DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

I. Introduction

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) supports States, local communities, institutions of higher education, and others in improving education nationwide and in helping to ensure that all Americans receive a quality education. We provide leadership and financial assistance pertaining to education at all levels to a wide range of stakeholders and individuals, including State educational agencies, local school districts, providers of early learning programs, elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher education, career and technical schools, nonprofit organizations, postsecondary students, members of the public, families, and many others. These efforts are helping to ensure that all children and students from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 will be ready for, and succeed in, postsecondary education and that students attending postsecondary institutions are prepared for a profession or career.

We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of Federal civil rights laws in educational programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovative programs, research and evaluation activities, technical assistance, and the dissemination of research and evaluation findings to improve the quality of education.

Overall, the laws, regulations, and programs we administer will affect nearly every American during his or her life. Indeed, in the 2012-2013 school year about 55 million students will attend an estimated 132,000 elementary and secondary schools in approximately 13,800 districts, and about 21 million students will enroll in degree-granting postsecondary schools. All of these students may benefit from some degree of financial assistance or support from the Department.

In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical assistance, and monitoring related to our programs, we are committed to working closely with affected persons and groups. Specifically, we work with a broad range of interested parties and the general public, including families, students, and educators; State, local, and tribal governments; and neighborhood groups, community-based early learning programs, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, rehabilitation service providers, adult education providers, professional associations, advocacy organizations, businesses, and labor organizations.

We also continue to seek greater and more useful public participation in our rulemaking activities through the use of transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new technologies. If we determine that it is necessary to develop regulations, we seek public participation at the key stages in the rulemaking process. We invite the public to submit comments on all proposed regulations through the Internet or by regular mail.

To facilitate the public's involvement, we participate in the Federal Docketing Management System (FDMS), an electronic single Governmentwide access point (www.regulations.gov) that enables the public to submit comments on different types of Federal regulatory documents and read and respond to comments submitted by other members of the public during the public comment period. This system provides the public with the opportunity to submit comments electronically on any notice of proposed rulemaking or interim final regulations open for comment, as well as read and print any supporting regulatory documents.

We are continuing to streamline information collections, reduce the burden on information providers involved in our programs, and make information easily accessible to the public.

II. Regulatory Priorities

A. Race to the Top Fund

The Race to the Top Fund program is designed to provide incentives to States to implement system-changing reforms that result in improved student achievement, narrowed achievement gaps, and increased high school graduation and college enrollment rates. On May 22, 2012, the Secretary announced the Race to the Top--District competition, which is designed to build on the momentum of other Race to the Top competitions by encouraging bold, innovative reform at the local level. This district-level FY 2012 competition is authorized under sections 14005 and 14006 of the ARRA, as amended by section 1832(b) of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of Division F of Pub. L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012). The Department expects to fund about 15-25 grants in the range of $5 to $40 million. The amount of an award for which an applicant is eligible to apply depends on the number of students who would be served under the grant.

The Race to the Top--District competition is aimed squarely at classrooms and the all-important relationship between educators and students and invites applicants to demonstrate how they can personalize education for all students in their schools. In that regard, the Race to the Top--District competition will encourage and reward those local educational agencies (LEAs) or consortia of LEAs that have the leadership and vision to implement the strategies, structures, and systems needed for personalized, student-focused approaches to learning and teaching that will produce excellence and ensure equity for all students.

B. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended

In 2010 the Administration released the Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the President's plan for revising the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and replacing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The blueprint can be found at the following Web site: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html.

We look forward to congressional reauthorization of the ESEA that will build on many of the reforms States and LEAs are implementing under the ARRA grant programs.

Additionally, as we continue to work with Congress on reauthorizing the ESEA, we are implementing a plan to provide flexibility on certain provisions of current law for States that are willing to embrace reform. The mechanisms we are using will ensure continued accountability and commitment to quality education for all students while providing States with increased flexibility to implement State and local reforms to improve student achievement.

C. Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006

In 2012, we released Investing in America's Future: A Blueprint for Transforming Career and Technical Education, our plan for a reauthorized Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (2006 Perkins Act). The Blueprint can be found at the following Web site: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/transforming-career-technical-education.pdf

The 2006 Perkins Act made important changes in Federal support for career and technical education (CTE), such as the introduction of a requirement that all States offer "programs of study." These changes in the 2006 Perkins Act helped to improve the learning experiences of CTE students but did not go far enough to systemically create better outcomes for students and employers competing in a 21st-century global economy. The Administration's Blueprint would usher in a new era of rigorous, relevant, and results-driven CTE shaped by four core principles: (1) Alignment. Effective alignment between high-quality CTE programs and labor market needs to equip students with 21st-century skills and prepare them for in-demand occupations in high-growth industry sectors; (2) Collaboration. Strong collaboration among secondary and postsecondary institutions, employers, and industry partners to improve the quality of CTE programs; (3) Accountability. Meaningful accountability for improving academic outcomes and building technical and employability skills in CTE programs for all students, based upon common definitions and clear metrics for performance; and (4) Innovation. Increased emphasis on innovation supported by systemic reform of State policies and practices to support CTE implementation of effective practices at the local level. The Administration's Blueprint proposal reflects a commitment to promoting equity and quality across these alignment, collaboration, accountability, and innovation efforts in order to ensure that more students have access to high-quality CTE programs.

D. Changes to the FFEL and Direct Loan Programs

On March 30, 2010, the President signed into law the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, title II of which is the SAFRA Act. The SAFRA Act made a number of changes to the Federal student financial aid programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). One of the most significant changes made by the SAFRA Act is that it ended new loans under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) pprogram authorized by title IV, part B of the HEA as of July 1, 2010.

On May 5, 2011, ED announced through a notice in the Federal Register that it was beginning a negotiated rulemaking process to streamline the loan program regulations by repealing unnecessary FFEL program regulations and incorporating and modifying necessary requirements within the Direct Loan program regulations, as appropriate. ED held four public hearings in May 2011 to obtain public feedback on proposed amendments, as well as on possible amendments to other ED regulations. Based on the feedback received from these hearings, ED formed a negotiated rulemaking committee to consider proposed amendments and conducted these negotiations in January, February, and March of 2012.

At the final meeting in March 2012, the Loans Committee reached consensus on the full agenda of loans issues, resulting in two notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs). We published the first of the two NPRMs on July 17, 2012, and published one of the two final regulations on November 1, 2012. These final regulations implement the new Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) plan in the Direct Loan program based on the President's "Pay As You Earn" repayment initiative, incorporate recent statutory changes to the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plan in the Direct Loan and FFEL programs, and streamline and add clarity to the total and permanent disability (TPD) discharge process for borrowers in loan programs under title IV of the HEA.

We intend to publish the second of the two NPRMs in 2013 to amend the Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Program, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program regulations. The NPRM would reflect that, as of July 1, 2010, under the SAFRA Act, no new FFEL Program loans will be made and allow a borrower to get out of default on his or her loans if the borrower makes 9 reasonable and affordable payments over a 10-month period. The NPRM would also make other improvements to the Direct Loan, FFEL, and Perkins Loan programs. The NPRM would provide for greater consistency in the regulations governing the title IV, HEA student loan programs and ensure that these programs operate as efficiently as possible.

E. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

In September of 2011, the Department issued an NPRM to revise the regulations implementing the Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities program authorized under Part B of the IDEA, and intends to issue final regulations this year.

Specifically, last year we reviewed one particular provision of the Part B regulations related to the use of public benefits or insurance to pay for services provided to children under Part B. IDEA and the Part B regulations allow public agencies to use public benefits or insurance (e.g., Medicaid) to provide or pay for services required under Part B with the consent of the parent of a child who is enrolled in a public benefits or insurance program. Public insurance is an important source of financial support for services required under Part B. With respect to the use of public insurance, our current regulations specifically provide that a public agency must obtain parental consent each time access to public benefits or insurance is sought.

We have proposed to amend the regulations to provide that, instead of having to obtain parental consent each time access to public benefits or insurance is sought, the public agency responsible for providing special education and related services to a child would be required, before accessing a child's or parent's public benefits or insurance, to provide written notification to the child's parents. The notification would inform parents of their rights under the Part B regulations regarding the use of public benefits or insurance to pay for Part B services, including information about the limitations on a public agency's billing of public benefits or insurance programs, as well as parents' rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and IDEA to consent prior to the disclosure of personally identifiable information.

We proposed these amendments to reduce unnecessary burden on a public agency's ability to access public benefits or insurance in appropriate circumstances but still maintain critical parent protections, and we did this for several reasons. Specifically, we are mindful of the importance of ensuring that parents have sufficient information to make decisions about a public agency's use of their public benefits or insurance and the disclosure of their child's educational records for that purpose. At the same time, these proposed amendments are designed to address the concern expressed to the Department by many State personnel and other interested parties that, since the publication of the Part B regulations in 2006, the inability to obtain parental consent has contributed to public agencies' failure to claim all of the Federal financial assistance available for Part B services covered under Medicaid. In addition, public agencies have expressed concern over using limited resources and the significant administrative burden of obtaining parental consent for the use of Medicaid and other public benefits or insurance each time that access to public benefits or insurance is sought. Consequently, many of these parties have requested that the Department remove the parental consent requirement.

The Secretary also intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend regulations under Part B of IDEA regarding local maintenance of effort (MOE) to ensure that all parties involved in implementing, monitoring, and auditing LEA compliance with MOE requirements understand the rules. Specifically, we will be seeking public comment on proposed amendments to the regulation regarding local MOE to clarify existing policy and make other related changes regarding: (1) the compliance standard; (2) the eligibility standard; (3) the level of effort required of a local educational agency (LEA) in the year after it fails to maintain effort under section 613(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the IDEA; and (4) the consequence for a failure to maintain local effort.

F. Other Potential Regulatory Activities

Congress may reauthorize the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) (title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998). The Administration is working with Congress to ensure that any changes to these laws (1) improve the State grant and other programs providing assistance for adult education under the AEFLA and for vocational rehabilitation and independent living services for persons with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and (2) provide greater accountability in the administration of programs under both statutes. Changes to our regulations may be necessary as a result of the reauthorization of these two statutes.

III. Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" (Jan. 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of the entries on this list may be completed actions that do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section. These rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plan can be found at: www.ed.gov.

IV. Principles for Regulating

Over the next year other regulations may be needed because of new legislation or programmatic changes. In developing and promulgating regulations we follow our Principles for Regulating, which determine when and how we will regulate. Through consistent application of the following principles, we have eliminated unnecessary regulations and identified situations in which major programs could be implemented without regulations or with limited regulatory action.

In deciding when to regulate, we consider the following:

• Whether regulations are essential to promote quality and equality of opportunity in education.

• Whether a demonstrated problem cannot be resolved without regulation.

• Whether regulations are necessary to provide a legally binding interpretation to resolve ambiguity.

• Whether entities or situations subject to regulation are similar enough that a uniform approach through regulation would be meaningful and do more good than harm.

• Whether regulations are needed to protect the Federal interest, that is, to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purpose and to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse.

In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following principles:

• Regulate no more than necessary.

• Minimize burden to the extent possible, and promote multiple approaches to meeting statutory requirements if possible.

• Encourage coordination of federally funded activities with State and local reform activities.

• Ensure that the benefits justify the costs of regulating.

• To the extent possible, establish performance objectives rather than specify compliance behavior.

• Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible and as needed to enable institutional forces to achieve desired results.