Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs rule (2003)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education effective July 24, 2003, that amended regulations regarding the program requirements and application requirements of the Professional Development program and the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children program. The programs were recodified by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs
  • Agency: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education
  • Type of significant rule: Other significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    Education Policy
    Education Icon 200x200.png
    Education policy topics
    • Overview of trends in K-12 curricula development
    • Impact of school choice on rural school districts
    • Local school board authority across the 50 states
    • State policies on cellphone use in K-12 public schools
    • School choice in the United States
    • School choice glossary

    Other policy areas
    Click here for coverage of other policy areas on Ballotpedia

    Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), was responsible for recodifying the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children program and the Professional Development program. The NCLBA aimed to support standards-based education reform drawn from the philosophy that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals for schools would improve individual outcomes for public school students. The legislation mandated that states develop standardized tests and administer assessments to all students at certain grade levels in order to receive federal funding.[3]

    The Demonstration Grants for Indian Children program aims to provide educational services and programs to Indian children to improve academic achievement, according to the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. The programs were revised and recodified on January 8, 2022, by the NCLBA. In response to the revisions, the Department of Education issued final regulations with a request for public comments on July 22, 2002, to implement certain program requirements and application requirements.[4][2]

    The regulations were amended following this rule by the Obama administration in 2015 and by the Trump administration in 2020. The subsequent amendments were made to revise the application process, the administration of the programs, and implement changes from the Every Student Succeeds Act.[5][6][7][8]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ The Secretary amends the regulations governing the discretionary grant programs administered under Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110. The programs governed by this title include grants for the Professional Development program and the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children program. These regulations identify specific application and program requirements that must be set forth in order for applications to be considered for funding, and the requirements for the payback provisions that apply to the Professional Development program. These regulations will govern the grant application process for new awards under both programs for fiscal year 2003 and thereafter, including the payback provisions for the Professional Development program.[1][9] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the final rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “ These regulations incorporate the specific program requirements for both programs. They also include the Secretary's application requirements for the Professional Development program that must be met in order for applications to be considered for funding, and the requirements concerning the payback provisions applicable to that program. The Secretary is required, under Section 7122(h) of the ESEA, to establish regulations governing payback and reporting provisions for the Professional Development program.[9] ”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deemed this rule significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866. An agency rule can be deemed a significant rule if it has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. The term was defined by E.O. 12866, which was issued in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.[1]

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Federal Register, "Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs," July 24, 2003
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Federal Register, "Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs," July 22, 2002
    3. ↑ Josie Canales, James Frey, Cathy Walker, Sherry Freeland Walker, Suzanne Weiss and Anna West, Education Commission of the States, "No State Left Behind: The Challenges and Opportunities of ESEA 2001," accessed February 7, 2023
    4. ↑ Office of Elementary & Secondary Education, "Demonstration Grants for Indian Children (DEMO)," accessed March 28, 2023
    5. ↑ Federal Register, "Indian Education Discretionary Grants Program; Professional Development Program and Demonstration Grants for Indian Children Program," April 22, 2015
    6. ↑ Federal Register, "Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional Development Program," July 10, 2020
    7. ↑ Federal Register, "Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional Development Program," June 25, 2020
    8. ↑ Federal Register, "Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Demonstration Grants for Indian Children and Youth Program," July 17, 2020
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Indian_Education_Discretionary_Grant_Programs_rule_(2003)&oldid=9169551"