority takes into consideration any applicable Federal, State, or local legal obligations. It is also the responsibility of each applicant to ensure that its proposal abides by any applicable labor agreements. Changes: None. Comment: None. Discussion: In reviewing the proposed priorities, we noticed that paragraph (b) of this priority regarding the retention and equitable distribution of teachers or principals who are effective should have included a reference to the retention of such teachers and principals in high-poverty schools. We are including this reference in the final priority. Changes: We have revised paragraph (b) of the priority to add,“particularly in high-poverty schools (as defined in this notice),” after the word “retention.” Priority 4—Turning Around Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools Comment: A number of commenters recommended that we revise the priority to include specific strategies to turn around persistently lowest-achieving schools. Many commenters recommended that the priority mention expanded learning time, including after-school and summer programs, as an acceptable approach to turning around schools. One commenter recommended revising the priority to provide support for career and technical education as a strategy to improve student achievement and increase graduation rates. Another commenter suggested that the Department revise the priority to encourage the use of technology to increase the capacity of schools to improve student achievement and graduation rates. One commenter expressed concern that the proposed priority did not mention “response to intervention” as a successful strategy for improving results for at-risk students. Another commenter recommended that the Department add language to specify that services be aligned with the efforts of other agencies in order to create a coordinated system of supports. Discussion: We appreciate commenters' suggestions of promising strategies to turn around persistently lowest-achieving schools, but we are intentionally allowing flexibility in the possible approaches that could be used under this priority. Therefore, we decline to include the recommended strategies in this priority. This priority would not preclude an applicant from including in its proposal the suggested strategies provided that such strategies are authorized by the applicable program statute and regulations. Changes: None. Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that the four turnaround models required under the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program would be required in order for an applicant to meet this priority. These commenters recommended that a fifth option be added to provide more flexibility on the strategies that can be used in turning around persistently lowest-achieving schools. Discussion: Priority 4 does not require implementation of the four SIG models ( i.e., school turnaround, school transformation, school closure, restart), nor does it specify any strategies that must be used for turning around persistently lowest-achieving schools. As noted previously, this priority is focused on the outcomes listed in the priority, not on prescribing specific strategies for achieving those outcomes. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to include support specifically for school turnaround efforts that are sustainable. The commenter stated that this change would help ensure that successful turnaround efforts will be rewarded with additional funding. Discussion: We decline to make the change recommended by the commenter because the likelihood that a particular model or strategy would be sustainable in a given school is a factor that school officials must necessarily consider in making decisions about the model or strategies to implement in a school in need of improvement. It is unclear how selecting a sustainable model or strategies would necessarily lead to additional funding, as stated by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the Department add a focus in Priority 4 on providing services to support military-connected students. Discussion: Priority 4 is focused on the outcomes listed in the priority, not on specific subgroups of students. Therefore, we decline to make the change requested by the commenter. We note that new Priority 12 (proposed Priority 9) specifically focuses on support for military-connected students and their families. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority be revised to require projects to focus on narrowing achievement gaps for all subgroups of students in persistently lowest-achieving schools. The commenter stated that the success of the whole school relies on the achievement of all students. Discussion: We agree that narrowing the achievement gap for subgroups is an important goal for all schools, including persistently lowest-achieving schools. However, we decline to revise the priority because we believe that in persistently lowest-achieving schools, which are among the lowest-achieving schools in each State, the primary focus should be on improving student achievement for all students in the school. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise paragraph (b) of this priority to include a focus on increasing graduation rates of students with disabilities. The commenter also recommended that the Department revise paragraph (c) to ensure that services provided to students are available and adequate for students with disabilities. Discussion: We agree that it is important to include a focus on improving student achievement and increasing the graduation rates of students with disabilities. For this reason, we included a specific provision in new Priority 9 (proposed Priority 6) (Improving Achievement and High School Graduation Rates) that focuses on projects that accelerate learning and help improve high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates for students with disabilities. However, we decline to modify Priority 4 in the manner suggested by the commenter because the focus of this priority is on improving student achievement for all students in persistently lowest-achieving schools. Changes: None. Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that this priority's focus on schools meeting the definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools is too narrow. The commenters recommended that the priority be expanded to include support for other low-performing schools and for schools at risk of becoming low performing. Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern about serving low-performing schools other than those that are persistently lowest-achieving. However, our intention with this priority is to focus specifically on the schools most in need of improvement, which are the persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined in this notice. Accordingly, we decline to expand the scope of this priority. Changes: None. New Priority 5—Improving School Engagement, School Environment, and School Safety and Improving Family and Community Engagement Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that the Department modify the proposed priorities to include support for projects that create safe and supportive schools and engage communities and families to improve student achievement. Safe and Supportive Schools Many commenters expressed support for the Department's discussion of school culture and climate in the background for proposed Priority 4 (Turning Around Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools), and proposed Priority 10 (Data-Based Decision Making). Several commenters suggested that the Department add a separate priority that would support projects designed to improve school climate. For example, numerous commenters noted that a positive and supportive school climate and culture can help to improve students' academic achievement, especially for those students most at risk of not succeeding academically and for students attending persistently lowest-achieving schools. Several commenters articulated concerns about the negative impact that bullying and harassment can have on students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students, and these students' ability to achieve academic success. Commenters noted that bullying and harassment can lead to poor learning environments where students feel unsafe or in danger of physical harm, negatively affecting a student's ability to successfully complete high school and pursue postsecondary education. Multiple commenters cited research demonstrating that school environments influence student achievement. For example, one commenter described evidence showing that bullying, harassment, and unduly harsh disciplinary practices have serious academic consequences, including decreased interest in school, increased absences, decreased concentration levels, lower grades, and higher dropout rates. Multiple commenters also noted how important school climate is for military-connected students and, in particular, the need for schools to provide mental health support for students with deployed parents. Family and Community Engagement Numerous commenters urged the Department to establish a separate priority for projects that would focus on enhancing family engagement in students' learning. Commenters cited research showing that family engagement is a significant factor in student success, including in ensuring that students meet high academic standards and are college- and career-ready when they graduate from high school. Several commenters also noted how important it is to support parents' involvement in their children's education, particularly for children from low-income families, young children who participate in early learning programs, and children with disabilities. Multiple commenters emphasized the importance of engaging families as key partners in their children's education, working hand in hand with them in schools and ensuring that parents and families understand data and information on student performance. Another commenter recommended that if the Department establishes a priority focusing on family engagement, the priority should include support for projects that provide technical assistance to families of high-need students to support higher education and postsecondary success. Multiple commenters suggested that the Department add a new priority that would support projects designed to promote community engagement in students' education. One commenter observed that family-led and community-based organizations can play a key role in implementing education reforms. Another commenter stated that for education reforms to be successful, there needs to be a strong relationship among communities, schools, and families at the very beginning of the reform process. Specifically, the commenter stated that community schools are the best vehicles to encourage and ensure high school completion and postsecondary success. These commenters also provided definitions for “community engagement” and “family engagement” and recommended that definitions of these terms be added to the final notice along with the new priority. Discussion: The Department agrees that safe and supportive schools are critical to improving students' learning and enhancing teacher effectiveness. Students learn best when they are in a school environment with, among other things, positive relationships between adults and students; the absence of violence, bullying, harassment, and substance abuse; and readily available physical and mental health supports and services. The Department has been clear that preparing students for success requires learning environments that help all students to be safe, healthy, and supported in their classrooms, schools, and communities. For example, on July 9, 2010, the Department published a notice inviting applications for the Safe and Supportive Schools program to support statewide measurement of, and targeted interventions to improve, conditions for learning, and provided definitions of “school engagement,” “school environment,” and “school safety” ( see 75 FR 39504). The Department also has been clear that bullying and harassing students, including LGBT students, is damaging to those students and unacceptable ( see the guidance the Department provided on October 26, 2010, available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf). Similarly, the Department is committed to improving family and community engagement as part of its comprehensive approach to improving student achievement. Preparing students for success requires greater opportunities to engage families in their children's education and strengthening the role of schools as centers of communities. For example, the Department's Promise Neighborhoods program encourages robust development and implementation of a continuum of effective community services, strong family supports, and comprehensive education reforms to improve education and life outcomes for children and youth in high-need communities. In addition, in May, 2010, the Department proposed doubling funding (through the ESEA reauthorization) for activities promoting family engagement from 1 percent to 2 percent of Title I dollars and proposes to ask LEAs to use these funds in a more systemic and comprehensive way. Based on the many informative comments we received and our strong belief in the need to promote safe and supportive school environments and enhanced family and community engagement in students' learning, we are adding a priority that would support projects designed to improve school environment and safety, and projects designed to improve parent and family and community engagement. We are establishing a separate priority rather than modifying each individual priority to ensure that there is appropriate focus on these important issues. We also believe this priority will be broad enough for many of our programs to use within the parameters of their authorizing program statutes and regulations and, thereby, will support many of the types of strategies and supports mentioned by the commenters. Programs also will be able to use this priority in conjunction with one or more of the other priorities established in this notice. Changes: The Department has added a new priority, Priority 5—School Engagement, School Environment, and School Safety and Family and Community Engagement, that reads as follows: “Projects that are designed to improve student outcomes through one or more of the following priority areas: (a) Improving school engagement, which may include increasing the quality of relationships between and among administrators, teachers, families, and students and increasing participation in school-related activities. (b) Improving the school environment, which may include improving the school setting related to student learning, safety, and health. (c) Improving school safety, which may include decreasing the incidence of harassment, bullying, violence, and substance use. (d) Improving parent and family engagement (as defined in this notice). (e) Improving community engagement (as defined in this notice) by supporting partnerships between local educational agencies, school staff, and one or more of the following: (i) Faith- or community-based organizations. (ii) Institutions of higher education. (iii) Minority-serving institutions or historically black colleges and universities. (iv) Business or industry. (v) Other Federal, State, or local government entities.” We have also added to this notice definitions for community engagement and parent and family engagement that read as follows: “ Community engagement means the systematic inclusion of community organizations as partners with local educational agencies and school staff. These organizations may include faith- and community-based organizations, institutions of higher education (including minority-serving institutions and historically black colleges and universities), business and industry, or other Federal, State, and local government entities.” “ Parent and family engagement means the systematic inclusion of parents and families, working in partnership with local educational agencies and school staff, in their child's education, which may include strengthening the ability of (a) parents and families to support their child's education and (b) school staff to work with parents and families.” New Priority 6—Technology Comment: We received a number of comments requesting that the Department add a priority that recognizes the role that educational technology can play in increasing student achievement, implementing school reforms, and improving teacher effectiveness. Commenters also suggested that we include language focused on education technology in the individual priorities. Several commenters stated that in its FY 2011 budget request, the Department emphasized the importance of integrating technology into instruction and using technology to drive improvements in teaching and learning. Commenters also noted that the Department's Blueprint for the ESEA reauthorization highlighted the necessity of supporting projects that leverage technological tools, including digital information and communications technologies. These commenters stated that these priorities should similarly reflect a significant level of support for the use of technology in education. Commenters recommended that the Department support projects that are designed to use technology to raise student achievement, to develop student skills in the effective use of technology, and to use technology to support individualized instruction. One commenter specifically noted the role that technology will play in the assessments to be developed by State consortia under the Race to the Top Assessment program. Commenters also encouraged the Department to support projects that use technology to provide professional development to teachers. Several commenters recommended that a priority on education technology focus on several areas, including transitioning from print to digital instructional materials (including open educational resources); accelerating the adoption of high-quality formative and summative assessments; and increasing the availability of online and blended opportunities for students, especially where students' opportunities are limited by geography or personal circumstance. Other areas the commenters suggested should be included in such a priority are the fostering of 21st century, personalized learning environments centered on improving student achievement in the core subject areas and providing professional development to educators and school leaders to assist them in effectively selecting, using, and evaluating the effectiveness of technology tools and information systems. Discussion: We agree with the commenters that technology can play a vital role in improving student achievement, increasing students' access to instructional content, and increasing teacher and school leader effectiveness through enhanced professional development. As several commenters noted, we have recognized the critical role of technology in education in our Blueprint for the ESEA reauthorization and in our FY 2011 budget request. We agree with those commenters that these final priorities should reflect a similar emphasis on educational technology. Rather than modify each individual priority, we have decided to establish a new priority focused solely on educational technology. Under this new priority, the Department would support projects that are designed to improve student achievement or teacher effectiveness through the use of high-quality digital tools and materials. We believe this priority will be broad enough for many of our programs to use within the parameters of their authorizing program statute and regulations and, thereby, will support many of the types of innovative uses of technology mentioned by the commenters, while ensuring that the development and implementation of these new approaches are based on data demonstrating the effectiveness of the technology in improving student achievement or teacher effectiveness. Programs will be able to use this priority in conjunction with one or more of the other priorities established in this notice. Changes: We have established a new priority, Priority 6—Technology, that reads as follows: “Projects that are designed to improve student achievement or teacher effectiveness through the use of high-quality digital tools or materials, which may include preparing teachers to use the technology to improve instruction, as well as developing, implementing, or evaluating digital tools or materials.” New Priority 7—Core Reforms Comment: A number of commenters strongly supported the adoption of college- and career-ready standards and stated that implementation of such standards can serve as a catalyst for education reform. Other commenters noted the importance of effectively evaluating teachers and principals, and implementing statewide longitudinal data systems that provide educators and families the data they need to increase student achievement. One commenter stated that statewide longitudinal data systems are the foundation for successfully implementing other education reforms. Several commenters supported the Department's efforts to outline a comprehensive reform agenda and to better allocate limited Federal resources to areas of significant need. One commenter recommended that the Department consider ways in which it could encourage applicants for discretionary grant programs to continue their comprehensive reform efforts. Discussion: We agree with the commenters that implementing college- and career-ready standards and increasing data-based decision making are key drivers of comprehensive reform. Given the critical role that teachers and principals play in improving student learning, we believe that teacher and principal evaluation systems are another key driver of reform. We appreciate the commenters' support for the Department's comprehensive reform efforts and agree that the Department should support and encourage States to continue implementing comprehensive reforms that result in improved student achievement, narrowed achievement gaps, and increased high school graduation and college enrollment rates. Therefore, we are adding a new Priority 7 to support projects in States, LEAs, or schools where core reforms are being implemented. This priority focuses on projects conducted in a State that has adopted K-12 academic standards that build toward college- and career-readiness; in a State that has implemented a statewide longitudinal data system; and is in an LEA or school that provides student growth (as defined in this notice) data to teachers. Changes: The Department has added a new priority, Priority 7—Core Reforms, that reads as follows: “Projects conducted in States, local educational agencies, or schools where core reforms are being implemented. Such a project is one that is conducted— (a) In a State that has adopted K-12 State academic standards in English language arts and mathematics that build towards college- and career-readiness; (b) In a State that has implemented a statewide longitudinal data system that meets all the requirements of the America COMPETES Act; and (c) In a local educational agency or school in which teachers receive student growth (as defined in this notice) data on their current students and the students they taught in the previous year and these data are provided, at a minimum, to teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State administers assessments in those subjects.” New Priority 8 (Proposed Priority 5)—Increasing Postsecondary Success Comment: Two commenters stated that one of the biggest challenges faced by those who are unemployed is that a majority of the fastest-growing industries require postsecondary education. The commenters noted that rigorous career and technical education programs play a significant role in preparing individuals with the skills they need to succeed in today's workforce. Another commenter recommended revising the language in this priority to emphasize the importance of ensuring that postsecondary education has value in the labor market. The commenter recommended that the language in the priority be changed to focus not only on students who are in the education pipeline, but also young adults who need to receive additional training to be successfully employed. One commenter recommended that the priority specifically reference current military service members and veterans who have served in the military since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Other commenters stated that while academic standards are important, the Department should consider ways to encourage a broader definition of what it means to be successful in a global economy. The commenters noted that successful schools consider both “the context of learning and the full range of human development including civic standards and measures, learning and innovation skills, and other applied workplace skills.” One commenter urged that we support the implementation of standards “in a broad range of subjects and competencies that address the needs of the whole student and prepare students to succeed in a modern, globally interdependent society.” Discussion: We agree that new Priority 8 (proposed Priority 5) should include a focus on completing college or other postsecondary training that leads to successful employment. While we agree that the labor market values the education and training provided by postsecondary institutions, we do not believe that it is necessary to include this specific language in the priority. Therefore, we decline to make the change requested by the commenter. With regard to the recommendation that the language in the priority be changed to focus not only on students who are in the education pipeline, but also young adults who need to receive additional training to be successfully employed, we note that paragraph (d) focuses on individuals who return to the educational system. However, we agree that the language in paragraph (d) could be strengthened to focus on college enrollment and success, similar to the focus in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) for high-risk students, and we are adding language accordingly. The Department agrees that it is important to increase the number of current service members and post-9/11 veterans who enroll in, persist in, and complete college or other postsecondary training. To ensure that this priority is as broad and inclusive as possible, and thereby could be used by multiple programs across the Department, we decline to reference in the priority specific groups within the military services. However, in order to reflect the importance of providing services to current service members and post-9/11 veterans, and as discussed later in this notice, we are revising the definition of military-connected student (used in new Priority 12 (proposed Priority 9)) to include a reference to current service members and veterans. With regard to the commenters who recommended that this priority focus on the “whole student” and the knowledge and skills that are needed to compete successfully in the global economy, we believe that a high-quality education includes developing students who are well-rounded and well-prepared for the challenges and responsibilities they will confront throughout their lives. Preparation for a lifetime of learning experiences is necessary for effective participation in democratic society. We believe that these priorities, as written, encapsulate this idea; however, to clarify our commitment to the development of the whole student, we are adding a new paragraph (f) to this priority. Changes: We have revised paragraph (d) of this priority, which reads as follows: Increasing the number of individuals who return to the educational system to obtain a high school diploma; to enroll in college or other postsecondary education or training; to obtain needed basic skills leading to success in college or other postsecondary education or the workforce; or to enter, persist in, and complete college or rigorous postsecondary career and technical training leading to a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate.” We also have added new paragraph (f) to this priority, which reads as follows: “Increasing the number and proportion of postsecondary students who complete college or other postsecondary education and training and who are demonstrably prepared for successful employment, active participation in civic life, and lifelong learning.” Comment: One commenter expressed support for this priority's goal of preparing high-need students for postsecondary education and future careers. The commenter recommended using the definition of “postsecondary education” that is used in Department program statutes, and focusing the priority on a broad range of postsecondary options in order to convey that “college” is not limited to four-year baccalaureate degree programs. Similarly, one commenter recommended changing “increasing the number of students who are academically prepared” to “increasing the number of students who are prepared” in paragraph (a). Another commenter recommended that the priority refer to existing national programs and examinations, such as Advanced Placement, ACT, and International Baccalaureate courses and exams, as examples of ways to adequately prepare students for college-level coursework without the need for remediation. Discussion: New Priority 8 (proposed Priority 5) includes specific references to training leading to a “degree, credential, or certificate,” in order to make clear that the priority focuses on a broad range of postsecondary options and is not limited to four-year degree programs. Therefore, we believe it is unnecessary to add a definition of “postsecondary education” in this notice or to change the language in paragraph (a) in the manner suggested by the commenter. However, in order to make clear in paragraphs (c) and (d) that the outcome is a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate, we are adding “postsecondary” before “degree, credential, or certificate.” We decline to include in the priority the specific courses and exams recommended by the commenter because the priority focuses on the outcome of increasing postsecondary success rather than on the specific strategies for attaining that outcome. In fact, rather than focusing on completing specific courses that do not necessarily lead to a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate, we believe the focus in paragraph (c) regarding career and technical education should be on programs of study (as defined in this notice). We are changing the language in paragraph (c) accordingly. Changes: In paragraphs (c) and (d), we have added “postsecondary” before “degree.” We also have removed “secondary or postsecondary career and technical courses or” in paragraph (c). Comment: Two commenters recommended that we revise this priority to include a focus on increasing the rates at which high-need students enroll in and complete doctoral or other terminal degree ( i.e., the highest degree in a particular field of study) programs. Discussion: This priority already focuses on increasing the number and proportion of high-need students who enroll in and complete graduate programs. This would encompass students enrolling in and completing doctoral or other terminal degree programs. We believe that adding specific references to doctoral or terminal degrees would unduly narrow the priority such that it could not be used across many of the Department's programs. We decline, therefore, to make the change recommended by the commenters. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority include a specific focus on providing comprehensive guidance and advice to high-need students on applying for college and financial aid. Discussion: As noted in a response to an earlier comment, this priority focuses on the outcome of increasing postsecondary success rather than the specific strategies for attaining that outcome. Therefore, we decline to make the change recommended by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that this priority include a focus on recruiting and retaining high-quality educators to teach students in rural areas and high-need students. Discussion: Paragraph (a) of the priority supports projects that increase the number and proportion of high-need students who are academically prepared for and enroll in college or other postsecondary education and training. This priority would not preclude an applicant from proposing a project that supports retaining high-quality educators in rural areas, so long as the project supports the goals of this priority and complies with the program statute and regulations. For this reason, the change recommended by the commenter is unnecessary. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter, while generally supportive of the priority, recommended that schools use open educational resources (OER) to improve and ensure postsecondary success. Another commenter recommended that products developed with discretionary grant funds be developed consistent with the requirements for OER. Discussion: New Priority 16 (proposed Priority 13) (Improving Productivity) specifically refers to the use of OER to improve results and strategies. If the Department decides to focus a program competition on postsecondary success and the use of OER to increase productivity, and provided such a focus is authorized by the program statute and regulations, we will be able to include both priorities in the notice inviting applications. Therefore, we decline to make the change requested by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: None. Discussion: During the Department's review of this priority, we determined that it would be clearer to refer to the “number and proportion of high-need students” rather than to “rates” in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e). We also are correcting an error in paragraph (d)—“career or technical training” in paragraph (d) should be “career and technical training. Therefore, we are making these changes in the priority. Changes: We have revised new Priority 8 to read as follows: Priority 8—Increasing Postsecondary Success Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas: (a) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who are academically prepared for and enroll in college or other postsecondary education and training. (b) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who persist in and complete college or other postsecondary education and training. (c) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who enroll in and complete high-quality programs of study (as defined in this notice) designed to lead to a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate. (d) Increasing the number and proportion of individuals who return to the educational system to obtain a high school diploma; to enroll in college or other postsecondary education or training; to obtain needed basic skills leading to success in college or other postsecondary education or the workforce; or to enter, persist in, and complete college or rigorous postsecondary career and technical training leading to a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate. (e) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who enroll in and complete graduate programs. (f) Increasing the number and proportion of postsecondary students who complete college or other postsecondary education and training and who are demonstrably prepared for successful employment, active participation in civic life, and lifelong learning. New Priority 9—Improving Achievement and High School Graduation Rates (Proposed Priority 6—Improving Achievement and High School Graduation Rates of Rural and High-Need Students) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the needs of urban students were not sufficiently addressed in proposed priority 6 and recommended that the Department revise it to focus on both urban and rural students. Discussion: The intent of this priority is to focus on improving achievement and high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates of high-need students, in both urban and rural areas. We recognize that the title of the proposed priority may have incorrectly implied that this priority was exclusively focused on students in rural areas. Therefore, we are removing the reference to rural and high-need students from the title of the priority. Changes: We have removed “of Rural and High-Need Students” from the title of the priority. Based on this change, the title of new Priority 9 now reads: “Improving Achievement and High School Graduation Rates.” Comment: One commenter recommended that this priority include a focus on students with disabilities, including students with disabilities who are also gifted. Another commenter recommended adding a focus on English learners, stating that these students need extra support to be successful because they must learn English at the same time they are trying to meet challenging student achievement standards. Discussion: Although students with disabilities and English learners are included in the definition of high-need children and high-need students as examples of students who may be at risk of educational failure, we understand that there may be programs for which it would be appropriate to focus particularly on improving achievement and graduation rates of students with disabilities or English learners, and not a broader group of high-need students. Therefore, within this priority, we are adding a separate priority area for students with disabilities and a separate priority area for English learners. Changes: We have added a new paragraph (b) to the priority, which reads as follows: “Accelerating learning and helping to improve high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment rates for students with disabilities.” We also have added a new paragraph (c), which reads as follows: “Accelerating learning and helping to improve high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment rates for English learners.” Subsequent paragraphs have been renumbered. Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for this priority and recommended specific strategies to improve student achievement and graduation rates. One commenter suggested that the priority focus on physical education programs because students in schools with high poverty rates often do not have access to high-quality physical education programs. Several commenters recommended focusing on specific dropout prevention programs. One commenter requested that the priority focus on programs that support collaboration between education and juvenile and family justice systems to support students in juvenile detention centers and students in foster care. One commenter stated that summer learning programs play a critical role in accelerating learning for students in rural and high-poverty areas and should be included in this priority. Two commenters recommended adding language to provide incentives for schools and districts to implement initiatives that help high-need students stay in school, such as programs that provide multiple or alternative pathways to graduation. One commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to support the development of data collection systems to help school districts report data, such as graduation rates, more effectively. Another commenter recommended adding a focus on systems that identify students at risk of dropping out of school. Discussion: This priority focuses on outcomes—that is, improving student achievement and high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates for students in rural LEAs, students with disabilities, English learners, other high-need students, and students in high-poverty schools—rather than on the specific strategies for attaining those outcomes. Many of the strategies proposed by the commenters may accelerate learning and improve graduation and college enrollment rates. However, we decline to reference specific strategies in this priority because it would limit the types of programs to which this priority could be applied. We do agree that this priority should include a focus on projects that meet the needs of all students, while ensuring that the specific needs of high-need students participating in such a project are met. Therefore, we are adding a new paragraph (f) to focus on projects that accelerate learning and improve high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates for all students in an inclusive manner while ensuring that the specific needs of high-need students are addressed. Changes: We have added a new paragraph (f) that reads as follows: “Accelerating learning and helping to improve high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment rates for all students in an inclusive manner that ensures that the specific needs of high-need students (as defined in this notice) participating in the project are addressed.” Comment: Two commenters recommended revising the priority to specifically support disadvantaged populations of gifted students. Discussion: This priority already focuses on the needs of gifted students who are high-need students at risk of educational failure (paragraph (d)), as well as students who attend high-poverty schools (paragraph (e)), which may include gifted students. Therefore, we decline to make the change recommended by the commenters. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended adding a priority to focus on schools located in areas of concentrated poverty and the students living in those areas. Discussion: The groups of students and schools already included in this priority could encompass schools located in areas of concentrated poverty and students living in those areas. Because we intend to use this priority across a number of Department programs, we do not want to unnecessarily limit its scope by limiting its application to the specific schools and students suggested by the commenter. Therefore, we decline to make the change suggested by the commenters. Changes: None. New Priority 10 (Proposed Priority 7)—Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department support projects that include a focus on providing information to students about educational and career pathways into STEM fields. According to the commenter, students need better information about educational programs that can lead to careers in STEM fields. Discussion: We agree that providing students with more information about STEM careers and the pathways to those careers would help increase students' level of interest in STEM coursework and careers. We do not think it is necessary to reference this type of activity in the text of the priority, however, because the priority focuses on the outcome of increased access to STEM coursework rather than specific strategies for attaining that outcome. Grant applicants could propose increasing the amount of information available to students about educational and career opportunities in the STEM fields as a strategy for achieving the goal of increased access to STEM coursework. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the priority to specifically support providing high school students with access to rigorous and engaging courses of study in STEM. Two commenters recommended that we revise paragraph (a) of the priority to specifically identify elementary, middle, and high school students, and another commenter recommended that we revise the priority to ensure that it supports early learning in STEM. These commenters stated that if students have access to STEM content early in their education, they are more likely to pursue STEM opportunities at the postsecondary level and STEM careers. Another commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to support projects that provide gifted and talented students with access to rigorous and engaging STEM courses as soon as those students are academically ready for such coursework. The commenter stated that students should be permitted to take STEM-related coursework as early as possible in their education in order to ensure that the Nation has a sufficient number of STEM professionals in the future. Another commenter recommended that we revise the priority to reference underrepresented and high-need students. Discussion: Our intent in paragraph (a) of this priority is to support access to rigorous and engaging courses of study in STEM for all students, including students in elementary, middle, and high schools; gifted and talented students; and high-need students. We agree that providing these students with access to STEM-related coursework is essential to increasing the number of students prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM fields. However, the Department plans to use these priorities across a number of its discretionary grant programs, and some of those programs may not support a focus on particular groups of students. Accordingly, we decline to narrow the scope of paragraph (a), as suggested by the commenters. The priority does not preclude an applicant from focusing its project on increasing access to STEM coursework for specific groups of students, provided such a focus is authorized by the program statute and regulations. In reviewing these comments, however, we noted that our use of the term “courses of study” in paragraph (a) of the priority could be read to refer to STEM courses that are offered only after elementary school. Given that this is not our intention and to eliminate any confusion, we have revised the priority to refer to “coursework” rather than to “courses of study” to clarify that paragraph (a) refers to all students regardless of their level of education. Changes: We have revised paragraph (a) of the priority to delete the reference to “courses of study” and replaced it with “coursework in STEM.” Specifically, paragraph (a) reads: “Providing students with increased access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM.” Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department revise paragraph (c) of the priority, which provides for increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers of STEM subjects, to refer to a broader group of education professionals who could benefit from professional development in this area. The commenters suggested that we use the term “educator” rather than “teacher.” Discussion: We agree that it is important to support all types of educators who work in STEM fields. Accordingly, we have revised the priority to include a reference to other educators in the STEM fields. Changes: We have added “or other educators” following “teachers” in paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) of the priority reads as follows: “Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers or other educators of STEM subjects.” Comment: One commenter recommended that we add a priority area for increasing opportunities for collaboration related to STEM-focused initiatives, projects, and programs among military and civilian research centers, institutions of higher education, LEAs, non-profit organizations, museums, and other partners engaged in STEM fields. Discussion: As stated in the NPP, we agree that such collaborations can be important and effective strategies for increasing the number of students prepared for postsecondary study in STEM and for assisting teachers in providing effective STEM instruction. We decline to make the suggested change, however, because the priority emphasizes the outcomes to be achieved rather than specific strategies for attaining those outcomes. We note that the priority does not preclude an applicant from proposing a project that focuses on these types of collaborations. Collaborations with STEM organizations could be proposed as a strategy for achieving the outcomes called for in the priority. Changes: None. Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department revise the priority to include a specific reference to career and technical education courses. The commenters stated that many career and technical education programs include STEM-focused instruction and can be used to help students acquire knowledge and skills in a variety of STEM fields, including preparing students for postsecondary studies and careers in STEM fields. Another commenter recommended that we revise the priority to support career and technical education programs that encourage women to go into high-earning careers; the commenter stated that many women are directed to career and technical education professions that have been traditionally occupied by women, such as cosmetology and childcare, which also tend to be lower-paying professions. Discussion: We agree that career and technical education courses can be instrumental in preparing students for postsecondary study and careers in STEM fields. However, we do not believe it is necessary to specifically mention career and technical education courses in the priority. As indicated earlier in this notice, our intent is to use this priority across a number of different Department programs, some of which may not permit a focus on career and technical education courses, and we do not wish to unnecessarily limit the scope of this priority and risk precluding applicants in some Department programs from addressing it. We also agree that the underrepresentation of women and girls in certain STEM fields is a significant problem. Paragraph (b) of the priority was designed to address that concern by encouraging a focus on increasing the participation of students from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers, including women. However, upon further reflection, we believe that, rather than focusing on increasing the number of students from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers only in paragraph (b) (with regard to postsecondary and graduate study and careers in STEM), there should be a similar emphasis with regard to increasing access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM (paragraph (a)) and with regard to increasing opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers or other educators of STEM subjects (paragraph (c)). Therefore, we are adding two new paragraphs that focus on individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers, and removing the reference to such individuals in paragraph (b). New paragraph (d) focuses on increasing the number of students from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM who are provided with access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM or who are prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM; and new paragraph (e) focuses on increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM who are teachers or educators of STEM subjects and who have increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or professional development. Changes: We have added a new paragraph (d) to read as follows: “Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women, who are provided with access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM or who are prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM.” We have added a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: “Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women, who are teachers or educators of STEM subjects and have increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or professional development.” We have removed the following from paragraph (b): “With a specific focus on an increase in the number and proportion of students so prepared who are from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women.” Comment: While several commenters supported this priority and noted the importance of ensuring that students have access to STEM coursework well before entering college, one commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to focus on both the preparation for and the completion of graduate degrees in STEM fields. Discussion: The priority supports both the preparation and the completion of postsecondary or graduate study in STEM. Specifically, paragraph (b) of the priority emphasizes increasing the number of students prepared for postsecondary and graduate study and careers in STEM. Thus, the language supporting increasing the number of students prepared for careers in STEM already supports projects that are designed to increase the number of students completing their postgraduate studies in STEM. During the Department's review of the NPP, we determined that the phrase “advanced postsecondary or graduate study” in paragraph (b) was vague and confusing. Therefore, we are removing the word “advanced” from paragraph (b). We also determined that, rather than focusing only on increasing the number of students prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM that the priority should also focus on increasing the proportion of those students. We are, therefore, making these changes in paragraph (b). Changes: In paragraph (b), we have removed “advanced” before “postsecondary”; and added “and proportion” before “of students prepared for”. With this change and the changes noted in response to an earlier comment, paragraph (b) now reads: “Increasing the number and proportion of students prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM.” Comment: One commenter applauded the Department's focus on issues affecting underrepresented students in STEM fields. The commenter suggested, however, that the Department narrow its focus to address specific achievement gaps between males and females in general, and between minority males and white males, in particular. The commenter stated that minority males in particular face access, academic success, and persistence difficulties when they enter the STEM fields. Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support and recognize the seriousness of these achievement gaps. Our intent under paragraph (b) of the priority was to address those gaps by supporting projects that are designed to increase the representation of all students from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women. As noted in response to an earlier comment, we are removing the reference to increasing the number of students from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers who are prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM in paragraph (b) and adding it in new paragraph (d). We think the priority, as we have revised it, addresses these gaps and do not believe it is necessary to identify achievement gaps involving specific populations in order to provide support for strategies that can serve to narrow these achievement gaps. Changes: None. Comment: Two commenters recommended that we revise the priority to include support for increasing the actual number of STEM teachers in addition to increasing the opportunities for the preparation of, or providing professional development for, teachers of STEM subjects. The commenters stated that STEM subjects are difficult to staff with qualified teachers and, therefore, there should be an emphasis on increasing the actual number of teachers in STEM fields. Discussion: We recognize that some LEAs struggle to recruit and retain a sufficient number of teachers with the knowledge and skills required to teach STEM content. Paragraph (c) of the priority is designed to address that problem because it focuses on increasing the support provided to teachers of STEM subjects so that they are adequately prepared to provide effective instruction to students. We believe that increasing these types of opportunities for STEM teachers and other educators will lead to increases in the actual numbers of teachers and other educators prepared to teach and improve student achievement in STEM subjects. We do not believe it is necessary, therefore, to revise the priority as suggested by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise paragraph (c) of the priority to specify that the opportunities for preparation of or professional development for teachers of STEM subjects be designed to equip teachers with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to address the diverse learning and support service needs of high-need students in teachers' classrooms. Discussion: We agree that it is important that STEM teachers have the knowledge and skills needed to address the learning needs of high-need students, as well as the needs of all other students. However, as indicated earlier, because we plan to use these priorities across a number of our discretionary grant programs, it would not be appropriate to focus on a particular group of students or a particular type of activity. As written, the priority does not preclude an applicant from focusing its project on the type of professional development or teacher preparation mentioned by the commenter provided that this focus is authorized under the applicable program statute and regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority include a focus on improving online access to STEM courses. The commenter noted that providing online courses in STEM and improving access to those courses could provide a solution to the shortage of STEM teachers. Discussion: We agree that the use of online STEM courses could be effective in increasing students' access to this coursework and that, at least in part the availability of these courses could address the challenges that certain LEAs face in recruiting and retaining STEM teachers. However, we do not believe it is necessary to include a separate priority area supporting online STEM courses since our intent under this priority is to support all types of strategies that may be effective in increasing student access to STEM instructional content. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to promote increased access to the full range of tools and processes employed by STEM educators, including access to experts in STEM via online and distance learning coursework. Discussion: We agree with the commenter that current and prospective STEM educators need a full range of resources and supports as they prepare for teaching STEM subjects or to enhance their teaching skills. We think this objective is addressed in the language in paragraph (c) and new paragraph (e) of the priority regarding increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers or other educators of STEM subjects. Changes: None. New Priority 11 (Proposed Priority 8)—Promoting Diversity Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for this priority, noting the importance of diversity generally and, more specifically, the educational benefits that inure to students in diverse learning environments. Several commenters recommended that the Department expand the definition of “diversity” or mention additional groups. For example, a number of these commenters suggested adding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students as examples of a diverse student body. Several commenters recommended that the Department include gender as an additional example of students within a diverse student body. One commenter recommended that the Department include gifted students as part of the priority. Another commenter recommended that the priority include students of different socioeconomic status. Two commenters recommended that the Department revise the priority to include students with disabilities and English learners. Several commenters recommended that the Department expand the priority to include support for diversity among teachers and other school staff. One commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to encourage diversity in early learning providers. One commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to require charter schools to promote student diversity. Another commenter suggested that the Department revise the priority to promote diversity in the academic and societal preparation of our youth. One commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to provide examples of programs that would be supported under this priority. Discussion: The Department agrees that school, teacher, and school staff diversity is important. The intent of this priority, however, is to focus on the racial and ethnic diversity of students in order to promote cross-racial understanding, break down racial stereotypes, and prepare students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society. Therefore, we decline to expand the definition of “diversity” or mention the additional groups that commenters recommended. The priority does not preclude programs that focus on teacher diversity, so long as they also focus on student diversity. We intend to use this priority across a number of different Department programs. Therefore, we do not wish to unnecessarily narrow the focus of the priority or limit its applicability by adding specific age ranges or referring to specific types of schools or programs in the priority. Changes: None. New Priority 12 (Proposed Priority 9)—Support for Military Families Comment: Many commenters expressed support for this priority. These commenters noted that the families of men and women in the military face unique challenges requiring specific types of support to ensure successful educational outcomes. Two commenters recommended including in the priority examples of strategies to support students whose parents are in the military. Many commenters noted that an effective strategy is creating a year-round program for military families. Another commenter suggested expanding the priority to include supports for students inside and outside of the classroom that are school- and community-based ( e.g., school health and counseling clinics, family resource centers, tutoring programs). One commenter requested that the Department clarify whether the term military-connected student includes a student with at least one parent who is in the military, regardless of whether the student resides with the parent. Another commenter commended the Department for including a priority on military-connected students and recommended that the broadest definition of “pre-kindergarten” be applied to include children from birth through kindergarten. Discussion: We recognize that military deployments place an enormous strain on military families and their children. However, we decline to make the changes recommended by the commenters because we do not want to unnecessarily limit the scope of this priority given our intent to use this priority across different Department programs. We note that this priority would not preclude an applicant from proposing the types of projects suggested by the commenters, provided that the proposal is authorized by the program statute and regulations. With respect to the definition of military-connected student, we are making a number of changes based on the comments we received. We agree with the commenter that the definition of military-connected student should apply to children from birth through grade 12 and are adding language to refer to a child participating in an early learning program. We are also replacing “pre-kindergarten” with “preschool” in order to be more inclusive of a broader group of children; “pre-kindergarten” generally refers to children between four and six years of age, while “preschool” generally refers to children between infancy and school age. In response to comments regarding the unique challenges faced by the families of men and women in the military, we are adding the spouse of an active-duty service member to the definition of military-connected student. Finally, as described earlier in this notice, we agree with commenters that it is important to increase the number of current service members and post-9/11 veterans, who enroll in, persist in, and complete college or other postsecondary training and, therefore, are revising the definition of military-connected students to add this reference. With regard to the commenter who asked for clarification regarding whether a student must reside with the parent who is in the military to be considered a “military-connected student,” the definition of military-connected student does not require a student to reside with the parent who is on active duty in the military to be considered a “military-connected student.” Changes: We have revised the definition of military-connected student to read as follows: Military-connected student means (a) a child participating in an early learning program, a student in pre-school through grade 12, or a student enrolled in postsecondary education or training who has a parent or guardian on active duty in the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101, in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard, or the reserve component of any of the aforementioned services) or (b) a student who is a veteran of the uniformed services, who is on active duty, or who is the spouse of an active-duty service member. New Priority 13 (Proposed Priority 10)—Enabling More Data-Based Decision-Making Comment: While many commenters supported this priority, several commenters requested that the priority include the specific types of data to be collected and disaggregated. One commenter suggested collecting health outcomes data in addition to academic data. Many commenters stated that in order to make decisions about the best strategies for improving learning environments, demographic information about sexual orientation, gender identity, and student diversity should be collected. One commenter recommended collecting data on highly mobile students and military-connected students. Another commenter recommended collecting data on gifted and talented students. One commenter stated that the Department should provide a competitive preference for projects that collect and disaggregate data that can be used to address achievement gaps across student subgroups. Another commenter recommended adding language to the priority to highlight the need for high-quality, timely, and disaggregated data. Several commenters stated that having additional data on school climate issues, such as bullying, violence, and substance abuse, would help educators identify strategies to improve the school climate for all students. Discussion: Our intent is to use this priority across a number of different Department programs to encourage applicants to think strategically and innovatively about what data are available to a specific project and how best to use those data to improve student outcomes. We decline to make the changes recommended by the commenters because doing so would unnecessarily limit the nature and scope of the priority. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the priority should emphasize the importance of protecting the privacy of student and educator data and recommended revising the definition of privacy requirements to include educator privacy in addition to student privacy. Discussion: While we agree that the privacy of teachers and principals must be protected, we note that there are no Federal privacy requirements specifically targeted to teachers or principals that would apply to data collected through programs that are funded using these priorities. The definition of privacy requirements in this notice refers to the requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which apply to the disclosure of information from education records of students, the Privacy Act of 1974, and all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements regarding privacy. We expect all grantees to abide by all applicable Federal, State, or local laws and requirements regarding the privacy of educators. Changes: None. Comments: We received numerous comments recommending that the priority focus on collecting and analyzing data that can be used to support particular groups of individuals. For example, several commenters emphasized the need for parents to have data that will help them make informed decisions about their child's education. Two commenters encouraged the Department to focus the priority on training for parents on how to effectively access and use data. Another commenter recommended revising the priority to include a focus on child and family outcomes and not just student outcomes. We also received a number of comments requesting that the priority focus on collecting and analyzing data that will help teachers. Two commenters recommended that the priority support ongoing professional development for teachers on how to use research and data to improve practices and strategies in the classroom. One commenter recommended focusing the priority on projects that train teachers to use student outcomes as a measure of teacher effectiveness. Another commenter suggested that the priority be targeted to support training for school board members, administrators, and other school personnel. Discussion: We believe that it is essential for parents to be involved with their child's education and to be aware of the data that are being collected and used by schools to make educational decisions. Likewise, the Department agrees that teachers need high-quality and timely data, and training on the use of that data, to help improve their instruction and student outcomes. We purposefully refer to “program participant outcomes” in the priority because we anticipate using this priority across a number of programs in the Department and do not want to limit the focus of this priority to student outcomes when we have a wide range of participants, including parents and teachers, involved in the Department's programs. Furthermore, program participants are generally defined in the authorizing legislation of a program; thus, Department officials who use this priority will define in their notices inviting applications the program participants for their particular grant program. Therefore, we decline to make the changes suggested by the commenters. Changes: None. Comments: Several commenters recommended that the priority focus on the various stakeholders that would be involved in the analysis of data to improve outcomes for participants. One commenter recommended that the priority provide support for intermediary organizations, such as research institutions, coalitions, community organizations, constituents, and peers, to collect, interpret, synthesize, and share research knowledge. Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters on the importance of promoting collaboration among education agencies, research institutions, community organizations, and other stakeholders. However, we decline to add the recommended language to this priority because we do not want to unnecessarily limit its scope. This priority would not preclude an applicant from proposing this type of collaboration among stakeholders provided that such collaboration was authorized by the program statute and regulations. Changes: None. Comments: Several commenters recommended that the Department provide specific performance metrics that would be used to judge the progress of grants awarded under this priority. Another commenter recommended requiring [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-31189. Public record. Not legal advice.