Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Friday April 28, 2000

Part V

Department of Education

Indian Education Professional Development Grant Program; Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs— Professional Development; Notices

VerDate 26<APR>200013:47 Apr 27, 2000Jkt 190000PO 00000Frm 00001Fmt 4717Sfmt 4717E:\FR\FM\28APN4.SGMpfrm02PsN: 28APN4

25148

Federal Register

/Vol. 65, No. 83/Friday April 28, 2000/Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONIndian Education ProfessionalDevelopment Grant Program

AGENCY

Office of Indian Education,Department of Education.

ACTION

Final priorities for fiscal year(FY) 2000 and subsequent fiscal years.

SUMMARY

The Secretary announces finalfunding priorities under the IndianEducation Professional DevelopmentGrant program. The Secretary may usethese priorities for competitions in FY2000 and in subsequent fiscal years. TheSecretary takes this action to supporttraining opportunities to increase thenumber of Indian teachers, educationadministrators, and personnel in otherfields.

EFFECTIVE DATE

These priorities takeeffect May 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Cathie Martin, Office of IndianEducation, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,Room 3W111, Washington, DC 20202–6335. Telephone: (202) 260–1683.Internet address: Cathie

Martin@ed.gov.If you use a telecommunicationsdevice for the deaf (TDD) you may callthe Federal Information Relay Service(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.Individuals with disabilities mayobtain this document in an alternativeformat (

e.g.,

Braille, large print,audiotape, or computer diskette) onrequest to the contact person listed inthe preceding paragraph.

Note:

This notice of final priority does notsolicit applications. A notice invitingapplications under this competition ispublished in this edition of the

FederalRegister

. The notice inviting applicationsidentifies the final priority that will beimplemented for the FY 2000 competition fornew grants under the ProfessionalDevelopment program.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

General

The Secretary has authority toestablish priorities, including absolutepreferences, under section 75.105(c)(3)of the Education Department GeneralAdministrative Regulations (EDGAR).This notice contains final absolutepriorities for the ProfessionalDevelopment program authorized bysection 9122 of subpart 2 of part A, titleIX of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (ESEA) of 1965; 20 U.S.C.7832.The Professional Developmentprogram is a competitive grant programthat supports activities to increase thenumber of qualified Indian individualsin professions that serve Indian people.Individuals who receive training underthe Professional Development programare required to perform work that isrelated to the training received and that benefits Indian people, or repay all or aprorated part of the assistance received.The requirements for the paybackprovision (required by section 9122(h)of ESEA; 20 U.S.C. 7832(h)) aregoverned by 34 CFR 263. For thepurposes of this program, the term‘Indian’’ includes both AmericanIndians and Alaska Natives as definedin 34 CFR 263.3 and 20 U.S.C. 9161(4)of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7881(4)).One component of the ProfessionalDevelopment program supports trainingfor qualified Indian individuals to (1)Become teachers, administrators,teacher aides, social workers, andancillary educational personnel; and (2)improve the skills of Indian individualsserving in these capacities. The secondcomponent of the program supportstraining of qualified Indian individualsin fields other than education that resultin a degree at the graduate level. Thefinal priorities support these trainingefforts by focusing all or a portion of available funds for new awards onprojects that train Indians to becometeachers and administrators, to improvethe skills of individuals serving in thosecapacities, and to train personnel infields other than education.The Secretary also announcesprocedures for implementation of thestatutory requirement to give apreference for awards under theProfessional Development program to:(1) Programs that provide training toIndian individuals (section 9122(e)(2);20 U.S.C. 7832(e)(2)) and (2) eligibleIndian tribes, Indian organizations, andIndian institutions of higher education(section 9153 of ESEA; 20 U.S.C. 7873).The Secretary announces these finalpriorities based on responses to thenotice soliciting comments on theproposed priorities and otherconsiderations published in the

FederalRegister

on March 7, 2000. On anannual basis the Secretary may select,from the final priorities, the absolutepriorities that will apply for that fiscalyear and the amount of availableprogram funds. Funding of a particularproject depends on the availability of funds, the requirements of the finalpriorities selected, and the quality of theapplications received.The publication of these finalpriorities does not preclude theSecretary from proposing additionalpriorities, nor does it limit the Secretaryto funding one or more these priorities,subject to meeting applicablerulemaking requirements.

Eligible Applicants

(1) Institutions of higher education,including Indian institutions of highereducation;(2) State or local educational agenciesin consortium with institutions of higher education; and(3) Indian tribes or Indianorganizations in consortium withinstitutions of higher education.Applications submitted by aconsortium under categories (2) and (3)must meet the requirements of 34 CFR75.127 through 75.129 of EDGAR inorder to be an eligible applicant.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

In response to the Secretary’sinvitation to comment on the proposedpriorities, the Department received atotal of 12 responses from two Stateuniversities, three Indian institutions of higher education, four Indianorganizations, one educational (non-Indian) organization, and two Indiantribes. Most of the comments receivedcould be grouped in these general areas:changing the term ‘‘Indian institution of higher education’’ to ‘‘tribal college oruniversity’’; designating tribal collegesas the lead agency or primary applicantfor consortium applications; makingonly tribal colleges eligible for thecompetitive preference points; andreducing or eliminating the minimumnumber of participants for the program.Technical and other minor changes, andsuggested changes the Secretary is notauthorized to make under the applicablestatutory authority, are not addressed. Asummary of the comments, and theconsiderations given to those comments,are as follows:

Comment

—The term ‘‘Indianinstitution of higher education’’ as aneligible applicant should be changed to‘‘tribally controlled college oruniversity’’ to be consistent with theHigher Education Act and the ExecutiveOrder on Tribal Colleges andUniversities. A related commentsuggested that tribal colleges anduniversities be the only eligibleapplicants for this program.

Discussion

—The term ‘‘Indianinstitution of higher education’’ is thelanguage contained within theprogram’s statute. The suggestion thateligible applicants for the program belimited to only tribal colleges anduniversities is too restrictive and maynot meet the needs of all eligibleapplicants. The purpose of the programis to support training for qualifiedIndian individuals to become teachers,administrators, teacher aides, socialworkers, and ancillary educationalpersonnel and to improve the skills of

VerDate 26<APR>200013:47 Apr 27, 2000Jkt 190000PO 00000Frm 00002Fmt 4701Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\28APN4.SGMpfrm02PsN: 28APN4

25149

Federal Register

/Vol. 65, No. 83/Friday April 28, 2000/Notices

Indian individuals serving in thesecapacities. As the funding for thisprogram in fiscal year 2000 is intendedto train an initial cohort of 500 newteachers during the award periods of these grants, all eligible applicantsshould be afforded the opportunity tocompete for the funding. The trainingprovided should be locally determinedto meet the needs of communities andschools so that those trained mayprovide services that benefit Indianpeople.

Change

—No change in the FinalPriorities is made to the listing of eligible entities, which includes an‘‘Indian institution of highereducation.’’

Comment

—Two types of commentswere received concerning consortiumapplications. First, commenterssuggested that all consortiumapplications be required to have apartnership with a tribal college oruniversity.

Discussion

—The suggestion that allconsortium applications include a tribalcollege or university, or that theDepartment only give competitivepreference points to consortiumapplications with a tribal college as thelead agency, would impose severelimitations on other eligible applicantsand would not meet the legislativeintent that all Indian entities be givenpreference in the award process.Although tribal colleges and universitiesare important in promoting access tohigher education in Indian communitiesand on reservations, all eligibleapplicants should be afforded theopportunity to apply for the programfunds based on local needs. For thesereasons, eligible applicants that mustapply through a consortium applicationshould be allowed to determine locallythe institution(s) of higher educationthey will have as partners in theirproject.

Change

—No change is made in theFinal Priorities to require all consortiumapplications include a tribal college oruniversity.

Comment

—With regard to the secondtype of comments concerningconsortium applications, commenterssuggested that only consortiumapplications in which a tribal college oruniversity is the lead agency be eligibleto receive competitive preferencepoints.

Discussion

—Although thedevelopment of a consortium should bea local decision, this program doespromote the inclusion of tribal collegesand universities in the ProfessionalDevelopment program as consortiumpartners as well as innovativeapproaches to linking tribal collegeswith early childhood, elementary, andsecondary education programs. Theseefforts also support the objectives of theExecutive order on Tribal Colleges andUniversities (Executive Order 13021 of October 19, 1996).

Change

—Therefore, to be responsiveto the comments requesting preferencefor tribal colleges and universities, andto further the efforts of the Executiveorder, a third competitive preference isadded that will award five additionalpoints to consortium applications thatinclude, and designate as the fiscalagent, a tribal college or university. Toavoid awarding (because of the additionof Priority 3) a disproportionate numberof total competitive priority points inrelationship to the total number of points available under the program, wehave reduced the number of competitivepriority points for Priority 2 from 10 to5.

Comment

—There were two types of comments concerning the projectparticipants and their training: (1) Theminimum number of participants(which had been identified as 25)should be lowered or eliminated; and(2) to achieve the number of participantsrequired, that projects be allowed toinclude current teachers who areseeking certification in the subjectarea(s) they are teaching or in newsubject areas (as in the case of retrainingteachers to meet teacher shortages inspecific instructional areas).

Discussion

—(1) As it was theconsensus of all parties commenting onthis issue that a minimum of 25participants would be difficult toachieve, the Final Priorities have beenchanged to eliminate a minimumnumber of participants to be served.However, it should be noted that,according to the program’s selectioncriteria for evaluating applications, theSecretary will consider factors such asreasonableness of costs in relation to:the number of persons to be served andthe anticipated results and benefits; andthe objectives, design, and potentialsignificance of the proposed project. (2)The comments were also consistent onthe types of participants to be trainedand the need for current teachers to becertified in the areas they are teaching,as well as the need to re-train currentteachers in other areas of specializedinstructional needs where shortagesexist.

Change

—The Final Priorities have been revised to allow applicants toprovide pre-service training to teachersthat will enable them to meet statecertification requirements, that requireat least a bachelor’s degree, in current ornew teaching assignments when ateacher shortage exists in specializedareas, within a two-year training period.

Comment

—Some commentsexpressed concern that a two-yearprogram to complete a bachelor’s degreewas not an adequate amount of time andsuggested the language be changed toallow a grant program of four or fiveyears.

Discussion

—A four-or five-year grantprogram that allows students to obtaina bachelor’s degree (from initial entry tocompletion) does not guarantee studentcompletion of a degree. The followingfactors were taken into considerationwhen the two-year time period forcompletion of bachelor’s degree wasproposed:(1) Students are more prone to leavepostsecondary institutions beforecompleting their first two years of college. Thus, students recruited asparticipants in the program in theirjunior or senior year of college are morelikely to obtain a degree and completethe program.(2) The first two years of collegegenerally involve general educationrequirements, and majors are notusually declared until the end of thesecond year of study or at the beginningof the third year. If students declare amajor that is

not

related to the field of education, they would then becomeineligible for the professionaldevelopment program. The programlegislation specifically requires thattraining to enter any field other thaneducation must be a program thatresults in a graduate degree.

Change

—No change in the FinalPriorities has been made to extend thecompletion time of a bachelor’s fromtwo years to a longer period of time.

Comment

—One comment raised theissue that graduates of the program areto be provided with one year of induction services while they areworking in schools with predominatelyIndian student populations. It wassuggested that the language was toorestrictive and that most Indian studentsdo not attend tribal schools, whichwould make the employmentrequirement hard to accomplish.

Discussion

—Participants of theprogram are required to complete apayback for the training they receive,either in service that benefits Indianpeople and is related to the trainingreceived or through a cash payback. Theinduction services are intended toprovide a support system forindividuals entering new professionalfields and to aid graduates in thattransition process. It is anticipated thatindividuals completing a servicepayback will be employed in a schoolthat has a large Indian student