Parent support for Common Core declining

Just over a third of adults with children in elementary or secondary school favor requiring all schools nationwide to meet the same Common Core standards, according to the results of a Rasmussen Reports survey out today.
The 34 percent of parents who said they support national, standardized Common Core adoption represents an 18 percent drop from 52 percent in November 2013.

The Rasmussen survey included telephone calls with 1,000 adults.

ALEC calls for $10k option from all public higher ed

The conservative American Legislative Exchange Council is out with the agenda for its July meeting in Dallas and it looks like the education committee will be weighing some provocative proposals. Members will consider endorsing a model bill called the “Affordable Baccalaureate Degree Act,” which would require all public universities to offer degree programs that cost less than $10,000 total for all four years of tuition, fees and books. What’s more, the bill would mandate that at least 10 percent of all four-year degrees awarded at state schools meet that price point within four years of the act’s passage. Universities would be encouraged to use online education and shift to competency-based models rather than the traditional credit-hour model to keep costs down. If members endorse the bill, they will begin circulating and promoting it in state legislatures.

BPS on Data Privacy in the Cloud

For years, Boston Public Schools kept its email server inside a data center behind a locked door, a key code and a security guard.

When the district — along with the rest of the city — moved to Google Apps for email and collaboration tools this past winter, many BPS stakeholders wondered where their data was, who could see it and whether it was safe.

"When we explained the security that cloud service providers have, compared to what we can do on our own — because of economies of scale and because this is the providers' business — they started to see that the technology provided by these providers can be just as safe," says Mark Racine, CIO of the 128-school district, which serves 57,000 students.

It's a discussion that K–12 communities nationwide have been having as more districts turn to cloud services, and for good reason. A December 2013 report by the Fordham Law School Center on Law and Information Policy found that while more and more districts are taking advantage of the cloud, many of their policies don't adhere to education privacy laws.

In fact, fewer than 7 percent of those studied prohibit service providers from selling or marketing student data.

Plenty of districts have carved out strategies to take advantage of the benefits of the cloud without compromising the privacy of the data they're charged with protecting, however.

"Student privacy is at the front of everything that we do when we're looking at a service or a contract," Racine says.

Weighing the Cloud

Cloud services fall into two categories, explains Bob Moore, founder and chief consultant of RJM Strategies, an education technology consultancy. Some have flexible contracts, allowing districts to negotiate terms, while others, known as "freemium" or "click-wrap" contracts, have set terms of service that users need to click through and accept.

"It's kind of a take-it-or-leave-it situation," says Moore, who also served as project manager in developing the Protecting Privacy in Connected Learning Toolkit, a free resource for educators on cloud privacy that the Consortium for School Networking released in March.

The latter is problematic because districts — especially smaller ones that don't have much leverage to negotiate contracts because they don't spend as much as larger districts — have little, if any, say in cloud practices. Yet the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act holds districts, not service providers, accountable for protecting the privacy of the data uploaded to those services.

"That's a fundamental flaw in the system," Moore says.

But it's likely to change. There are more than 100 state bills addressing data privacy, and many put increased scrutiny on service providers, in addition to states and districts, according to the Data Quality Campaign's Dakarai Aarons. Moore supports legal clarifications, but he feels districts should have some flexibility regarding data privacy.

"If you over-legislate, it could create a chilling effect in the market, because vendors worry about breaking a law," Moore explains. "The last thing we want to do is stop innovation in the market and stop innovation in the classroom."

Read the Fine Print

Amid the legalese of a cloud services agreement, one point caught the eye of Dr. Ramiro Zuniga, chief of tech­nology for the 15-school Port Arthur (Texas) Independent School District. In terms of data security, the contract said that the vendor would do what was "most reasonable." It had "nothing about data encryption, nothing about data redundancy," he says.

Zuniga has learned the importance of reading cloud services agreements' fine print, but he doesn't stop there. He makes sure he knows someone on the vendor's staff who can explain the contract and take personal responsibility if there's a problem.

"It's not enough to call an 800 number," Zuniga says. "If I am going to enter into a contract with a vendor, I want a thorough understanding of what services they can or cannot provide — including their safeguards, what type of security measures they have, how many data centers they have and so on."

Racine leans heavily on BPS' legal department when reviewing cloud service contracts. Although the legal process can be time-consuming, "there's great value in taking your time when it comes to information security," he says.

Like BPS and Port Arthur ISD, Wisconsin's Tomah Area School District uses both public and private clouds, but it skews heavily toward keeping data in-house. Historically, that was because Director of Technological Infrastructure Paul P. Potter has a software engineering background, so building applications was less expensive than buying from vendors. But privacy concerns have only reinforced Potter's preference for in-house applications.

When he does turn to a public-cloud service, Potter has a list of questions he asks before signing an agreement. First, he confirms that the district, which operates 11 schools, has the legal right to give the vendor access to the data. Next, he makes sure that the vendor asks only for necessary information, and he pays close attention to the data he uploads. He also obtains written confirmation that the district's data will not be sold.

"You can have all the reassurances in the world," he says. "But once somebody has access to your data, you really have no control over whether it's been copied or who has access to it."

Show Them the Way

Although Boston's move to Google Apps was praised, it also raised questions, particularly when Google's former practice of scanning personal emails made headlines this past spring. But Racine says such scrutiny is a good thing.

"Phishing scams and social hacking are real threats that we have to deal with daily, so I welcome the fact that people are thinking about the safety of our students' data," he says. "Any system, whether it's in-house or in the cloud — if it's housing sensitive information, it's only as secure as how the users use it."

With a service provider managing the email system, Racine and his staff have more time to educate users on data security. They also educate employees to use services that have been vetted by the IT and legal departments, rather than finding applications on their own.

Port Arthur ISD's instructional technologists train and provide guidelines to users regarding education privacy laws, but they also encourage teachers to use tools they find valuable.

"I think one of the worst things that I can do as the chief of technology is to tell my teachers, 'You may not choose your own product,' " Zuniga says.

It's a delicate balance, and districts need to determine what's right for them, Moore adds. "There's no 'easy' button for this or one simple thing you can do that just fixes this issue," he says. "You have to roll up your sleeves and work with it."

Private Thoughts

District leaders can safeguard the privacy of online data by doing the following:

• Put someone in charge of privacy for the district.
• Have vendors specify where and how data will be stored, backed up and secured; who will have access to it (vendor staff and third parties); and how and when it will be deleted.
• Ensure that contracts prohibit or limit selling or marketing student information without parental consent.
• Require vendors to notify the district if the data is breached.
• Post online the cloud services used by the district, the types of data uploaded to them and the privacy protections for that data.
• Create policies governing the use of cloud services by staff.
• Pay attention not just to the data uploaded to sites, but to the sites' practices as well. For instance, is a tutorial website monitoring students' drills so it can pitch them targeted ads for help in areas in which they are struggling?

SOURCES: Protecting Privacy in Connected Learning Toolkit (Consortium for School Networking, March 2014) and "Privacy and Cloud Computing in Public Schools" (Fordham Law School Center on Law and Information Policy, December 2013)

25% The percentage of districts that inform parents about their cloud service usage, despite the fact that education privacy laws require parental consent before sharing student information*

SOURCE: "Privacy and Cloud Computing in Public Schools" (Fordham Law School Center on Law and Information Policy, December 2013)

5 details to look for in a cloud services agreement.

Melissa Delaney
Paul P. Potter, director of technological infrastructure for the Tomah Area School District in Wisconsin, suggests that K–12 IT leaders insist on the following stipulations before signing a cloud services agreement:

• Content, including backups, will be deleted upon termination of the contract.
• No content will be shared with another party without written consent from the school district.
• All passwords and backups are encrypted.
• Changes to the agreement must be agreed upon by the school district.
• Access to content will be limited to cloud service employees performing required maintenance.

Parent Survey on Testing Time

PARENTS SAY TESTING A TIME SUCK: A new survey says parents think their kids spend too much time preparing for and taking exams. The annual Schooling in America Survey, released today by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice and Braun Research, shows that:

• 44% of parents think test prep takes too much time
• 22% of parents say their children don’t spend enough time
• 30% say they spend the right amount of time. 

More than six in 10 Americans also support vouchers, the survey says, with the most support coming from black parents at 74 percent and Hispanic parents at 72 percent. The Friedman Foundation, a school choice proponent, also noted that support for vouchers grew. In 2012, 56 percent of parents supported vouchers compared to 63 percent this year. The American Enterprise Institute is hosting a talk about the survey starting at 3 p.m. Eastern. The survey: http://bit.ly/1iwSauo

Software Industry on Data Privacy

The software industry argued today that no new legislation is needed to protect student privacy because adequate controls are already in place.

“We do not think new federal legislation is necessary at this time,” Mark MacCarthy, vice president of public policy for the Software & Information Industry Association, testified at a joint subcommittee hearing. “New federal legislation creates substantial risks of harm to the innovative use of information that is essential to improving education.”

MacCarthy acknowledged that student privacy is not always protected adequately in contracts between private companies and school districts. He said association members are working to tighten contract language. But he said that regardless of how contracts are worded, SIIA member companies are committed to comply with the association’s best practices for protecting student data.

MacCarthy also emphasized the benefits of data mining to help teachers and administrators “identify students at risk, personalize learning, improve communication with parents… and inform decision making.”

He spoke before a joint hearing of the Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education and the Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies

Fordham on Data Privacy

Federal student privacy laws are riddled with loopholes that present “a very disturbing set of risks” to children’s privacy, Fordham law professor Joel R. Reidenberg testified today at a joint subcommittee hearing on data mining.

Reidenberg urged Congress to update FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, to protect the vast streams of student data collected by private, often for-profit vendors. He noted that many companies collect detailed — and often highly intimate — data on what students, including lunchroom purchases, fitness profiles, learning styles, family financial information, even “whether a child blinks as he reads.”

FERPA does not protect such information, Reidenberg told a joint hearing of the Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education and the Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies.

“Schools essentially routinely relinquish their students’ privacy when they contract with outside vendors, and parents are kept in the dark,” Reidenberg said.


He noted that many companies provide their software for free — which means that the company is most likely bringing in revenue by monetizing the data in one way or another, such as delivering targeted advertising to students based on their profiles. “In other words, school districts are paying for services with their students’ privacy rather than cash,” he said.

Idaho on Data Privacy

Idaho’s efforts to enhance student privacy came in for considerable praise today at a joint subcommittee hearing on data mining.

State law requires the Idaho Board of Education to develop a model policy governing data collection, access and security and then train school districts and charter schools on how to implement it. The law also requires that school districts provide a child’s complete educational records to his parents upon request.

In addition, the Idaho education department is working on model privacy language that districts can use when negotiating contracts that involve transferring sensitive student data to private companies — or allowing the companies to collect the data directly from students.

Both privacy advocates and the software industry hailed the Idaho approach as a good start.

Fordham law professor Joel Reidenberg also urged states to appoint a chief privacy officer to oversee student privacy and help school districts manage the issue.

Congress on Data Privacy

Members of two key Congressional subcommitees appeared divided on the best way to protect student privacy.
Rep. Todd Rokita indicated he was not inclined to pursue federal legislation. “State by state is still the way to go on this,” he said, hailing a new privacy policy developed by Idaho.
But other members emphasized their deep concern about gaps in FERPA and other federal privacy laws.
“Nobody wants to try to inhibit [innovation], but I come to this from the perspective of us dealing with issues like the NSA,” said Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.). He spoke of the the public’s wariness of privacy breeches — and his own fear that private companies collecting intimate student data “know a lot more about my child than I know.”
Meehan said he feared that student profiles could persist on the cloud indefinitely or be exploited for commercial gain. He asked several questions about loopholes that might need closing.
Meanwhile, Rep. Phil Roe expressed skepticism about the software industry’s enormous enthusiasm for data mining as the key to improving education.
“We cured polio and put a man on the moon without Big Data,” Roe said. “It’s teachers,” he said, who make all the difference in the classroom.

They spoke at a joint hearing of the Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education and the Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies.

Report on SLDS Value

States and the federal government collectively have spent more than $1 billion building data systems that can track children from pre-K to adulthood. But without the ability to analyze that data, a new report by the Alliance for Excellent Education says states and districts are missing unique learning opportunities.

Data collection can sometimes result in an overwhelming amount of information with no organized way to tackle it and make it useful, the report says.

When analyzed effectively, data about who students are and how they learn can help teachers cater to the needs of at-risk students, adapt instructional content and provide useful feedback. Some states are already doing it, the report shows. In Michigan, the Utica Community Schools district has a data system that shares assignments and grades with parents while identifying students’ learning needs. In Kentucky, K-12 and postsecondary data are linked so teachers know whether students are prepared for college and career.

States and districts can borrow from these examples by making sure that data collection and analysis is transparent to teachers, parents and students. Teachers and administrators need adequate training to make use of the data, and the infrastructure and technology to analyze the data must be present. At the same time, student data privacy must remain a top priority, the report says.

Taking on the 'Climate Denier' Anti-PARCC Mob

With all due respect, 14 states still makes PARCC bigger that all previous K-12 summative assessments.   Not DOA.  I would ask everyone to be careful about overstatements and misstatements of facts.  I felt at times at the public forum at the library like I was at a West Virginia meeting of climate deniers discussing global climate change.  There was a looseness with facts that belie the thoughtful discussion about discussion we should be having.

From my perspective, while the decision whether to switch to PARCC a year earlier or to wait a year is a relatively small, technical decision that should be based on technology readiness, speed for return of results, and logistics, there are broader issues which I’d urge people to get involved with.

For example, the district is planning on utilizing EdWin, the state’s new Instructional Improvement System, to deliver interim benchmark assessments across the district next year.  There are other interesting assessment options (more MAPS, The Achievement Network, IXL) This decision will have much greater impact on our kids instruction than MCAS vs PARCC.  I would love to see the School Committee focus fall public forums on the comprehensive topic of assessment and not get overly distracted by a small, less consequential decision.

I guess what I am asking all members of our community, particularly on-line, is to elevate the discussion to our highest aspirations for our kids and schools and avoid the downward spiral of cynicism.

We have a new School Committee and will have a new Superintendent a year from now.  We have an opportunity to build on some very impressive gains in core academic performance, a great staff, safe and attractive buildings and a great mix of kids.  We are poised to become an ideal community for urban education.  Let’s stay focused on our broad goals and topics.

g.

From: somerville-4-schools@yahoogroups.com [mailto:somerville-4-schools@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Kelly kellyfj@gmail.com [somerville-4-schools]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:56 AM
To: somerville-4-schools@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [somerville-4-schools] Re: School Committee discussion on PARCC and MCAS

 

Of the original 23 states who joined PARCC - 9 have dropped out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARCC

Time to admit that PARCC is DOA when less than one third of US states will adopt it.

Time also to admit that top-down Governmental efforts that bundle Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana with Massachusetts into the same bucket are doomed to failure. 

How about a plan that unleashes the creativity and passion of our teachers rather than encasing them in more and more laws?

Sadly our lawmakers cannot legislate that :-\

-Frank

NY Fed says Higher Ed still good investment

A college degree is still a good investment, despite rising tuition costs and falling wages, according to a new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The return on both a bachelor’s degree and associate’s degree has held steady at about 15 percent for more than a decade, “easily surpassing the threshold for a sound investment,” economists Jaison Abel and Richard Deitz wrote in the report. That’s primarily because wages for people without college degrees have also fallen, keeping the college wage premium at an all-time high, and lowering the opportunity cost of going to school — that is, it’s a better alternative than not going to school.

“Indeed, once the full set of costs and benefits is taken into account, investing in a college education still appears to be a wise economic decision for the average person,” the authors wrote.

The study analyzed the economic returns of a college degree since the 1970s. Between 1980 and 2001, the average wage jumped 31 percent for a worker with a bachelor’s degree. By contrast, wages fell 10.3 percent for those workers between 2001 and 2013. Meanwhile, the sticker price for bachelor’s or associate’s degrees has tripled, the study found.


Not surprisingly, the return varies significantly across majors, with engineering majors earning up to a 21 percent rate of return, while education majors earned just 9 percent. Still, that’s better than the 7 percent annual return investors in the stock market have earned since 1950, the report pointed out.

Post-Secondary Measurements of Growth

Nearly 70 two- and four-year colleges will test a project to assess student growth in skills including quantitative reasoning, written communication and critical thinking by using common rubrics to evaluate student work across states and institutions.
The Multi-State Collaborative to Advance Learning Outcomes Assessment  is a joint project of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, and part of an ongoing learning assessment initiative by AAC&U. In addition to building faculty assessment capacity, the project will develop an online data platform for uploading student work samples and assessment data.
The project’s first year is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
“The calls are mounting daily for higher education to be able to show what students can successfully do with their learning,” AAC&U President Carol Geary Schneider said in a statement. “The Multi-State Collaborative is a very important step toward focusing assessment on the best evidence of all: the work students produce in the course of their college studies. It is exciting and inspiring to see that so many campuses want to be part of this important national study and change effort.”

MA Data Privacy Regs

23.01: Application of Rights

603 CMR 23.00 is promulgated to insure parents' and students' rights of confidentiality, inspection, amendment, and destruction of student records and to assist local school systems in adhering to the law. 603 CMR 23.00 should be liberally construed for these purposes.

(1) These rights shall be the rights of the student upon reaching 14 years of age or upon entering the ninth grade, whichever comes first. If a student is under the age of 14 and has not yet entered the ninth grade, these rights shall belong to the student's parent.

(2) If a student is from 14 through 17 years of age or has entered the ninth grade, both the student and his/her parent, or either one acting alone, shall exercise these rights.

(3) If a student is 18 years of age or older, he/she alone shall exercise these rights, subject to the following. The parent may continue to exercise the rights until expressly limited by such student. Such student may limit the rights and provisions of 603 CMR 23.00 which extend to his/her parent, except the right to inspect the student record, by making such request in writing to the school principal or superintendent of schools who shall honor such request and retain a copy of it in the student record. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71, section 34E, the parent of a student may inspect the student record regardless of the student's age.

(4) Notwithstanding 603 CMR 23.01(1) and 23.01(2), nothing shall be construed to mean that a school committee cannot extend the provisions of 603 CMR 23.00 to students under the age of 14 or to students who have not yet entered the ninth grade.

23.02: Definition of Terms

The various terms as used in 603 CMR 23.00 are defined below:

Access shall mean inspection or copying of a student record, in whole or in part.

Authorized school personnel shall consist of three groups:

(a) School administrators, teachers, counselors and other professionals who are employed by the school committee or who are providing services to the student under an agreement between the school committee and a service provider, and who are working directly with the student in an administrative, teaching counseling, and/or diagnostic capacity. Any such personnel who are not employed directly by the school committee shall have access only to the student record information that is required for them to perform their duties.

(b) Administrative office staff and clerical personnel, including operators of data processing equipment or equipment that produces microfilm/microfiche, who are either employed by the school committee or are employed under a school committee service contract, and whose duties require them to have access to student records for purposes of processing information for the student record. Such personnel shall have access only to the student record information that is required for them to perform their duties.

(c) The Evaluation Team which evaluates a student.

Eligible student shall mean any student who is 14 years of age or older or who has entered 9th grade, unless the school committee acting pursuant to 603 CMR 23.01(4) extends the rights and provisions of 603 CMR 23.00 to students under the age of 14 or to students who have not yet entered 9th grade.

Evaluation Team shall mean the team which evaluates school-age children pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B (St. 1972, c. 766) and 603 CMR 28.00.

Parent shall mean a student's father or mother, or guardian, or person or agency legally authorized to act on behalf of the student in place of or in conjunction with the father, mother, or guardian. Any parent who by court order does not have physical custody of the student, is considered a non-custodial parent for purposes of M.G.L. c. 71, § 34H and 603 CMR 23.00. This includes parents who by court order do not reside with or supervise the student, even for short periods of time.

Release shall mean the oral or written disclosure, in whole or in part, of information in a student record.

School-age child with special needs shall have the same definition as that given in M.G.L. c. 71B (St. 1972, c. 766) and 603 CMR 28.00.

School committee shall include a school committee, a board of trustees of a charter school, a board of trustees of a vocational-technical school, a board of directors of an educational collaborative and the governing body of an M.G.L. c. 71B (Chapter 766) approved private school.

Student shall mean any person enrolled or formerly enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school or any person age three or older about whom a school committee maintains information. The term as used in 603 CMR 23.00 shall not include a person about whom a school committee maintains information relative only to that person's employment by the school committee.

The student record shall consist of the transcript and the temporary record, including all information recording and computer tapes, microfilm, microfiche, or any other materials regardless of physical form or characteristics concerning a student that is organized on the basis of the student's name or in a way that such student may be individually identified, and that is kept by the public schools of the Commonwealth. The term as used in 603 CMR 23.00 shall mean all such information and materials regardless of where they are located, except for the information and materials specifically exempted by 603 CMR 23.04.

The temporary record shall consist of all the information in the student record which is not contained in the transcript. This information clearly shall be of importance to the educational process. Such information may include standardized test results, class rank (when applicable), extracurricular activities, and evaluations by teachers, counselors, and other school staff.

Third party shall mean any person or private or public agency, authority, or organization other than the eligible student, his/her parent, or authorized school personnel.

The transcript shall contain administrative records that constitute the minimum data necessary to reflect the student's educational progress and to operate the educational system. These data shall be limited to the name, address, and phone number of the student; his/ her birthdate; name, address, and phone number of the parent or guardian; course titles, grades (or the equivalent when grades are not applicable), course credit, grade level completed, and the year completed.

23.03: Collection of Data: Limitations and Requirements

All information and data contained in or added to the student record shall be limited to information relevant to the educational needs of the student. Information and data added to the temporary record shall include the name, signature, and position of the person who is the source of the information, and the date of entry into the record. Standardized group test results that are added to the temporary record need only include the name of the test and/or publisher, and date of testing.

23.04: Personal Files of School Employees

The term student record does not include notes, memory aids and other similar information that is maintained in the personal files of a school employee and is not accessible or revealed to authorized school personnel or any third party. Such information may be shared with the student, parent or a temporary substitute of the maker of the record, but if it is released to authorized school personnel it becomes part of the student record subject to all the provisions of 603 CMR 23.00.

23.05: Privacy and Security of Student Records

(1) The school principal or his/her designee shall be responsible for the privacy and security of all student records maintained in the school.

(2) The superintendent of schools or his/her designee shall be responsible for the privacy and security of all student records that are not under the supervision of a school principal, for example, former students' transcripts stored in the school department's central administrative offices or student records of school-age children with special needs who have not been enrolled in a public school.

(3) The principal and superintendent of schools shall insure that student records under their supervision are kept physically secure, that authorized school personnel are informed of the provisions of 603 CMR 23.00 and M.G.L. c. 71, § 34H and are educated as to the importance of information privacy and confidentiality; and that any computerized systems employed are electronically secure.

23.06: Destruction of Student Records

(1) The student's transcript shall be maintained by the school department and may only be destroyed 60 years following his/her graduation, transfer, or withdrawal from the school system.

(2) During the time a student is enrolled in a school, the principal or his/her designee shall periodically review and destroy misleading, outdated, or irrelevant information contained in the temporary record provided that the eligible student and his/her parent are notified in writing and are given opportunity to receive the information or a copy of it prior to its destruction. A copy of such notice shall be placed in the temporary record.

(3) The temporary record of any student enrolled on or after the effective date of 603 CMR 23.00 shall be destroyed no later than seven years after the student transfers, graduates, or withdraws from the school system. Written notice to the eligible student and his/her parent of the approximate date of destruction of the record and their right to receive the information in whole or in part, shall be made at the time of such transfer, graduation, or withdrawal. Such notice shall be in addition to the routine information letter required by 603 CMR 23.10.

(4) In accordance with M.G.L. c 71, section 87, the score of any group intelligence test administered to a student enrolled in a public school shall be removed from the record of said student at the end of the school year in which such test was so administered.

23.07: Access to Student Records

(1) Log of Access. A log shall be kept as part of each student's record. If parts of the student record are separately located, a separate log shall be kept with each part. The log shall indicate all persons who have obtained access to the student record, stating: the name, position and signature of the person releasing the information; the name, position and, if a third party, the affiliation if any, of the person who is to receive the information; the date of access; the parts of the record to which access was obtained; and the purpose of such access. Unless student record information is to be deleted or released, this log requirement shall not apply to:

(a) authorized school personnel under 603 CMR 23.02(9)(a) who inspect the student record;

(b) administrative office staff and clerical personnel under 603 CMR 23.02(9)(b), who add information to or obtain access to the student record; and

(c) school nurses who inspect the student health record.

(2) Access of Eligible Students and Parents. The eligible student or the parent, subject to the provisions of 603 CMR 23.07 (5), shall have access to the student record. Access shall be provided as soon as practicable and within ten days after the initial request, except in the case of non-custodial parents as provided in 603 CMR 23.07 (5). Upon request for access, the entire student record regardless of the physical location of its parts shall be made available.

(a) Upon request, copies of any information contained in the student record shall be furnished to the eligible student or the parent. A reasonable fee, not to exceed the cost of reproduction, may be charged. However, a fee may not be charged if to do so would effectively prevent the parents or eligible student from exercising their right, under federal law, to inspect and review the records.

(b) Any student, regardless of age, shall have the right pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71, section 34A to receive a copy of his/her transcript.

(c) The eligible student or the parent shall have the right upon request to meet with professionally qualified school personnel and to have any of the contents of the student record interpreted.

(d) The eligible student or the parent may have the student record inspected or interpreted by a third party of their choice. Such third party shall present specific written consent of the eligible student or parent, prior to gaining access to the student record.

(3) Access of Authorized School Personnel. Subject to 603 CMR 23.00, authorized school personnel shall have access to the student records of students to whom they are providing services, when such access is required in the performance of their official duties. The consent of the eligible student or parent shall not be necessary.

(4) Access of Third Parties. Except for the provisions of 603 CMR 23.07(4)(a) through 23.07(4)(h), no third party shall have access to information in or from a student record without the specific, informed written consent of the eligible student or the parent. When granting consent, the eligible student or parent shall have the right to designate which parts of the student record shall be released to the third party. A copy of such consent shall be retained by the eligible student or parent and a duplicate placed in the temporary record. Except for information described in 603 CMR 23.07(4)(a), personally identifiable information from a student record shall only be released to a third party on the condition that he/she will not permit any other third party to have access to such information without the written consent of the eligible student or parent.

(a) A school may release the following directory information: a student's name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, major field of study, dates of attendance, weight and height of members of athletic teams, class, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, degrees, honors and awards, and post-high school plans without the consent of the eligible student or parent; provided that the school gives public notice of the types of information it may release under 603 CMR 23.07 and allows eligible students and parents a reasonable time after such notice to request that this information not be released without the prior consent of the eligible student or parent. Such notice may be included in the routine information letter required under 603 CMR 23.10.

(b) Upon receipt of a court order or lawfully issued subpoena the school shall comply, provided that the school makes a reasonable effort to notify the parent or eligible student of the order or subpoena in advance of compliance.

(c) A school may release information regarding a student upon receipt of a request from the Department of Social Services, a probation officer, a justice of any court, or the Department of Youth Services under the provisions of M.G.L. c. 119, sections 51B, 57, 69 and 69A respectively.

(d) Federal, state and local education officials, and their authorized agents shall have access to student records as necessary in connection with the audit, evaluation or enforcement of federal and state education laws, or programs; provided that except when collection of personally identifiable data is specifically authorized by law, any data collected by such officials shall be protected so that parties other than such officials and their authorized agents cannot personally identify such students and their parents; and such personally identifiable data shall be destroyed when no longer needed for the audit, evaluation or enforcement of federal and state education laws.

(e) A school may disclose information regarding a student to appropriate parties in connection with a health or safety emergency if knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals. This includes, but is not limited to, disclosures to the local police department and the Department of Social Services under the provisions of M.G.L. c. 71, section 37L and M.G.L. c. 119, section 51A.

(f) Upon notification by law enforcement authorities that a student, or former student, has been reported missing, a mark shall be placed in the student record of such student. The school shall report any request concerning the records of the such child to the appropriate law enforcement authority pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. c. 22A, section 9.

(g) Authorized school personnel of the school to which a student seeks or intends to transfer may have access to such student's record without the consent of the eligible student or parent, provided that the school the student is leaving, or has left, gives notice that it forwards student records to schools in which the student seeks or intends to enroll. Such notice may be included in the routine information letter required under 603 CMR 23.10.

(h) School health personnel and local and state health department personnel shall have access to student health records, including but not limited to immunization records, when such access is required in the performance of official duties, without the consent of the eligible student or parent.

(5) Access Procedures for Non-Custodial Parents. As required by M.G.L. c. 71, § 34H, a non-custodial parent may have access to the student record in accordance with the following provisions.

(a) A non-custodial parent is eligible to obtain access to the student record unless:
1.the parent has been denied legal custody or has been ordered to supervised visitation, based on a threat to the safety of the student and the threat is specifically noted in the order pertaining to custody or supervised visitation, or
2.the parent has been denied visitation, or
3.the parent's access to the student has been restricted by a temporary or permanent protective order, unless the protective order (or any subsequent order modifying the protective order) specifically allows access to the information contained in the student record, or
4.there is an order of a probate and family court judge which prohibits the distribution of student records to the parent.

(b) The school shall place in the student's record documents indicating that a non-custodial parent's access to the student's record is limited or restricted pursuant to 603 CMR 23.07(5)(a).

(c) In order to obtain access, the non-custodial parent must submit a written request for the student record to the school principal.

(d) Upon receipt of the request the school must immediately notify the custodial parent by certified and first class mail, in English and the primary language of the custodial parent, that it will provide the non-custodial parent with access after 21 days, unless the custodial parent provides the principal with documentation that the non-custodial parent is not eligible to obtain access as set forth in 603 CMR 23.07 (5)(a).

(e) The school must delete all electronic and postal address and telephone number information relating to either work or home locations of the custodial parent from student records provided to non-custodial parents. In addition, such records must be marked to indicate that they shall not be used to enroll the student in another school.

(f) Upon receipt of a court order that prohibits the distribution of information pursuant to G.L. c. 71, §34H, the school shall notify the non-custodial parent that it shall cease to provide access to the student record to the non-custodial parent.

23.08: Amending the Student Record

(1) The eligible student or the parent shall have the right to add information, comments, data, or any other relevant written material to the student record.

(2) The eligible student or the parent shall have the right to request in writing deletion or amendment of any information contained in the student record, except for information which was inserted into that record by an Evaluation Team. Such information inserted by an Evaluation Team shall not be subject to such a request until after the acceptance of the Evaluation Team Educational Plan, or, if the Evaluation Team Educational Plan is rejected, after the completion of the special education appeal process. Any deletion or amendment shall be made in accordance with the procedure described below:

(a) If such student or parent is of the opinion that adding information is not sufficient to explain, clarify or correct objectionable material in the student record, either student or parent shall present the objection in writing and/or have the right to have a conference with the principal or his/her designee to make the objections known.

(b) The principal or his/her designee shall within one week after the conference or receipt of the objection, if no conference was requested, render to such student or parent a decision in writing, stating the reason or reasons for the decision. If the decision is in favor of the student or parent, the principal or his/her designee shall promptly take such steps as may be necessary to put the decision into effect.

23.09: Appeals

(1) In the event that any decision of a principal or his/her designee regarding any of the provisions contained in 603 CMR 23.00 is not satisfactory in whole or in part to the eligible student or parent, they shall have the right of appeal to the superintendent of schools. Request for such appeal shall be in writing to the superintendent of schools.

(2) The superintendent of schools or his/her designee shall within two weeks after being notified of such appeal (longer should the appellant request a delay) review the issues presented and render a written decision to the appellant, stating the reason or reasons for the decision. If the decision is in favor of the appellant, the superintendent of schools or his/her designee shall promptly take such steps as may be necessary to put the decision into effect.

(3) In the event that the decision of the superintendent of schools or his/her designee is not satisfactory to the appellant in whole or in part, the appellant shall have the right of appeal to the school committee. Request for such appeal shall be in writing to the chairperson of the school committee.

(4) The school committee shall within four weeks after being notified of such appeal (longer should the appellant request a delay) conduct a fair hearing to decide the issues presented by the appellant.

(a) School officials shall have the burden of proof on issues presented by the appellant.

(b) The appellant shall have the right to be represented by an advocate of his/her choosing, to cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence, to make a tape or other recording of the proceedings, and to receive a written decision within two weeks after the hearing.

(c) If the appeal concerns statements by an employee of the school committee, such person(s) shall have the right to be present and to have an advocate of his/her own choosing.

(5) Nothing in 603 CMR 23.00 shall abridge or limit any right of aneligible student or parent to seek enforcement of 603 CMR 23.00 or thestatutes regarding student records, in any court or administrative agency ofcompetent jurisdiction.

23.10: Notification

(1) At least once during every school year, the school shall publish and distribute to students and their parents in their primary language a routine information letter informing them of the following:

(a) The standardized testing programs and research studies to be conducted during the year and other routine information to be collected or solicited from the student during the year.

(b) The general provisions of 603 CMR 23.00 regarding parent and student rights, and that copies of 603 CMR 23.00 are available to them from the school.

(2) In those school systems required under M.G.L. c. 71A to conduct a bilingual program, all forms, regulations, or other documents regarding 603 CMR 23.00 that a parent receives or is required to receive shall be in the language spoken in the home of the student, provided that it is a language for which the school system is required to provide a bilingual program.

23.11: Monitoring

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education may, pursuant to a request by an eligible student or parent or on its own initiative, conduct reviews to insure compliance with 603 CMR 23.00. The school committee and the specific school(s) involved shall cooperate to the fullest extent with such review.

23.12: Severance Clause

The provisions of 603 CMR 23.00 are severable and should any section be found upon judicial review to exceed the authority of the State Board of Education, the remaining sections shall not be affected.

Regulatory Authority:
603 CMR 23.00: M.G.L. c. 71, 34D, 34E.


 Last Updated: September 18, 2006

USED Proposed Priorities

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Secretary’s Proposed Supplemental Priorities and
Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs

SUMMARY: To support a comprehensive education agenda, the
Secretary proposes 15 priorities and related definitions
for use in discretionary grant programs. These proposed
priorities and definitions are intended to replace the
current supplemental priorities for discretionary grant
programs that were published in 2010. These priorities
reflect the lessons learned from implementing discretionary
grant programs, as well as our current policy objectives,
and emerging needs in education.

This notice includes 15 proposed priorities, which are
a combination of new priorities and amended versions of
priorities from the 2010 Supplemental Priorities. The
Department will choose which, if any, of the proposed
priorities will be used for any particular discretionary
grant competition; and such decisions will be made
consistent with each program’s current authorizing statute
and regulations.
Proposed Priority 1--Improving Early Learning and
Development Outcomes.
Background:
In his January 28, 2014, State of the Union address,
the President repeated his request from the previous year
to help states make high-quality preschool available to all
children, noting that lack of access to high-quality early
learning and development programs can cast a shadow over a
child for the rest of his or her life. Further, research
suggests that participation in high-quality early learning
and development programs may lead to improved school
7
readiness for children in the short term, as well as higher
graduation rates and higher earnings in the long term.1
Thus, through this proposed priority, the Department will
support projects that are designed to improve early
learning and developmental outcomes across the essential
domains of school readiness (as defined in this notice) for
children from birth through third grade. Further, we seek
to expand on the early learning priority included in the
2010 Supplemental Priorities by also proposing to support
projects designed to increase access to high-quality early
learning and development programs, improve the quality and
effectiveness of the early learning workforce, include
preschool as part of elementary and secondary education
programs and systems, and improve data-sharing,
coordination, and alignment between early learning and
development systems and elementary education systems.
Additionally, children from low-income families are
under-represented in early learning and development
1 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M., Espinosa,
L., Gormley, W., Ludwig, J.O., Magnuson, K.A., Phillips, D.A., &
Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on
preschool education. New York: Foundation for Child Development and Ann
Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development. Available at:
http://fcdus.
org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education
%20FINAL.pdf.
8
programs across the country.2 Through this proposed
priority, the Department would support projects that
increase children’s access to high-quality early learning
and development programs, particularly for children with
high needs (as defined in this notice). High-quality early
learning and development programs across the birth-throughthird-
grade continuum include the following elements, as
appropriate: high staff qualifications, including
attainment of a bachelor of arts degree for teachers;
effective professional development for teachers and staff;
low staff-child ratios; small class sizes; a full-day
program; developmentally appropriate, evidence-based
curricula and learning environments aligned with State
early learning standards; employee salaries comparable to
those of kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) teaching
staff; ongoing program evaluation to ensure continuous
improvement; and on-site comprehensive services for
children (e.g., health screenings, meals, nutrition
services, family engagement strategies).
In the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge
program, the Department collaborates with the U.S.
2 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) (August 2008). School Readiness Survey of the National
Household Education Survey (NHES), 2007. Available at:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008051.
9
Department of Health and Human Services to emphasize that
an early learning and development system is most effective
for children when seamlessly coordinated with an elementary
education system.3 This coordination may include, alone or
in combination, aligning standards, comprehensive
assessments, data systems, workforce systems, family
engagement, and health promotion strategies. By aligning
and coordinating early learning and development systems and
elementary education systems, children are more likely to
enter kindergarten ready to succeed and to sustain improved
outcomes through the early elementary years. This proposed
priority aims to support projects that will provide all
children with a high-quality foundation that will prepare
them for success in school and in life.
Proposed Priority 1--Improving Early Learning and
Development Outcomes.
Projects that are designed to improve early learning
and development outcomes across one or more of the
essential domains of school readiness (as defined in this
notice) for children from birth through third grade (or for
any age group within this range) through a focus on one or
more of the following:
3 More information on the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge
program is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetopearlylearningchallenge/
index.html.
(a) Increasing access to high-quality early learning
and development programs and comprehensive services,
particularly for children with high needs (as defined in
this notice).
(b) Improving the quality and effectiveness of the
early learning workforce so that early childhood educators
have the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to
improve young children’s health, social-emotional, and
cognitive outcomes.
(c) Improving the coordination and alignment between
early learning and development systems and elementary
education systems, in accordance with applicable privacy
laws, to improve transitions for children from birth
through third grade.
(d) Including preschool as part of elementary
education programs and systems in order to expand
opportunities for preschool students and teachers.
(e) Sustaining improved early learning and
development outcomes throughout the early elementary school
years.
Proposed Priority 2--Influencing the Development of
Non-Cognitive Factors.
Background:
A promising body of research suggests that noncognitive
factors play an important role in students’
academic, career, and life outcomes.4 Non-cognitive factors
include a broad range of behaviors, strategies, and
attitudes, such as academic behaviors (e.g., attendance,
homework completion), academic mindsets (e.g., sense of
belonging in the academic community, believing academic
achievement improves with effort), perseverance (e.g.,
tenacity, self-discipline), social and emotional skills
(e.g., cooperation, empathy, adaptability), and approaches
toward learning strategies (e.g., executive functions,
attention, goal-setting, curiosity, problem solving, selfregulating
learning, study skills).5 With this proposed
priority, the Department intends to support projects that
develop and strengthen students' mastery of non-cognitive
skills and behaviors so that they develop and attain the
skills necessary for success in school, career, and life.
This proposed priority is new and was not included in
the 2010 Supplemental Priorities.
4 The University of Chicago Consortium of Chicago School Research (June
2012). Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of
Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance. Available at:
http://raikesfoundation.org/Documents/Teaching%20Adolescents%20to%20Bec
ome%20Learners%20(CCSR%20Literature%20Review%20June%202012).pdf.
5 Ibid.
12
Proposed Priority 2--Influencing the Development of
Non-Cognitive Factors.
Projects that are designed to improve students’
mastery of non-cognitive skills and behaviors (e.g.,
academic behaviors, academic mindset, perseverance, selfregulation,
social and emotional skills, and approaches
toward learning strategies) and enhance student motivation
and engagement in learning.
Proposed Priority 3--Promoting Personalized Learning.
Background:
Personalized learning (as defined in this notice) aims
to differentiate content, tools, and materials for each
learner so that he or she can meet college- and careerready
standards. Teacher and student interactions are
strengthened when, through ongoing personalized
assessments, a teacher has access to timely and targeted
information about each student’s particular needs and
interests.
Personalized learning can be implemented through use
of digital tools, adopting universal design principles, and
aligning activities during non-school hours with students’
unique needs. When well designed and appropriately
implemented, personalized learning can narrow achievement
gaps by using academic interventions that promote
13
excellence. For example, a recent large-scale
effectiveness study found that a technology-based,
personalized, and blended-learning mathematics curriculum
could effectively raise a high school student from the 50th
to the 58th percentile.6 This sort of intervention has
great potential to narrow achievement gaps between groups
of students.
At its most effective, personalized learning can
inspire students at all levels by effectively challenging
those students who are furthest ahead on a specific topic,
providing targeted assistance to those furthest behind, and
engaging with the students in the middle. Personalized
learning supports mastery-based differentiation, which also
allows for regrouping students as appropriate.
This proposed priority aims to support projects that
use personalized learning to prepare students to master the
content and skills required for college- and careerreadiness.
This proposed priority is new and was not included in
the 2010 Supplemental Priorities.
Proposed Priority 3--Promoting Personalized Learning.
Pane, John F., et al. (2013). Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra
I at Scale. Rand Corporation. Available at:
www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP50410.html.
14
Projects that are designed to improve student academic
outcomes and close academic opportunity or attainment gaps
through one of the following:
(a) Implementing personalized learning (as defined in
this notice) approaches that will ensure appropriate
support and produce academic excellence for all students.
(b) Awarding credit or digital credentials (as
defined in this notice) based on personalized
learning or adaptive assessments of academic
performance, cognitive growth, or behavioral
improvements and aligned with college- and careerready
standards.
Proposed Priority 4--Improving Academic Outcomes for
High-Need Students.
Background:
The Department is committed to pursuing equity at all
stages of education, from birth through adulthood, and aims
to ensure that all students are afforded the opportunity to
succeed academically. However, persistent and significant
gaps in achievement still exist between high-need students
(as defined in this notice)7 and their more advantaged
7 Note that the definition of “high-need student” is not limited to
students of a certain grade or age. Accordingly, a high-need student
could be a student in an early learning and development program, a
15
peers. By supporting projects that improve student
learning or encourage targeted subgroups of students to
develop new skills, the Department is furthering its
commitment to ensure that all students have the opportunity
to succeed academically and to learn essential skills that
support success in their careers and in life.
We included a similar priority in the 2010
Supplemental Priorities, which focused on accelerating
learning and improving high school graduation rates for
high-need students. Adding these groups to the proposed
priority would allow for broader use across the
Department’s discretionary grant programs. In addition to
including an expanded set of student subgroups, we are also
revising this priority to support projects that are
designed to improve academic outcomes or learning
environments.
Proposed Priority 4--Improving Academic Outcomes for
High-Need Students.
Projects that are designed to improve:
(a) Academic outcomes, or
(b) Learning environments, for one or more of the
following groups of students:
student in elementary or secondary school, a postsecondary student, or
an adult learner.
16
(i) High-need students (as defined in this notice).
(ii) Students in rural local educational agencies (as
defined in this notice).
(iii) Students with disabilities.
(iv) English learners.
(v) Students in lowest performing schools (as defined
in this notice).
(vi) Students who are living in poverty and are
served by schools with high concentrations of students
living in poverty.
(vii) Disconnected youth, such as youth who are
homeless, in foster care, have come into contact with the
juvenile justice system, unemployed, or are not enrolled in
an educational institution, or migrant youth.
(viii) Low-skilled adults (as defined in this
notice).
Proposed Priority 5--Increasing Postsecondary Access,
Affordability, and Completion.
Background:
Postsecondary education, including career and
technical education, is increasingly necessary for
individuals to compete in a global economy. Therefore, the
Nation must boost completion rates for associate’s and
bachelor’s degrees, as well as for industry-recognized
17
credentials or certificates. The President has set a goal
that, by 2020, the United States will have the highest
proportion of college graduates in the world. This
proposed priority aligns with the President’s goal by
supporting projects that prepare students, particularly
high-need students (as defined in this notice), for college
and careers; enroll more students in postsecondary
education; and increase the number of those who complete
programs of study with a degree or certificate. This
proposed priority also supports career and technical
training that provides students with the knowledge and
skills to succeed in the workforce.
With this proposed priority, we also aim to support
adult learners who must first strengthen their basic skills
before they are able to succeed in postsecondary education.
Basic skills may include reading, comprehension, and
mathematic skills, as well as abstraction, system thinking,
and experimentation. Basic skills may also include
workforce-related skills, such as timeliness,
responsibility, cooperation, and communication.
In addition to supporting projects that prepare
students for college and careers, we must improve students’
ability to afford postsecondary education, including career
and technical education. The average net cost of a college
18
education has risen for many undergraduates, particularly
full-time students attending four-year public colleges and
universities,8 widening the affordability gap. Giving
students the information they need to select the
institution most appropriate to their academic abilities,
as well as their personal, professional, and financial
goals, is essential. Further, making true college costs
transparent and providing students more affordable college
options will allow students to make informed choices from a
meaningful range of college options. Another strategy for
reducing the cost of education while also improving the
quality of teaching and learning is through developing and
implementing high-quality online, credit-bearing, and
accessible learning opportunities. Such strategies may
help achieve the President’s goal of the United States
having the highest proportion of college graduates in the
world.
The 2010 Supplemental Priorities also included a
priority on postsecondary success. We are revising the
priority to focus specifically on access, affordability,
and completion of postsecondary education, including career
8 The College Board. Trends in College Pricing 2012. Available at:
http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing.
19
and technical education, to further support the President’s
goal.
Proposed Priority 5--Increasing Postsecondary Access,
Affordability, and Completion.
Projects that are designed to address one or more of
the following:
(a) Reducing the net cost, median student loan debt,
and student loan default rate for high-need students (as
defined in this notice) who enroll in college, other
postsecondary education, or other career and technical
education.
(b) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need
students (as defined in this notice) who are academically
prepared for, enroll in, or complete on time college, other
postsecondary education, or other career and technical
education.
(c) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need
students (as defined in this notice) who, through college
preparation, awareness, recruitment, application,
selection, and other activities and strategies, enroll in
or complete college, other postsecondary education, or
other career and technical education.
(d) Increasing the number of individuals who return
to the educational system to obtain a regular high school
20
diploma or its recognized equivalent; enroll in and
complete college, other postsecondary education, or career
and technical training; or obtain basic and academic skills
needed to succeed in college, other postsecondary
education, other career and technical education, or the
workforce.
(e) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need
students (as defined in this notice), particularly lowskilled
adults (as defined in this notice), adults with
disabilities, and disconnected youth or youth who are at
risk of becoming disconnected, who enroll in and complete
postsecondary programs.
(f) Supporting the development and implementation of
high-quality online or hybrid credit-bearing and accessible
learning opportunities that reduce the total cost of higher
education, accelerate time to degree completion, or allow
students to progress at their own pace.
Proposed Priority 6-–Improving Job-Driven Training and
Employment Outcomes.
Background:
In his January 28, 2014, State of the Union address,
the President introduced an effort to “train Americans with
the skills employers need and match them to good jobs that
need to be filled right now.” Research suggests that the
21
most successful strategies for effective job-driven
training are those that closely align training with local
labor market needs. For example, one successful approach
is encouraging local agencies to foster sector partnerships
with local industry. Such employment and training
strategies have increased both employment rates and
earnings by obtaining accurate workforce needs assessments
from local business and industry groups.9 In addition,
programs that connect workers directly to the labor market
through subsidized employment and registered
apprenticeships have seen promising results.10,11
However, despite recent employment gains, far too many
hard-working individuals have not been able to find a job
or increase their earnings, and many businesses report
difficulty hiring workers with the right skills for jobs
they want to fill. The Department, in collaboration with
other Federal agencies, is working to ensure its career,
technical, and adult education and training programs and
policies are aligned with the President’s job-driven
training goals and assist individuals to acquire the skills
9 Maguire, Sheila et al. 2010. Findings from the Sectoral Employment
Impact Study. New York: Public/Private Ventures.
10 Reed, Debbie et al. 2012. An Effectiveness Assessment and Cost-
Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in 10 States. Oakland,
CA: Mathematica Policy Research.
11 Gennetian, Lisa A., Cynthia Miller, and Jared Smith. 2005. Turning
Welfare into Work Support: Six-Year Impacts on Parents and Children
from the Minnesota Family Investment Program. New York: MDRC.
22
necessary to pursue in-demand jobs and careers and obtain
employment. In addition to programs administered by the
Department’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult
Education, the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) State Grants
Program provides a wide range of services designed to
assist individuals with disabilities to prepare for,
obtain, and retain employment. The VR Grants Program is
the largest Federal training program.
Through this proposed priority, the Department would
support projects that align programs in the workforce and
training system to equip the Nation's workers with skills
matching the needs of employers looking to hire. It is
imperative that employers identify the skills and
credentials required for in-demand jobs; have multiple
mechanisms for finding workers who have or can acquire
those skills; and help develop training programs. Workers
and job seekers must have access not only to education and
training that meets their unique needs, skills, and
abilities, but also assistance from personnel with the
requisite education, skills, and experience to provide
employment counseling that will enable them to acquire jobs
that lead to meaningful careers. This proposed priority
was not included in the 2010 Supplemental Priorities and is
proposed to reflect the Department’s current policy goals.
23
Proposed Priority 6--Improving Job-Driven Training and
Employment Outcomes.
Projects that are designed to improve job-driven
training and employment outcomes through a focus on one or
more of the following:
(a) Increasing employer engagement (as defined in
this notice).
(b) Providing work-based learning opportunities
(e.g., Registered Apprenticeship, other apprenticeships,
internships, externships, on-the-job training, co-operative
learning, practica, and work experience) for low-skilled
adults (as defined in this notice) or other high-need
students (as defined in this notice).
(c) Integrating education and training into a career
pathways program or system that offers connected education
and training, related stackable credentials, and other
support services that enable low-skilled adults (as defined
in this notice) or other high-need students (as defined in
this notice) to secure industry-relevant certification and
obtain employment within an occupational area with the
potential to advance to higher levels of future education
and employment in that area.12
12 Examples of such integration may include partnering or coordinating
with other programs that provide job training and employment services,
24
(d) Providing labor market information, career
information, advising, counseling, job search assistance,
and other supports including performance-based or other
income supports or stipends, transportation and child care
assistance and information, or others as deemed
appropriate.
(e) Improving the knowledge and skills of personnel
and service providers that will enable such providers to
better assist their customers to obtain the competencies
and job skills required in the competitive labor market.
Proposed Priority 7--Promoting Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education.
Background:
The demand for highly skilled workers in many fields
is projected to outpace the number of qualified workers.
To meet the needs of the labor market and spur an increase
in technological innovation, creation, and study across the
Nation, the Department proposes this priority to support
the education and training of individuals in fields that
draw heavily on science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) knowledge, such as health care, advanced
manufacturing, clean energy, and information technology.
including American Job Centers and other programs authorized by the
Workforce Investment Act.
25
It is essential to the health of our economy to
increase the number of students attracted to and prepared
for careers in STEM and to increase the proportion of
students who are from groups historically under-represented
in these careers (e.g., minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women), and to retain all of these
students in STEM fields.
The 2012 report from the President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) estimated that
about 40 percent of all students who start their
postsecondary degree in a STEM field will finish their
program. Moreover, even among those who attained a
bachelor’s degree in a STEM field, only about 56 percent of
those working for pay one year after graduation worked in a
STEM-related career.13 Therefore, we propose to revise the
priority on STEM from the 2010 Supplemental Priorities to
address access to, and persistence in, rigorous and
engaging STEM coursework. To increase students’ engagement
and interest in STEM fields, it is imperative that students
are provided opportunities to pursue rigorous STEM
13 The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
(February 2012). Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional
College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics. Available at:
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-toexcel-
final_feb.pdf.
26
coursework and gain research experience prior to entering
postsecondary study and the workforce.
In addition, because of continued issues facing the
STEM P-12 teaching profession, including teacher shortages
and staffing difficulties, the President has challenged
governors, philanthropists, scientists, engineers,
educators, and the private sector to join a national
campaign to find new ways to recruit, train, reward, and
retain STEM teachers and to collectively prepare 100,000
STEM teachers over the next decade. Recruitment efforts
that attract the best talent into STEM teaching will
improve student learning and engagement in STEM subjects.
Finally, ensuring STEM teachers have adequate knowledge of
the subjects they are teaching and the ability to teach
them will improve effectiveness and relevance of
instruction in STEM subjects. This priority would also
help to bolster local or regional partnerships that enhance
students’ access to real-world STEM experiences and
teachers’ access to high-quality STEM-related professional
learning.
Proposed Priority 7--Promoting Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education.
27
Projects that are designed to improve student
achievement (as defined in this notice) or other related
outcomes by addressing one or more of the following:
(a) Increasing the preparation of teachers or other
educators in STEM subjects, including teachers of career
and technical education, through activities that may
include building content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge, and increasing the number and quality of
authentic STEM experiences (as defined in this notice).
(b) Providing students with increased access to
rigorous and engaging STEM coursework and authentic STEM
experiences (as defined in this notice).
(c) Identifying and implementing instructional
strategies, systems, and structures that improve
postsecondary learning and retention, resulting in
completion of a degree in a STEM field.
(d) Increasing the number of individuals from groups
historically under-represented 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
study and careers in STEM.
(e) Supporting local or regional partnerships to give
students access to real-world STEM experiences and to give
28
educators access to high-quality STEM-related professional
learning.
Proposed Priority 8--Implementing Internationally
Benchmarked College- and Career-Ready Standards and
Assessments.
Background:
Since 2009, 45 States and the District of Columbia
have partnered in a State-led effort to develop common,
internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready
standards in English language arts and mathematics for
elementary and secondary school students. Three other
States are implementing their own college- and career-ready
standards. In order to ensure effective implementation of
these college- and career-ready standards and thereby
further the goal of preparing students to compete in a
global economy, it is essential to develop and implement
teacher and principal preparation and professional
development programs; student assessments or performancebased
tools aligned with the standards, including adaptive
assessments, simulations, and performance tasks; and other
strategies that translate the standards and assessment data
into classroom practices that meet the needs of all
students, including English learners and students with
disabilities.
29
The Department has emphasized the importance of highquality
formative, interim, and summative assessments to
measure the extent to which students are meeting or
exceeding college- and career-ready standards. States that
set clear, high expectations for students must be able to
assess and accurately measure student performance against
those expectations. Projects that are designed to
implement these standards and assessments will improve
teaching and learning and can support greater
accountability to students, families, and school or
district staff by providing timely, relevant, and
actionable information about student learning over time.
A version of this priority was included in the 2010
Supplemental Priorities under a slightly different title.
In this notice, we are proposing minor changes to the
previous priority.
Proposed Priority 8--Implementing Internationally
Benchmarked College- and Career-Ready Standards and
Assessments.
Projects that are designed to support the
implementation of and transition to internationally
benchmarked college- and career-ready standards and
assessments, including projects in one or more of the
following:
30
(a) Developing and implementing student assessments
(e.g., formative assessments, interim assessments,
summative assessments) or performance-based tools aligned
with those standards and accessible to all students.
(b) Developing and implementing professional
development or teacher preparation programs that are
aligned with those standards.
(c) Developing and implementing strategies that
translate the standards and information from assessments
into classroom practices that meet the needs of all
students.
Proposed Priority 9--Improving Teacher Effectiveness
and Promoting Equal Access to Effective Teachers.
Background:
It is well established that teacher effectiveness
contributes more to student academic outcomes than any
other in-school measure; yet, there is dramatic variation
in teacher effectiveness within and across schools,
including significant inequity in students’ access to
effective teachers, particularly for low-income and
minority students.
As such, it is essential to attract a high-performing
and diverse pool of talented individuals into the teaching
profession and to ensure that they have access to high31
quality preparation programs that have high standards for
successful completion. Equally important is supporting and
retaining effective teachers through practices such as
creating or enhancing opportunities for professional
growth, reforming compensation and advancement systems, and
creating conditions for successful teaching and learning.
As part of their teacher development efforts, local
educational agencies (LEAs or districts) should have in
place strategies for ensuring teacher success, such as
evaluation and support systems that consider multiple
measures including student growth (as defined in this
notice) and that result in actionable feedback, support,
and incentives for improvement at every stage of a
teacher’s career.
In the 2010 Supplemental Priorities, we included a
single priority that supported projects focused on both
teachers and principals. This notice includes separate
priorities for projects supporting teachers and principals.
By creating separate priorities, discretionary grant
programs can choose to focus on either teachers or
principals and are provided the opportunity for more
targeted support to each group.
This proposed priority focuses solely on strengthening
teacher recruitment, selection, preparation, development,
32
retention, support, recognition, assessment, and reach in
ways that are consistent with the Department’s policy goals
for professionalizing teaching, improving outcomes for all
students, and ensuring that low-income students and
minority students have equal access to effective teachers.
This priority would encourage grantees to exceed the
requirements of Section 1112(c)(1)(L) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) by
focusing on effective teachers measured using a highquality
teacher evaluation and support system (as defined
in this notice).
Proposed Priority 9--Improving Teacher Effectiveness
and Promoting Equal Access to Effective Teachers.
Projects that are designed to address one or more of
the following:
(a) Increasing the number and percentage of effective
teachers in lowest performing schools (as defined in this
notice) or schools with high concentrations of low-income
and minority students, through such activities as:
(1) Improving the preparation, recruitment,
selection, and early career development of teachers;
implementing performance-based certification systems;
reforming compensation and advancement systems; and
reforming hiring timelines and systems.
33
(2) Improving the retention of effective teachers
through such activities as creating or enhancing
opportunities for teachers’ professional growth; reforming
compensation and advancement systems; and improving
workplace conditions to create opportunities for successful
teaching and learning; or
(b) Promoting equal access to effective teachers for
low-income and minority students across and within schools
and districts.
For the purposes of this priority, teacher
effectiveness must be measured using a high-quality teacher
evaluation and support system (as defined in this notice).
Proposed Priority 10--Improving the Effectiveness of
Principals.14
Background:
While there is no overall shortage of candidates who
have the credentials States require for principals, these
candidates are often ill-prepared to meet the demands of
the principal position.15 Both novice and experienced
principals often lack the necessary skills and support to
respond to the increased pressures of their positions, such
14 For the purposes of this priority, the term “principal” may also
refer to an assistant principal.
15 Roza, M., Celio, M.B., Harvey, J., & Wishon, S. (January 2003). A
Matter of Definition: Is there Truly a Shortage of School Principals?
A Report to the Wallace – Reader’s Digest Fund.
34
as changes to evaluation systems and the implementation of
key organizational processes in their schools. The
quality, not the quantity, of credentialed candidates for
principal positions is a common criticism of principal
preparation programs. Specifically, many district leaders
and policy makers are critical of principal preparation
programs that lack a rigorous screening and selection
process for program candidates, courses that are aligned
with standards of practice, and clinical experiences.16
Additionally, once credentialed candidates become
principals, they are often not provided the necessary
support and development opportunities that enable them to
enhance their skills, particularly in shaping a strong
professional community and collective responsibility for
student learning by evaluating and providing feedback to
teachers, analyzing student data, developing school
leadership teams, and creating a positive school climate.
This proposed priority underscores the value of
principals and takes into account the influence principals
have over teacher effectiveness and student achievement in
16 Hale, E. L., & Moorman, H.N. (September 2003). Preparing School
Principals: A National Perspective on Policy and Program Innovations.
Institute for Educational Leadership.
35
their schools.17 Through this proposed priority, we seek to
support projects that expand the pool of effective and
highly effective principals, support ongoing professional
development that is aligned with principals’ needs, and
build district capacity and systems that will provide
principals the instructional focus, core leadership
competencies, support, policies, and conditions that will
positively affect the schools they lead.
As noted in the background discussion of proposed
priority 9, we propose to separate priorities addressing
teachers and principals, therefore allowing discretionary
grant programs to focus on either teachers or principals in
a manner that is specific to each group’s unique needs.
Proposed Priority 10--Improving the Effectiveness of
Principals.
Projects that are designed to increase the number and
percentage of highly effective principals by addressing one
or more of the following:
(a) Creating or expanding practices and strategies to
recruit, select, prepare, and support talented individuals
to lead and significantly improve instruction in the lowest
17 Clifford , M., et al. Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive
Principal Evaluation Systems (April 2012). Available at:
www.gtlcenter.org/products-resources/online-practical-guide-designingcomprehensive-
principal-evaluation-systems.
36
performing schools (as defined in this notice) or schools
with high concentrations of high-need students (as defined
in this notice).
(b) Identifying, implementing, and supporting policies
and school conditions that facilitate efforts by principals
to turn around lowest performing schools (as defined in
this notice).
(c) Creating or expanding principal preparation
programs that include clinical experiences, induction and
other supports for program participants, strategies for
tracking the effect program graduates have on teaching and
learning, and coursework that is aligned with prekindergarten
through grade 12 college- and career-ready
standards.
(d) Implementing professional development for current
principals, especially in lowest performing schools (as
defined in this notice), that is designed to improve
teacher and student learning by supporting principals in
their mastery of essential instructional and organizational
leadership skills.
(e) Implementing practices or strategies that support
districts in hiring, evaluating, and supporting principals
to effectively lead schools.
37
For the purposes of this priority, principal
effectiveness must be measured using a high-quality
principal evaluation and support system (as defined in this
notice).
Proposed Priority 11--Leveraging Technology to Support
Instructional Practice and Professional Development.
Background:
Leveraging technology to support instructional
practice and professional development is crucial to ensure
Americans have access to a high-quality education and are
prepared to be globally competitive. Schools, educators,
students, and families all benefit when effective digital
tools and materials are thoughtfully integrated into
classrooms and communities.
Technology can accelerate or enhance the
implementation of the other priorities proposed in this
document by:
• Providing personalized data for early learning
providers;
• Assessing and supporting students’ mastery of noncognitive
skills and behaviors;
• Enabling the creation of personalized learning
environments;
38
• Targeting and differentiating material specifically
for high-need students (as defined in this notice);
• Increasing access to higher education and reducing
instructional costs;
• Accessing open educational resources (as defined in
this notice) aligned with internationally benchmarked
college- and career-ready standards;
• Supporting teachers in sharing best practices and
collaborating with experts to improve instructional
approaches;
• Encouraging teacher observation and principal
feedback;
• Engaging more effectively with diverse families and
communities;
• Providing access to advanced coursework and other
learning opportunities where otherwise not available; and
• Increasing the reach of highly effective teachers,
particularly for students in rural and isolated areas.
While the use of digital tools was part of the 2010
Supplemental Priorities, we are revising this priority to
include more specific strategies to promote technology
integration and enhance student and educator learning.
This proposed priority would explicitly support projects
39
that help students and educators take full advantage of
access to high-speed Internet, digital tools and materials,
and open educational resources (as defined in this notice).
Proposed Priority 11--Leveraging Technology to Support
Instructional Practice and Professional Development.
Projects that are designed to leverage technology
through one or more of the following:
(a) Using high-need Internet access and devices that
increase students’ and educators’ access to high-quality
digital tools, materials, and assessments, particularly
open educational resources (as defined in this notice).
(b) Developing and implementing high-quality
accessible digital tools, materials, and assessments that
are aligned to rigorous college- and career-ready
standards.
(c) Developing and implementing high-quality,
accessible online courses, learning communities, or
simulations, including those for which educators could earn
professional development credit or continuing education
units through digital credentials (as defined in this
notice) based on demonstrated mastery of competencies and
performance-based outcomes, instead of traditional timebased
metrics.
40
(d) Using data platforms that enable the development,
visualization, and rapid analysis of data to produce
evidence on teaching and learning, while also protecting
privacy in accordance with applicable laws.
Proposed Priority 12--Promoting Diversity.
Background:
The 2010 Supplemental Priorities included a priority
on diversity that allows the Department to give priority to
projects that “are designed to promote student diversity,
including racial and ethnic diversity, or avoid racial
isolation.” In announcing this priority in 2010, we noted
that LEAs and postsecondary institutions have found that
“providing diverse learning environments . . . can provide
substantial educational benefits.” To further this goal,
in 2011 and again in 2013, the Department, in conjunction
with the U.S. Department of Justice, issued guidance
regarding the use of race and ethnicity to promote
diversity and reduce racial isolation.18
The Department continues to encourage schools, school
districts, and postsecondary institutions to take lawful
18 Available at:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201111.html
and
www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/new-guidance-supports-voluntary-userace-
achieve-diversity-higher-education.
41
steps to increase student body diversity based on race and
ethnicity, and, in the case of school districts, to avoid
racial isolation. Any steps taken by school districts and
postsecondary institutions to further these efforts must be
done in accordance with applicable law, including United
States Supreme Court precedent, and the guidance should be
helpful in that respect.
Promoting diversity is a compelling educational goal
for students from many backgrounds. Today’s global economy
demands that students graduate ready to interact with
individuals from all walks of life and experience. LEAs
and postsecondary institutions have a critical role in
preparing students for success in an increasingly diverse
workforce and society, and can help students reap
substantial educational benefits by providing them with
learning environments in which they can develop important
skills, such as the ability to communicate and collaborate
with peers of different backgrounds, perspectives, and
abilities.
The 2010 priority highlighted racial and ethnic
diversity, but did not preclude an applicant from receiving
priority consideration for proposing projects promoting
diversity in other ways, such as diversity based on
socioeconomic status, another objective of Federal
42
education programs. Consequently, the proposed diversity
priority also covers projects that promote student body
diversity based on other factors, including a student’s
socioeconomic status. Highlighting efforts to promote
diversity based on socioeconomic status is also consistent
with the 2011 and 2013 guidance documents, which explain
that schools, school districts, and postsecondary
institutions may elect to take account of students’
socioeconomic status to achieve student body racial and
ethnic diversity and, in the case of preschool, elementary,
or secondary programs, to avoid racial isolation.
Proposed Priority 12--Promoting Diversity.
Projects that are designed to prepare students for
success in an increasingly diverse workforce and society by
increasing the diversity, including racial, ethnic, and
socioeconomic diversity, of students enrolled in schools or
postsecondary programs; or in the case of preschool,
elementary, or secondary programs, decreasing the racial,
ethnic, or socioeconomic isolation of students served by
the project.
Proposed Priority 13--Improving School Climate,
Behavioral Supports, and Correctional Education.
Background:
43
For all students to have the best chance for academic
success, it is imperative they attend safe schools with
nurturing climates that support active academic engagement
through comprehensive supports for their physical, mental,
and behavioral well-being. Too many students are
negatively affected by violence, bullying, and exclusionary
discipline practices, including suspension, expulsion, and
unnecessary placement in alternative educational programs.
The Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection indicates
that, for districts that reported expulsions, Hispanic and
African American students represent 56 percent of the
students expelled, but only 40 percent of the enrolled
students in these districts. Additionally, students
covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) were twice as likely as students who were not
covered under IDEA to be suspended from school at least
once.19 Identifying and addressing the causes for
disproportionate discipline and reducing school discipline
practices that remove students from the learning
environment will increase opportunities for student
success.
19 The Civil Rights Data Collection: Issue Brief No. 1: School
Discipline. (March 2014). Available at:
http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf.
44
Similarly, too many individuals who are or who have
been incarcerated lack access to high-quality education or
job training programs that will support their reintegration
into the community. According to a recent study, inmates
who participated in correctional education programs were,
on average, 13 percentage points less likely to return to
prison than inmates who did not participate in such
programs.20 Providing these individuals with the skills and
knowledge essential for their futures will assist them in
their transition to becoming productive citizens and
decrease the likelihood of recidivism.
The 2010 Supplemental Priorities broadly addressed
school climate. Through this proposed priority, we focus
on specific challenges related to school climate, including
disparities in and overuse of exclusionary discipline
practices, and add a focus on social, emotional, and
behavioral supports.21 In supporting projects that improve
school climate and reduce school discipline issues, assess
and address the root causes of disproportionate discipline,
and improve the quality of education programs in juvenile
20 Rand Corporation (2013). Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs that Provide
Education to Incarcerated Adults. Available at:
www.bja.gov/Publications/RAND_Correctional-Education-Meta-Analysis.pdf.
21 Luiselli, J.K., Putnam, R.F., Handler, M.W., Feinberg, A.B. (2005).
Whole-School Positive Behaviour Support: Effects on student discipline
problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25 (2-3),
183-198.
45
justice and adult correctional facilities, the Department
aims to support projects that support positive student
behavior and students’ success in college and in their
careers.
Proposed Priority 13--Improving School Climate,
Behavioral Supports, and Correctional Education.
Projects that are designed to improve student outcomes
through one or more of the following:
(a) Improving school climate through strategies that
may include establishing tiered behavioral supports (as
defined in this notice) or strengthening student social,
emotional, and behavioral skills.
(b) Reducing or eliminating disparities in school
disciplinary practices and the use of exclusionary
discipline (such as suspensions, expulsions, and
unnecessary placements in alternative education programs)
for particular groups of students, including minority
students and students with disabilities, by identifying and
addressing the root causes of such disparities.
(c) Improving the quality of education programs in
juvenile justice facilities (such as detention facilities
and secure and non-secure placements) or adult correctional
facilities, and linking the youth or adults to education or
job training programs post-release.
46
Proposed Priority 14--Improving Parent, Family, and
Community Engagement.
Background:
In order for families to be meaningfully engaged in
their children’s education and development, they must have
a sense of shared responsibility with schools and
communities for their children’s academic outcomes. They
must also have opportunities to support learning and school
improvement and feel that their engagement is welcomed and
supported by school and district staff.
In the 2010 Supplemental Priorities, we included a
single priority that combined efforts to improve family and
community engagement with efforts to improve school
engagement, environment, and safety. This proposed
priority would separate efforts to improve parent, family,
and community engagement from those focused on improving
school engagement, environment, and safety. Further, the
2010 priority addressed improving parent and family
engagement broadly. Under this proposed priority, however,
we would specify and expand on the types of projects we
would like to support.
For example, this proposed priority would support the
alignment of the Department’s policies, practices, and
programs concerning parent and family engagement (as
47
defined in this notice) and community engagement (as
defined in this notice). We view family engagement as a
shared responsibility from cradle to career that takes
place across multiple settings (i.e., home, school, and
community). Further, this proposed priority focuses on
building the capacity of parents, families, communities,
and school and district staff to support academic
achievement. This capacity-building focus can be
integrated into many aspects of a school’s or LEA’s
strategy to achieve learning goals, including the
recruitment and training of effective teachers and leaders,
the mechanisms used to evaluate and assess both teachers
and students, and the tools that provide parents with
access to information about students’ academic progress and
performance and information on how to use that data to
support their children’s education.
Proposed Priority 14--Improving Parent, Family, and
Community Engagement.
Projects that are designed to improve students’
academic outcomes through one or more of the following:
(a) Developing and implementing systemic initiatives
(as defined in this notice) to improve parent and family
engagement (as defined in this notice) by expanding and
enhancing the skills, strategies, and knowledge (i.e.,
48
techniques needed to effectively communicate, advocate,
support, and make informed decisions about the student’s
education) of parents and families.
(b) Providing professional development that enhances
the skills and competencies of school leaders, principals,
teachers, or other administrative and support staff to
build meaningful relationships with students’ parents or
families.
(c) Implementing initiatives that improve community
engagement (as defined in this notice) or the relationships
between parents or families and school staff by cultivating
sustained partnerships (as defined in this notice).
Proposed Priority 15--Supporting Military Families and
Veterans.
Background:
There are more than 1.2 million school-aged children
who have at least one parent that is a member of the
uniformed services.22 Approximately 10 percent of those
children have a parent deployed to a combat zone, and
students of deployed parents can live in any community
across our Nation and attend any school. Research suggests
22 Strengthening Our Military Families: Meeting America’s Commitment
(January 2011). Available at:
www.defense.gov/home/features/2011/0111_initiative/Strengthening_our_Mi
litary_January_2011.pdf.
49
that military children experience stressors due to
relocation that can negatively affect student achievement
and participation in school activities. A 2010 military
family lifestyle survey found that 34 percent of
respondents are “less or not confident” that their
children’s school is responsive to the unique aspects of
military family life.23
Through a memorandum of understanding, the Department
of Education and the Department of Defense acknowledge the
unique educational needs and challenges faced by the
children of military servicemen and women, including the
need to reduce the negative consequences of frequent
relocations and absences. Additionally, on April 27, 2012,
the President signed Executive Order 13607, “Principles of
Excellence for Educational Institutions Serving Service
Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members.” In
implementing the Executive order, the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs has established seven Principles of
Excellence that encourage institutions of higher education
(IHEs) to support veterans. Building on that initiative,
the Department developed the “Eight Keys to Veterans’
Success,” which highlight specific ways that IHEs can
23 Blue Star Families. 2010 Military Family Lifestyle Survey (May
2010). See http://bluestarfam.org/Policy/Surveys/Survey_2010.
50
support veterans in their pursuit of higher education and
employment.
This proposed priority aims to ensure the healthy
development of military children, including children of
active duty service members and veterans, and to improve
educational experiences and career opportunities for
students who are active duty or reserve component service
members, spouses of active duty or reserve component
service members, and veterans. Additionally, through this
proposed priority, we would update the 2010 priority to
encourage better alignment between projects we support and
the President’s Executive order.
Proposed Priority 15--Supporting Military Families and
Veterans.
Projects that are designed to address the needs of
military- or veteran-connected students (as defined in this
notice).
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one
or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority
as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational
through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of
each type of priority follows:
51
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we
consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive
preference priority, we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on
the extent to which the application meets the priority (34
CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that
meets the priority over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational
priority, we are particularly interested in applications
that meet the priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a preference over other
applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
PROPOSED DEFINITIONS:
Background:
We propose definitions to ensure a common
understanding of terms used in the proposed priorities.
These proposed definitions are intended to replace the
definitions in the 2010 Supplemental Priorities.
Authentic STEM experiences means laboratory, researchbased,
or experiential learning opportunities in a STEM
52
(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subject
in informal or formal settings.
Children with high needs means children from birth
through kindergarten entry who are from low-income families
or otherwise in need of special assistance and support,
including children who have disabilities or developmental
delays; who are English learners; who reside on “Indian
lands” as that term is defined by section 8013(6) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA); who are migrant, homeless, or in foster care; and
other children as identified by the State.
Community engagement means the systematic inclusion of
community organizations as partners with State educational
agencies, local educational agencies, or other educational
institutions, or their school staff. These organizations
may include faith- and community-based organizations,
institutions of higher education (including minorityserving
institutions authorized under Title III of the
Higher Education Act and historically black colleges and
universities), business and industry, labor, State and
local government entities, or Federal entities other than
the Department.
Digital credentials means evidence of a teacher’s or
student’s mastery of specific competencies or performance53
based abilities, provided in digital rather than physical
medium (e.g., through digital badges). These digital
credentials may then be used to supplement or satisfy
continuing education or professional development
requirements.
Employer engagement means the active involvement of
employers, employer associations, and labor organizations
in identifying skills and competencies, designing programs,
offering real workplace problem sets, facilitating access
to leading-edge equipment and facilities, providing “return
to work”–type professional development opportunities for
faculty, and providing work-based learning and mentoring
opportunities for participants.
Essential domains of school readiness means the
domains of language and literacy development, cognition and
general knowledge (including early mathematics and early
scientific development), approaches toward learning,
physical well-being and motor development (including
adaptive skills), and social and emotional development.
High-minority school means a school as that term is
defined by a local educational agency (LEA), which must
define the term in a manner consistent with its State’s
Teacher Equity Plan, as required by section 1111(b)(8)(C)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
54
amended (ESEA). The applicant must provide the
definition(s) of “high-minority school” used in its
application.
High-need students means students at risk of
educational failure or otherwise in need of special
assistance and support, such as students who are living in
poverty, who attend high-minority schools (as defined in
this notice), who are far below grade level, who have left
school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who
are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who
are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been
incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English
learners.
High-quality teacher evaluation and support system
means a system that provides for continuous improvement of
instruction; differentiates performance using at least
three performance levels; uses multiple valid measures to
determine performance levels, including data on student
growth (as defined in this notice) as a significant factor
and other measures of professional practice; evaluates
teachers on a regular basis; provides clear and timely
feedback that identifies needs and guides professional
development; is developed with teacher and principal
involvement; and is used to inform personnel decisions.
55
High-quality principal evaluation and support system
means a system that provides for continuous improvement of
instruction; differentiates performance using at least
three performance levels; uses multiple valid measures to
determine performance levels, including data on student
growth (as defined in this notice) as a significant factor
and other measures of professional practice; evaluates
principals on a regular basis; provides clear and timely
feedback that identifies needs and guides professional
development; is developed with teacher and principal
involvement; and is used to inform personnel decisions.
Low-skilled adult means an adult with low literacy and
numeracy skills.
Lowest performing schools means--
For a State with an approved request for the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA) flexibility, priority schools (as defined in this
notice) or Tier I and Tier II schools (as defined in this
notice) identified under the School Improvement Grants
program.
For any other State, Tier I and Tier II schools (as
defined in this notice) identified under the School
Improvement Grants program.
Military- or veteran-connected student means--
56
(a) A child participating in an early learning and
development program, a student enrolled in preschool
through grade 12, or a student enrolled in postsecondary
education or career and technical training who has a parent
or guardian who is a member of the uniformed services (as
defined by 37 U.S.C. 101, in the Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, or Public Health Service);
(b) A student who is a member of the uniformed
services, a veteran of the uniformed services, or who is
the spouse of a service member or veteran; or
(c) A child participating in an early learning and
development program or a student enrolled in preschool
through grade 12 who has a parent or guardian who is a
veteran of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C.
101).
Open educational resources (OER) means teaching,
learning, and research resources that reside in the public
domain or have been released under an intellectual property
license that permits their free use and repurposing by
others.
Parent and family engagement means the systematic
inclusion of parents and families, working in partnership
with State educational agencies (SEAs), State lead agencies
57
(under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) or the State’s Race to the Top-Early
Learning Challenge grant), local educational agencies
(LEAs), or other educational institutions, or their 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.
Persistently-lowest achieving schools means, as
determined by the State--
(a)(1) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring that--
(i) Is among the lowest achieving five percent of
Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring or the lowest achieving five Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the
State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate
as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent
over a number of years; and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but
does not receive, Title I funds that--
(i) Is among the lowest achieving five percent of
secondary schools or the lowest achieving five secondary
58
schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is
greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate
as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent
over a number of years.
(b) To identify the lowest achieving schools, a State
must take into account both--
(i) The academic achievement of the “all students”
group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State’s
assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), in
reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
(ii) The school’s lack of progress on those
assessments over a number of years in the “all students”
group.
Personalized learning means instruction that is
aligned to rigorous college- and career-ready standards
where the pace of learning and the instructional approach
are tailored to the needs of individual learners. Learning
objectives and content, as well as the pace, may all vary
depending on a learner’s needs. In addition, learning
activities are aligned to specific interests of each
learner. Data from a variety of sources (including
59
formative assessments, student feedback, and progress in
digital learning activities), along with teacher
recommendations, are often used to personalize learning.
Priority schools means schools that, based on the most
recent data available, have been identified as among the
lowest performing schools in the State. The total number
of priority schools in a State must be at least five
percent of the Title I schools in the State. A priority
school is--
(a) A school among the lowest five percent of Title I
schools in the State based on the achievement of the “all
students” group in terms of proficiency on the statewide
assessments that are part of the SEA’s differentiated
recognition, accountability, and support system, combined,
and has demonstrated a lack of progress on those
assessments over a number of years in the “all students”
group;
(b) A Title I-participating or Title I-eligible high
school with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a
number of years; or
(c) A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program
that is using SIG funds to implement a school intervention
model.
60
Rural local educational agency means a local
educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small
Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and
Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI,
Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, as amended (ESEA). Eligible applicants may determine
whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by
referring to information on the Department’s Web site at
www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.
Student achievement means--
For grades and subjects in which assessments are
required under section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and
Secondary Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA): (1) a student’s
score on such assessments; and (2) other measures of
student learning, such as those described in the subsequent
paragraph, provided they are rigorous and comparable across
schools within a local educational agency (LEA).
For grades and subjects in which assessments are not
required under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA: (1)
alternative measures of student learning and performance,
such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests,
and objective performance-based assessments; (2) student
learning objectives; (3) student performance on English
language proficiency assessments; and (4) other measures of
61
student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across
schools within an LEA.
Student growth means the change in student achievement
(as defined in this notice) for an individual student
between two or more points in time.
Sustained partnerships means relationships that have
demonstrably adequate resources and other support to
continue beyond the funding period and that consist of a
local educational agency, one or more of its schools, and
one or more of the following:
(1) Faith- or community-based organizations.
(2) Institutions of higher education, including
community colleges, technical colleges, or technical
institutions.
(3) Minority-serving institutions authorized under
Title III of the Higher Education Act or historically black
colleges or universities.
(4) Business, industry, or labor.
(5) Other Federal, State, or local government
entities.
Systemic initiatives means policies, programs, or
activities that include parent and family engagement as a
core component and are designed to meet critical
educational goals, such as school readiness, student
62
achievement (as defined in this notice), and school
turnaround.
Tier I schools means--
(a) A Tier I school is a Title I school in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is
identified by the State educational agency (SEA) under
paragraph (a)(1) of the definition of “persistently lowestachieving
schools.”
(b) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier
I school an elementary school that is eligible for Title I,
Part A funds that—
(1)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at
least two consecutive years; or
(ii) Is in the State’s lowest quintile of performance
based on proficiency rates on the State’s assessments under
section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) in reading/
language arts and mathematics combined; and
(2) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving
school identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools.”
Tier II schools means--
(a) A Tier II school is a secondary school that is
eligible for, but does not receive, Title I, Part A funds
63
and is identified by the State educational agency (SEA)
under paragraph (a)(2) of the definition of “persistently
lowest-achieving schools.”
(b) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier
II school a secondary school that is eligible for Title I,
Part A funds that—
(1)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at
least two consecutive years; or
(ii) Is in the State’s lowest quintile of performance
based on proficiency rates on the State’s assessments under
section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), in reading/
language arts and mathematics combined; and
(2)(i) Is no higher achieving than the highestachieving
school identified by the SEA under paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of the definition of “persistently lowestachieving
schools”; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate
as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent
over a number of years.
Tiered behavioral supports means a continuum of
increasingly intensive and evidence-based social,
emotional, and behavioral supports, including a framework
of universal strategies for students and school staff to
64
promote positive behavior and data-based strategies for
matching more intensive supports to individual student
needs.
Final Priorities and Definitions:
We will announce the final priorities and definitions
in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the
final priorities and definitions after considering
responses to this notice and other information available to
the Department. This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities or definitions, subject to
meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any
year in which we choose to use one or more of these
priorities and definitions, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must
determine whether this regulatory action is “significant”
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the
Executive order and subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an
action likely to result in a rule that may--
65
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities in a material way (also referred
to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another
agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out
of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is a significant
regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action
under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
66
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden
on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives
and taking into account--among other things and to the
extent practicable--the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, select those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of
compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to
direct regulation, including economic incentives--such as
user fees or marketable permits--to encourage the desired
behavior, or provide information that enables the public to
make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use
the best available techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as accurately as
67
possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may
include “identifying changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these proposed priorities and
definitions only on a reasoned determination that their
benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the
analysis that follows, the Department believes that this
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action
would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their governmental
functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the
Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits,
both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory
action. The potential costs associated with this
regulatory action are those resulting from regulatory
requirements and those we have determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s programs and activities.
68
Discussion of Costs and Benefits:
The proposed priorities and definitions would not
impose significant costs on entities that would receive
assistance through the Department’s discretionary grant
programs. Additionally, the benefits of implementing the
proposals contained in this notice outweigh any associated
costs because they would result in the Department’s
discretionary grant programs selecting high-quality
applications to implement activities that are most likely
to have a significant national effect on educational reform
and improvement.
Application submission and participation in a
discretionary grant program are voluntary. The Secretary
believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the
proposed priorities and definitions would be limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing an application for a
discretionary grant program that is using one or more of
the proposed priorities and definitions in its competition.
Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid
for with program funds, the costs of implementation would
not be a burden for any eligible applicants, including
small entities.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification:
69
For these reasons as well, the Secretary certifies that
these proposed regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Intergovernmental Review: Some of the programs affected by
these proposed priorities and definitions are subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part
79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to
foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes
developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our
specific plans and actions for these programs.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can
obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g.,
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version
of this document is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of
the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System at:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this
70
document, as well as all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department
published in the Federal Register by using the article
search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically,
through the advanced search feature at this site, you can
limit your search to documents published by the Department.
Dated: June 19, 2014.
____________________________________
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2014-14671 Filed 06/23/2014 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 06/24/2014]