post secondary education support program

MMF Post-Secondary Education Support Program

EligibilityYou are a registered Citizen of the MMF in Manitoba (or are in the process to be registered); You have graduated from a high school in 2024 or earlier.You are accepted and enrolled full-time or part-time in a University in Manitoba (Eligible Institutions) or out-of-province universitiesYou have fully completed the online Application form to be eligible for financial assistance (mandatory requirement). Your application will be reviewed and we will notify you regarding your status via email.  Please ensure that this email address  [email protected]  is added to your safe senders folder.

Application Deadline

Eligible post-secondary institutions include:University of Winnipeg;University of Manitoba;Saint Boniface University; University College of the North; Canadian Mennonite UniversityBrandon UniversityBooth University College  Red River College, Providence University College, Out of Province Institutions 

MMF Post-Secondary Education 2024 Spring and Summer Support Program

Ca$2,500.00 to ca$5,000.00, apr 30 2024 12:00 am (cdt), jul 31 2024 11:59 pm (cdt).

Unsupported browser detected

Your browser appears to be unsupported. Because of this, portions of the site may not function as intended.

Please install a current version of Chrome , Firefox , Edge , or Safari for a better experience.

Postsecondary Success

At a glance.

• Education after high school has provided opportunities to millions of Americans, but race, ethnicity, and income are too often predictors of student access to and success in postsecondary education.
• White adults are nearly twice as likely as Latino adults to have at least an associate’s degree, and high-income students are five times more likely than students from low-income backgrounds to earn a college degree by age 25.
• We are driven by the belief that every life has value and that skills and knowledge can empower people to improve their lives and the lives of their families and communities.
• We work with college and university leaders, innovators, policymakers, and state and local leaders to ask the hard questions and advocate for evidence-backed changes in policy and practice to boost student success.

The latest updates on postsecondary success

Meet the nau student who’s graduating debt-free, students and families deserve more information about the value of college, why black colleges and universities are america’s newest–and most critical–diagnostic testing hubs, our strategy.

Our efforts to improve postsecondary success, which go back more than a decade, puts students at the center and is guided by these beliefs:

• Educational opportunity should not depend on race, ethnicity, or income.
• Colleges and universities can be critical agents of change when it comes to boosting student success and eliminating access and success disparities for Black, Latino, and Indigenous students and students from low-income backgrounds.
• Strong networks of institutions and supporting organizations that provide knowledge and resources are critical for accelerating learning and student-centered change.
• Evidence is essential for guiding improvement in student outcomes.

We support colleges and universities that are committed to transformation—making significant and lasting change to dramatically improve student outcomes and eliminate race, ethnicity, and income as predictors of student success. For our team, transformation includes having a  student-centered mission , setting  goals  and being accountable for them, using  data  to make decisions, creating a  collaborative environment , and making a commitment to  continuous improvement .

I don’t have a particularly strong appetite for the phrase "When we get back to normal." I don’t want to get back to normal, because "normal" in American higher education is not currently living up to its potential as an engine of equitable social and economic mobility. But I am optimistic that this enterprise can live up to its potential, which is why we continue to invest.

Areas of focus

Navigating the path to a certificate or degree can be challenging and costly. We work with colleges and universities that are taking the lead in implementing innovations that help students identify and get on a path to a certificate or degree, stay on that path, and ensure that they are learning along the way. We focus on innovation in three key areas: digital teaching and learning, developmental education, and student support.

A growing number of colleges and universities have created and/or expanded holistic support services for their students to help improve retention and completion rates, particularly for students of color, first-generation students, and students from low-income backgrounds. Investments in this area focus on equipping more colleges and universities with seamless, personalized delivery of advising and support interventions across a student’s educational journey – including academic and career planning, case management, analytics, alerts & notifications, and engagement.

Our work with colleges and universities and the organizations supporting them focuses on  transformation —building capacity to dramatically improve student outcomes and eliminate racial and income gaps. We engage directly with a diverse group of institutions and intermediaries to generate tools and resources to support transformation efforts and support the creation of networks to connect institutions with these resources and with each other to accelerate learning.

We are working toward a comprehensive data strategy across U.S. higher education that ensures efficient, consistent, and transparent collection and reporting of key performance metrics—including and especially value—to enable students, institutional leaders, and policymakers to make informed decisions about the value of different postsecondary pathways.

Federal and state policies affect who colleges and universities serve and how they are served. Our policy focus is on money and measures. We are interested in how public funds are allocated and spent to help today’s college students (especially low-income and first-generation students, students of color, and working adults) and how colleges and universities are measuring and being held accountable for their progress and success.

Why focus on postsecondary success?

Higher education has historically been an engine of social mobility and economic growth in the United States, but as costs rise and colleges and universities face growing financial pressures, disparities in access and success by race, ethnicity, and income persist and student financial aid systems are stretched to the limit—all at a time when our economy needs more educated workers than ever.

Left unaddressed, these trends will leave the U.S. economy without the skilled workforce it needs to remain competitive and will increase inequity. The political and social implications for our nation are profound and unacceptable. They are also avoidable.

Research and innovation at colleges and universities across the country are yielding promising solutions that could increase student success rates and ensure that all students receive a high-quality educational experience that is tailored to their needs, academic abilities, and career goals.

These solutions include technology-enabled teaching and student advising tools as well as systems that gather and analyze data to help institutions improve their performance and student outcomes.

Strategy leadership

By submitting your email to subscribe, you agree to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Privacy & Cookies Notice

Visit our U.S. Program website

The foundation's U.S. Program works to ensure that everyone in the U.S. can learn, grow, and get ahead, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or family income. We work with local leaders and engage with state and federal policymakers to support efforts that transform schools, systems, and society to create life-changing opportunities for learning, growth, and prosperity.

Related programs

The K-12 Education team supports educators and public schools in improving educational outcomes for Black and Latino students and students experiencing poverty. 

The Economic Mobility and Opportunity team works to help the U.S. economic system better meet the needs of those experiencing poverty and significantly increase their opportunities to achieve economic success.

The Washington State team works with partners to ensure equitable opportunities for children and families in Washington, where the Gates family has lived for generations. 

Post-Secondary Student Support Program

Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) provides financial assistance to First Nations students who are enrolled in eligible post-secondary programs.

On this page

About the program, who can apply, how to apply, additional financial assistance for indigenous students.

The program aims to improve the socio-economic outcomes for First Nations by supporting First Nations in providing eligible students with funding to access education opportunities at the post-secondary level. This is consistent with the principle of First Nations control of First Nations education.

To be eligible for funding, students must maintain a satisfactory academic standing within an eligible post-secondary institution. These include:

• educational institutions affiliated with, or those that deliver post-secondary programs by arrangement with a post-secondary institution
• First Nations-designated and directed institutions

Funding for this program is provided to First Nations or First Nations-designated organizations as part of core funding agreements with Indigenous governments and organizations.

First Nations are responsible for determining the selection criteria and funding allocations in accordance with the provisions of their funding agreement and national program guidelines.

Eligible costs covered by the program can include:

• travel support
• living allowances

The maximum amount payable per full time student cannot exceed $53,000 per year.

On an extraordinary and justified basis, the maximum amount payable per year for a student in an advanced or professional degree program or a masters or doctoral program, may exceed $53,000 up to a maximum of $90,000.

No student is automatically entitled to this amount.

Status First Nations post-secondary students who maintain satisfactory academic standing within an eligible post-secondary institution.

Funding is limited and not all students may be funded. Partial funding may be provided. Applications are valid for 1 school year only.

To learn more, contact your local band office or ISC regional office .

Inuit students who formerly received funding through PSSSP should apply through the Inuit Post-Secondary Education Strategy .

Contact your local band office or ISC regional office to find out when to apply for funding.

First Nations students who want to pursue post-secondary studies and access available funding programs should contact their local band office or ISC regional office .

To learn more please consult the Post-Secondary Student Support Program and University and College Entrance Preparation Program: National Guidelines 2024 to 2025 .

National program guidelines for previous year

• Post-Secondary Student Support Program and University and College Entrance Preparation Program: National Guidelines 2023 to 2024

The Canada Student Financial Assistance Program offers grants and loans to full-time and part-time students to help pay for their post-secondary education.

To apply with your province or territory, please visit: Canada Student Grants and Loans .

Other resources for financial assistance:

• Student aid
• Indigenous Bursaries Search Tool
• University College Entrance Preparation Program
• Post-secondary education

Related links

• Education programs: National program guidelines
• Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials

Did you find what you were looking for?

If not, tell us why:

You will not receive a reply. Don't include personal information (telephone, email, SIN, financial, medical, or work details). Maximum 300 characters

Thank you for your feedback

• Accreditation and Quality
• Mobility Trends
• Enrollment & Recruiting
• Skilled Immigration
• Asia Pacific
• Middle East
• Country Resources
• iGPA Calculator
• Degree Equivalency
• Research Reports

Sample Documents

• Scholarship Finder
• World Education Services

Education System Profiles

Education in the russian federation.

Elizaveta Potapova, Doctoral Candidate, Central European University, and Stefan Trines, Research Editor, WENR

This article describes current trends in education and international student mobility in the Russian Federation. It includes an overview of the education system (including recent reforms), a look at student mobility into and out of the country, and a guide to educational institutions and qualifications.

The Russian Federation, more commonly and simply known as “Russia,” is a complex, heterogeneous state. Home to some 143.4 million citizens, its population includes a sizable number of ethnic minorities besides the Russian majority. Most citizens consider their mother tongue to be Russian. However, up to 100 other languages, including 35 that are “official,” remain in use. Russia, the largest nation in the world in terms of landmass, shares borders with 14 neighbors: Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, North Korea, and China.

The Federation, like the Soviet Union before it, is a nominally federal system that consists of 85 “federal subjects,” including “republics,” “oblasts” (provinces), “krais” (districts), and “cities of federal importance.” However, Russia is not a truly federal system. Because of the re-centralization of power under the rule of Vladimir Putin, Russia is often referred to as a “quasi-federal” state, or a system that is “ unitary in function .” The autonomy of provinces, republics, districts, and cities of federal importance is limited.

Some 54 percent of 25- to 64-year-old Russians held tertiary degrees as of 2015, making the country one of the most educated in the world. However, its higher education system – especially its universities are in need of modernization , particularly in terms of research, which is deemed to be lagging . As of mid-2017, the country faces a range of pressures that are affecting its education system, especially at the tertiary level. Among these are:

• Economic challenges: In recent years, the Russian government has enacted deep spending cuts across the board. Economic sanctions, deteriorating exchange rates, and a decline in the price of oil , Russia’s main export, have led to severely decreased revenues  and tightened governmental spending in multiple sectors. According to government data , federal spending on education decreased by 8.5 percent between 2014 and 2016, from 616.8 billion rubles to 564.3 billion rubles (USD $10 billion).
• Demographic pressures: The number of college- and university-age students in Russia has plummeted in recent years. Today, the country’s demographic crisis is so profound that the Russian parliament radically loosened citizenship requirements in recent months . Population decline has motivated the Russian government to stimulate the immigration of skilled workers and position the country as an international higher education destination. The decline, expected to cut tertiary enrollments by as much as 56 percent between 2008 and 2021, has also played a role in the proposed closure and merger of many universities.
• Lingering corruption:  Weak government institutions were a hallmark of the years immediately following the Soviet era. Many forms of systemic corruption went unchecked for years. As of 2017, Russia is ranked 131 st out of 176 countries on the 2016 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index . In 2016, Russia’s general prosecutor recorded 32,824 corruption crimes , and estimated that corruption deprived the government of revenues totaling $USD 1.3 billion in that year alone – likely a lowball estimation, given that officially reported cases only represent a fraction of all instances of corruption. The higher education system is particularly vulnerable to corruption : Instructors at poorly funded universities are routinely underpaid. Ambitious students, meanwhile are seeking academic advancement and, upon graduation, improved employment prospects; many are willing to pay instructors for better grades, revised transcripts, and more. Efforts to stem admissions-related and other forms of corruption are in place, but have so far had mixed results. (See additional detail below.)

Still, the Russian government has pushed an ambitious higher education agenda focused on improving quality and international standing. The country is seeking to radically enhance the global ranking of its universities by 2020 and to attract substantial numbers of internationally mobile tertiary-level students from around the globe. At the same time, the government has actively sought to send scholars abroad – and incent them to return home as part of a broader effort to modernize the flagging economy.

This article seeks to provide an overview of the education system in Russia, especially at the tertiary level. It provides a broad context for understanding the current state of higher education in Russia; analyzes inbound and outbound mobility trends; provides a brief overview of the education system from the elementary through higher education levels; and addresses issues of quality and accreditation. It also provides a number of sample documents to help credential evaluators and others familiarize themselves with the appearance of authentic academic documents from the federation.

Economic Trends: A Recession Drives A Push for a Modernized Economy

Throughout 2015 and 2016, Russia experienced a recession that can be traced to two primary root causes: Economic sanctions imposed by Western countries in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its military intervention in Ukraine, and the decline of crude oil prices. Oil exports accounted for more than 50 percent of the value of all Russian exports in 2013. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned as early as 2009 that Russia needed to reduce its economic dependence on commodities and modernize, and technologically upgrade Russian industries in order to sustain economic growth. The economic fallout of the recent price decline has laid bare the country’s dependence on energy exports, giving new urgency to efforts to modernize the Russian economy.

Demographic Trends: Declining Birth Rates Affect the Higher Education System

Demographic trends have had a profound effect on the Russian Federation , not least its university system. The number of secondary school graduates dropped by about 50 percent between 2000/01 and 2014/15, from 1.46 million to 701,400 graduates . The number of students enrolled in tertiary education institutions, likewise, decreased from 7.5 million students in 2008/09 to 5.2 million in 2014/15 and is expected to further decline to approximately 4.2 million students by 2021 . The United Nations estimates that the Russian population will shrink by 10 percent in the next 35 years, from 143.4 million people in 2015 to 128.6 million in 2050 ( medium variant projection , 2015). According to the World Bank, Russia’s labor force shrinks by an estimated  one million workers annually due to aging, and that aging will drain pension funds while increasing public debt . Further compounding labor shortages is a net outmigration of scientists and highly skilled workers, even though current outmigration rates remain a far cry from the massive brain drain that Russia experienced shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In the near term, these pressures may ease, at least in the education system. After sharp declines in the 1990s, Russia’s birth rates have, since the 2000s, rebounded , and current increases in fertility rates have given some observers cause for optimism. However, most analysts maintain that current fertility rates remain too low to stem overall population decline, and that demographic pressures remain one of Russia’s biggest economic challenges .

Reforms, Mergers, and University Closures

Declining student enrollments have coincided with a decrease in the number of Russian higher education institutions. In 2012, the government initiated a process of reforms and consolidation that had, by 2017, already reduced the number of institutions by more than 14 percent, from 1,046 accredited tertiary institutions in 2012/13 to 896 in 2016. In 2015, it announced that it intended to close or merge as many as 40 percent of all higher education institutions by the end of 2016, with a particular focus on the private sector. It also intended to reduce the number of branch campuses operated by universities by 80 percent. It is presently unclear, however, to what extent these cuts will go forward. In late 2016, Russia’s newly appointed minister of education suspended the mergers because of resistance from affected universities.

Other objectives included modernization and the effort to shift education and to focus on technical innovation: Simultaneous to the cuts among existing universities, plans were announced to create up to 150 new public universities specializing in technological innovation and high-tech in order to improve Russia’s international competitiveness. In 2012, Russia also established a “Council on Global Competitiveness Enhancement of Russian Universities” and launched the so-called 5/100 Russian Academic Excellence Project , an initiative that provides extensive funding for a group of 21 top universities with the goal of strengthening research and placing five Russian institutions among the top 100 universities in global university rankings by 2020 . The initiative also seeks to shift the mix of students and scholars on Russian campuses, pulling 10 percent of academics and 15 percent of students from abroad .

International Student Mobility

Inbound mobility.

Foreign student quotas are seen as a measure of the effectiveness of higher education institutions, and the Russian government has, as part of its effort to boost the rankings of its universities, made it a priority to boost international enrollments. In 2015, Russia raised the international student quota at Russian universities by 33 percent . It also significantly increased the scholarship funds available to foreign students. That same year, a number of top Russian universities included in a newly-founded Global Universities Association to jointly recruit at least 15,000 international students to Russian annually .

The majority of foreign students in Russia are enrolled in undergraduate programs at public universities. Beyond that, the trends in inbound mobility and the reasons behind them vary, depending on students’ place of origin.

• Former Soviet Republics : Geographic proximity, linguistic and economic ties make Russia the top destination of mobile students in the majority of post-Soviet Republics, where most students speak Russian as a second language. The Russian government encourages regional student exchange in an attempt to expand influence and “soft power” in other former Soviet Republics. Thus, the vast majority of foreign students in Russia, more than 60 percent, come from these countries. The three top sending countries in 2015 were Kazakhstan, which accounted for 25 percent of all students, Belarus (7.8 percent), and Ukraine, accounting for 7.2 percent.
• China: The number of Chinese students enrolled at Russian universities has increased considerably in recent years, and in 2015, China became the fourth-largest sender of international students to Russia, accounting for 7.1 percent of enrollments. Governments on both sides have in recent years taken steps to boost student exchange , and many Russian universities are expanding their recruitment efforts in China. Efforts include dual degree programs and the establishment of Russian language learning centers in China. Russia offers Chinese students a low-cost alternative compared to Western countries like the U.S., and enrollments can be expected to rise in the years ahead. (Geographic proximity is another factor.) At the same time, the inflow of Chinese students is impeded by language barriers, since most education programs in Russia are taught in Russian.
• Other Asian countries : India and Vietnam are other Asian countries that send significant numbers of international students to Russia. Enrollments from outside of Asia, by comparison, are small. European countries (excluding Turkey, Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus) in 2014 only accounted for about one percent of international degree students in Russia, more than half of them from the Baltic States.

In 2014, students from Africa and the Americas respectively made up only about two percent and less than one percent of the total international student population.

Outbound Mobility

As of 2017, Russia’s government encourages Russian students to further their education abroad. In 2014, the government introduced a Global Education Program that seeks to facilitate human capital development in Russia and remedy shortages of skilled professionals by funding Russian graduate students at 288 selected universities abroad. Some 72 are located in the United States. The program is intended to support up to 100,000 Russian citizens over a time period of ten years and targets master’s and doctoral students in disciplines, such as engineering, basic sciences, medicine, and education. It covers students’ tuition costs and living expenses up to 2.763 million rubles (USD $48,372) annually. At the same time, the government is seeking to curtail outmigration. Grant recipients are required to return to Russia within three years to take up employment in a number of select positions, mostly in the public sector.

As of recently, such scholarship programs appear to be bearing fruit. Between 2008 and 2015, UIS data indicates that the number of outbound Russian degree students increased by 22 percent, from 44,913 to 54,923. This increase in mobility has likely been influenced by the rising cost of education in Russia, as high tuition fees have spurred students’ interest in the comparatively inexpensive universities of Central and Eastern Europe, for instance. The number of Russian applications in the Baltic countries, Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as China and Finland, has reportedly increased by 50 percent in recent years. Given Russia’s population size, however, the overall number of degree students going abroad is still quite small and makes up just about 1 percent of Russia’s 5.2 million tertiary students (2015).

The most popular destination choice among Russian degree students abroad in recent years has been Germany, where 18 percent of outbound students were enrolled in 2015 (UIS). The U.S., the Czech Republic, Great Britain, and France were the next popular choices, accounting for 9 percent, 8 percent, and 7 percent of enrollments, respectively.

China, Russia’s neighbor and an increasingly important international education provider, is another notable destination. UIS data, which tracks degree-seeking students only, does not rank China as a top-50 study destination. But China is presently ranked as the number one destination of Russian students if non-degree candidates are included in the count. According to the Project Atlas data , 21.6 percent of outbound Russian students studied in China in 2015, reflecting the strong growth in exchange programs, language training programs, and internships that has accompanied the strengthening of Sino-Russian cooperation in recent years.

Russian student mobility to the U.S. is, by comparison, anything but booming. After peaking at a high of 7,025 students in 1999/2000, the number of students has fluctuated over the past decades. The country has not been among the top 25 sending countries since 2012 (IIE, Open Doors). In 2015/16, 5,444 Russian students were enrolled at U.S. institutions, a decrease of 2.1 percent over 2014/15. In Canada, on the other hand, Russian enrollments have been mostly increasing in recent years – the number of students grew by more than 200 percent between 2006 and 2015, from 1,252 to 3,892 students, according to the data provided by the Canadian government .

Transnational Education: A Different Kind of Internationalization

Compared to countries like China or the United Arab Emirates, Russia is not a major host of foreign universities or branch campuses. The global branch campus directory maintained by the “Cross-Border Education Research Team” (C-BERT) lists only one wholly foreign-owned provider in Russia: the U.S.-based Moscow University Touro . There are a number of other foreign institutions licensed to operate in Russia, such as the “ Stockholm School of Economics Russia ,” as well as transnational partnerships like the “ German-Russian Institute of Advanced Technologies ,” but the overall number of such ventures is still relatively small.

On the other hand, Russia is a major player in transnational education (TNE) in post-Soviet countries, where Russian state universities currently operate 36 branch campuses , most of them located in Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Unlike in countries like Australia or the UK, where TNE is primarily driven by private providers, TNE in Russia is directed by the government and presently pursued vigorously. Despite charges by the previous Minister of Education in 2014 that education at cross-border campuses was of poor quality and should be suspended, President Vladimir Putin in 2015 instead vowed to strengthen TNE in countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), where Russia is already the predominant TNE provider.

One of the reasons the Russian government is pursuing TNE is that international education is a major element in Russia’s soft power strategy in the “near abroad” aimed at fostering “economic, political and socio-cultural integration in the post-Soviet space .” This objective is formalized in the role of a government agency called Rossotrudnichestvo (Federal Agency for the CIS), which was set up to promote Russian higher education abroad, support Russian institutions located in foreign countries, and popularize Russian culture and improve the image of Russia in the CIS.

In Brief: Russia’s System of Education

Administration.

Federal Law №273 on education (2012) provides the core legal framework for the Russian education system. The Federal Ministry of Education is the executive body responsible for the formulation and implementation of education policies at all levels. Under its purview is the Federal Education and Science Supervision Agency, which is tasked with the supervision and quality control of educational institutions. Regional Ministries of Education are responsible for policy implementation at the local level.

General Education

General education in Russia comprises pre-school education, elementary education, lower-secondary, and upper-secondary education. The course of study takes 11 years in a 4+5+2 sequence. Four years of elementary education are followed by five years of lower-secondary education, which are followed by two years of upper secondary schooling. In addition to general academic programs, students can enroll in vocational-technical programs of varying lengths at the upper-secondary level (discussed further below).

Education has been compulsory until grade 11 since 2007 (until then, it was only compulsory until grade 9), and access to general education is a guaranteed right of every Russian citizen, according to article 43 of the constitution . Schooling is provided free of charge at public schools; private schools are also available, although in limited numbers. Private schools in Russia only reportedly accounted for about 1 percent of all 42,600 schools that existed in Russia in 2015.

The overall number of pupils enrolled in the Russian school system has decreased considerably over the past decades as birth rates have declined. They dropped by more than 32 percent between 2000 and 2013, from 20.5 million to 13.9 million students. Only in the last few years have enrollments started to grow again, reaching 14.6 million students in 2015/2016. The trend has been driven by an increase in birth rates beginning in the 2000s.

Participation and completion rates in general education are high. The net enrollment ratio at the elementary level was 95.2 percent in 2014, according to the World Bank . In 2011, 94 percent of 25-64 year-olds had completed at least upper-secondary education (compared to an average of 75 percent in the OECD and a 60 percent average among G-20 countries). Youth literacy is universal and has held steady at 99.7 percent since 2002, as per UIS data.

Types of Schools: Lyceums, Gymnasiums, Schools for the Gifted and Talented

Most Russian schools incorporate all stages of general education, from elementary to upper-secondary school. However, there are a number of schools that only provide elementary or lower-secondary education, mostly in more rural regions. Other schools only provide upper-secondary education. Evening schools, known as “schools for working youth” in Soviet times, for example, deliver upper-secondary education to students who completed compulsory education (grade 9, until 2007), but want to continue their education or prepare for tertiary education. These schools are attended by both children above the age of 15 and adults who want to further their education.

Other types of schools include lyceums, gymnasiums, schools for the gifted and talented, and general schools. All of these schools teach the general academic core curriculum, but some offer curricular specializations and are more selective. For instance:

• Lyceums offer specialized programs in a variety of disciplines, including sciences, mathematics, or law, and many of these schools are affiliated to universities.
• The gymnasium is a special type of school focusing on education in the humanities, including the study of two foreign languages.
• The schools for the gifted and talented are often associated with conservatories and fine arts universities and specialize in music, ballet, and performing arts, although some schools for gifted and talented children also exist in the sciences .

Education at lyceums, gymnasiums, and other specialized schools is of high quality; these schools are considered to be among the best secondary schools in Russia. An annual ranking of Russian schools conducted by the Ministry of Education included 160 lyceums and 175 gymnasiums among the country’s 500 best schools in 2016. Admission to the schools is typically competitive and may involve entrance examinations. Only about 16 percent of Russian pupils presently attend specialized schools and the availability of these schools tends to be limited in more remote provinces.

Elementary Education

Russian children enter elementary education at six to seven years of age. This stage of education lasts four years and includes instruction in the subjects of Russian language (reading, writing, literature), mathematics, history, natural sciences, arts and crafts, physical education, and a foreign language starting in grade two. Most classes are taught by one primary class teacher for the whole duration of the elementary cycle, although subjects like foreign language, physical education, music, or arts may be taught by specialized teachers. The school year runs from the beginning of September to the beginning of June. Completion of elementary education is a requirement for progression to the lower-secondary cycle, but there is no final centralized state examination as in the other stages of general education.

Lower-Secondary Education (Basic General Education)

Elementary school is followed by five years of lower-secondary education, called “basic general education” in Russia. Classes meet for 34 weeks a year and include 27 to 38 hours of weekly instruction. The federal government sets a general core curriculum of compulsory subjects, but within this framework schools have limited freedom in designing their own curricula at the local level.

Subjects studied in lower-secondary education include Russian language, foreign language, mathematics, social sciences (including history and geography), natural sciences, computer science, crafts (taught separately for girls and boys), physical education, art, and music. Students from Russian republics that have a language other than Russian as their official language have the right to study their native language in addition to Russian and can substitute Russian with their native language in the final graduation examination (a right that is guaranteed as per Russia’s education law).

The basic general education stage concludes with a final state examination, called Gosudarstvennaya Itogovaya Attestatsia or GIA. The examination covers mandatory subjects – Russian and mathematics – as well as elective subjects. Students who pass the examination are awarded the Attestat ob osnovnom obschem obrazovanii,’ commonly translated as “ Certificate of Basic Secondary Education ” or “Certificate of Incomplete Secondary Education.”

The certificate enables students to obtain entrance to secondary education, either along a general university-preparatory track or a vocational-technical track.

General Upper-Secondary Education

General upper-secondary education lasts for two years  and includes a range of subjects similar to those offered at the lower-secondary stage. It prepares students for the Unified State Examination ( Ediny Gosudarstvenny Examen or EGE), which is a series of standardized examinations conducted in May/June of each year. The EGE functions both as a final graduation examination, as well as an entrance examination for higher education. High EGE scores are important for access to the limited number of tuition-free seats at Russian universities.

The EGE is overseen by the Federal Education and Science Supervision Agency ( Rosobrnadzor ) but administered by local authorities. All students sit for mandatory mathematics and Russian language exams. Since 2015, the exam in mathematics has been split into a “base examination” required for high school graduation, and a more advanced “profile examination” required for university admission. Students who do not wish to go to university can opt to only test in the base exam and Russian language. All students who pass are awarded a Certificate of General Secondary Education ( Attestat o srednem obshchem obrazovanii ) – a final graduation certificate. The certificate also lists the grades for all subjects studied during grades 10 and 11.

Students who fail the exam can sit for it a second time, but if they fail again, they do not qualify for the award of the “ Attestat ,” and only receive a certificate of study from their secondary school. Pass rates, however, are nearly universal. According to a recent report published by Rosobrnadzor , only 1.5 percent of students in 2015, and 0.7 percent of students in 2016 failed to reach the minimum threshold in the mandatory core disciplines, which in 2016 was 27 on a 100 point scale in mathematics, and 24/100 in Russian language .

In addition to the two compulsory subjects, students can elect to be tested in an unlimited number of “profile subjects” for admission into degree programs of their choice. The subject options include physics, chemistry, biology, geography, history, social studies, literature, foreign languages, and computer science.

University Admissions

Until recently, Russia’s universities made independent admissions decisions  and did not necessarily factor in EGE performance. In 2009, however, the Russian government decided to make the use of the EGE in admissions mandatory. The impetus was twofold: to fight corruption in academic admissions, and to widen participation in higher education.

Prior to 2009, academic corruption challenges were particularly prevalent in university admissions. According to some reports, the total volume of bribes paid in connection to university admissions in Moscow in 2008 amounted to USD $520 million, with individual students paying bribes as high as $5,000 . The introduction of the EGE sought to take admissions decisions away from the universities, and replace them with objective external criteria.

The EGE also facilitates broader access to higher education. Before the introduction of the EGE, applicants often had to travel to universities across the country to sit for institutional entrance exams – a costly and time-intensive process that has now greatly improved. As per the Russian ENIC/NARIC, the EGE exam is now used in the admission of nearly 100 percent of applicants. Only two elite universities (Moscow State University and St. Petersburg State University) have been exempted and continue to administer their own admissions tests in addition to the EGE.

As of 2015, students could, according to Sergey Kravtsov , the head of the Federal Education and Science Supervision Agency, sit for the EGE examination in 5,700 testing centers throughout Russia, as well as in 52 countries abroad. A reported 584,000 students took the base stage EGE examination in 2016, and 492,000 sat for profile exams.

Upon passing the EGE exams, these students receive a certificate of results. These can be used to can apply to three different study programs at five universities at a time. Admission is competitive and based on test scores in the subjects required for particular degree specializations. Higher scores improve the chances of admission into top universities.

Certain programs that require special creative or physical abilities, for example, in artistic disciplines, sports, or military sciences, may require additional entrance examinations. Foreign students are admitted based on separate institutional admissions requirements, and typically have to take the Test of Russian as a Foreign Language (TORFL).

Academic Corruption in the EGE and Beyond

Russia is afflicted by a widespread culture of academic fraud. The introduction of the centralized EGE exam has reduced the use of direct bribes for university entrance but has reportedly led to significant test-related fraud, including, prior to the test, distribution of exam questions, and after the test, revision of incorrect answers .

Fraud is prevalent in graduate admissions as well. In one notorious example, a senior lecturer at Moscow State University was in 2010 caught accepting a bribe of €35,000 (USD $39,140) to guarantee admission to the faculty of public administration. The sale of fake degrees and the ghost-writing of papers and dissertations constitute another problem. Some experts reportedly claim that as many as 30 to 50 percent of doctoral degrees circulating in certain disciplines like law and medicine may either be fake or based on plagiarism, while other researchers assert that 20 to 30 percent of all Russian dissertations completed since the fall of the Soviet Union were purchased on the black market . The use of such suspect degrees is blatant, and not uncommon among politicians and higher-level civil servants. A 2015 study of the Dissernet Project , an organization dedicated to exposing academic fraud, found that one in nine politicians in the lower house of the Russian parliament had a plagiarized or fake academic degree . In 2006, researchers from the U.S. Brookings Institution analyzed the dissertation of President Vladimir Putin and alleged that it was plagiarized .

Vocational and Technical Education

Russia’s education system includes both secondary-level and post-secondary vocational programs, as well as programs that straddle secondary and higher education. As of the 2012 adoption of Russia’s latest federal education law, all of these programs are now primarily taught at the same types of institutions called technikums ( tehnikum ), and colleges ( kolledzh ). The professional-technical uchilische (PTU) and professional-technical lyceums (PTL) that existed prior to 2012 were largely upgraded to, or merged with, technikums and colleges.

Basic vocational programs at the secondary level are entered on the basis of the Certificate of Basic Secondary Education (grade 9) and are between one and four years in length. Programs have a focus on applied training but may also cover the general secondary education curriculum. Students who have completed general upper-secondary education can enroll in shortened versions of these programs, which are typically one to 1.5 years in length. The final credential is the Diplom o Nachalnom Professionalnom Obrazovanii (Diploma of Vocational Education). It gives access to higher-level vocational education programs and specialized employment, mostly in blue-collar occupations, such as carpentry, tailoring, cookery, or automotive technology. Graduates from programs that include a general secondary education component have the option of sitting for the EGE university entrance exams.

The popularity of basic vocational education declined rapidly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The fact that employment was more or less mandatory during Soviet times meant that 98 percent of graduates from basic vocational programs were employed in the Soviet Union. Today, employment prospects are more precarious. The number of graduates from lower-level vocational programs has declined by 43 percent between 2000 and 2013 alone, from 762,800 to 436,000, as per the statistical data provided by the Russian government.

Advanced vocational programs, referred to as “middle level professional education” in Russia, are considered (non-tertiary) higher education. They typically last two to three years after upper-secondary school (grade 11). Students who have not yet completed upper-secondary education, however, may enter these programs after grade 9 if they meet certain additional admissions requirements. They may, for instance, have to pass admissions tests, and are required to complete the general secondary education curriculum as part of the program. Advanced vocational programs combine applied training with theoretical instruction, and usually require the preparation of a written thesis. The final credential is called Diplom o srednem professionalnom obrazovanii, which can be translated as “Diploma of Middle Level Professional Education.”

The Diploma of Middle Level Professional Education continues to serve an important function in the Russian education system, even though enrollments have begun to decline, if at smaller margins than those in basic vocational education. The credential certifies formal training in a wide range of occupations, ranging from technician to elementary school teacher to accountant. Nurses in Russia, for example, can work after completing mid-level professional education rather than earning a bachelor’s degree, as is required for licensure in the United States.

Mid-level professional education also aligns with tertiary education in that graduates may, on a case-by-case basis, be granted exemptions towards university programs in similar disciplines, and may be allowed to enter directly into the second or third year of bachelor’s programs at some universities.

Tertiary Education

Institutions.

In 2015/16, there were a total of 896 recognized tertiary education institutions in operation in the Russian Federation. Public institutions are categorized into :

• Big multi-disciplinary universities
• Academies specialized in particular professions, such as medicine, education, architecture, or agriculture
• Institutes that (typically) offer programs in singular disciplines, such as music or arts.

There are 50 specially-funded and research-focused National Research Universities and Universities of National Innovation, as well as nine Federal Universities, which were established to bundle regional education and research efforts and focus on regional socioeconomic needs in more remote parts of Russia.

Finally, there are two National Universities, the prestigious Lomonosov Moscow State University and Saint Petersburg State University. These well-funded elite institutions have special legal status and are under the direct control of the federal government, which appoints their rectors and approves university charters. Moscow State University is arguably Russia’s most prestigious institution and currently enrolls more than 47,000 students. Modeled after German universities, it was founded in 1755.

Private Universities

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought about the de-ideologization of education, and successively replaced the rigid centralization and state planning of the Soviet Union with new paradigms of institutional autonomy, effectiveness, innovation, and internationalization. In contrast to other sectors, the education system, however, was spared the “ shock-therapy ” of economic liberalization, which brought about what has been described as “the most cataclysmic peacetime economic collapse of an industrial country in history.” There was no large-scale privatization of state universities and the overall structure of the education system remained largely intact. Over time, however, Russia has seen the emergence of a healthy private higher education sector following the legalization of private education in 1992.

Private institutions now account for some 366 accredited institutions – just over one-third of all higher education institutions in Russia. The number of students enrolled in these universities has increased considerably over the past decades – between 2000 and 2014 alone the number of students at private universities grew by 88 percent, from 470,600 to 884,700 students .

Today, private universities tend to supplement public education with more specialized niche offerings, rather than compete directly with the bigger state-funded universities. Private enrollments account for only about 16 percent of all tertiary enrollments. And, as demonstrated by prestigious funding projects for state universities, and the closure of private niche universities , the Russian government does presently not prioritize the development of the private sector. Private education, thus, is for the time being expected to primarily gain traction in the “ sphere of non-formal and extra-system education .”

Rankings and International Reputation

The Russian Ministry of Education maintains a webpage dedicated to tracking the progress of Russian universities in global rankings. As of 2016 rankings, the goals of the 5/100 project to place five Russian universities in the top 100 of global rankings still seem distant. Lomonosov Moscow State University was the only Russian university among the top 100 in the most common rankings. It was ranked at 87 th place in the Shanghai ranking (followed by St. Petersburg State University and Novosibirsk State University at 301-400 and 401-500, respectively). In the Times Higher Education Ranking , Lomonosov reached 188 th place in 2016/17 with no other Russian universities among the top 300. In the QS ranking , Russia’s flagship university reached 108 th place followed by St. Petersburg State University ranked at place 258. Of note is also that Russia in 2016 announced that it will launch its own international ranking , including universities from Russia, Japan, China, Brazil, India, Iran, Turkey, and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Funding and Education Spending

As a result, education has become more expensive for many students, even in the public sector. Students with high EGE scores are usually allowed to study for free; however many students pay annual tuition fees averaging 120-140 thousand rubles (USD $2,084 to $2,432) for a bachelor’s degree and 220-250 thousand rubles (USD $3,822-4,343) for a Specialist degree (described in more detail below). Although students can take out low-interest loans, these costs are high considering Russian income levels. Inflation rates of more than 11 percent in 2014 caused many Russian universities to raise tuition fees by significant margins , while the average monthly income simultaneously dropped by 35 percent to USD $558 in 2015.

As noted earlier, federal spending on education decreased by 8.5 percent between 2014 and 2016. This downturn reverses spending increases in previous years. Between 2005 and 2013, overall Russian higher education spending as a percentage of GDP increased from 2.7 percent in 2005 to 3.8 percent in 2013 . In the tertiary sector, spending levels stayed mostly constant between 2005 and 2013, but because the number of students simultaneously declined, the amount spent per student actually rose by 32 percent to $USD 8,483 . This number, however, is still low when compared to the average spending in countries at comparable levels of development, causing observers like the World Bank to recommend that Russia increase education spending and prioritize human capital development in order to ensure sustained and inclusive economic growth.

Quality Assurance: State Accreditation and the Role of the Bologna Process

All higher education institutions in Russia, public or private, must have a state license to deliver education programs. To award nationally recognized degrees, institutions must also obtain state accreditation. The accreditation process is overseen by the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science ( Rosobrnadzor)  and is based on institutional self-assessments, peer review, and site visits certifying compliance with standards set by Russia’s National Accreditation Agency (subordinated to Rosobrnadzor) .

Accreditation is granted for six-year periods and entitles institutions to award state-recognized diplomas in a set number of disciplines, and to apply for funding by the government. Both the National Accreditation Agency and Rosobrnadzor maintain online databases of accredited institutions and the degree programs they are authorized to offer.

A signatory to the Bologna declarations since 2003, Russia has adopted many of the quality assurance provisions stipulated in the declarations. Internal quality assurance systems have been established at most of Russia’s universities , and there are now at least five independent accreditation agencies operating in Russia. These agencies accredit programs and institutions in disciplines such as engineering and law, but accreditation by these agencies is not mandatory and does not replace existing quality assurance mechanisms, which remain strictly based on institutional accreditation by the government. Accreditation by European agencies, including those registered with the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) is presently not recognized by the Russian government.

Threats to Academic Freedom: The Case of the European University in St. Petersburg

Under the rule of Vladimir Putin, Russia has become an increasingly authoritarian country in which the government suppresses journalistic and academic freedoms. Threats to academic freedoms are also on the rise in other European countries like Hungary, where the government is trying to shut down the Central European University founded by U.S. billionaire philanthropist George Soros (see our related article in this month’s issue). In Russia, another Soros-supported Western-style university, the European University in St. Petersburg (EUSP) is facing a similar fate. 

EUSP is an internationally renowned private graduate school specializing in social sciences that is regarded as one of Russia’s best universities. Founded in 1994, EUSP received state accreditation in 2004, only to be closed in 2008 in what has been described as a case “ domestic ‘lawfare’ , in which state-run courts enforce political conformity through legal pretexts”. EUSP is known as a liberal-minded institution with foreign board members that teaches Western-style political science. The 2008 closure coincided with the award of a €673,000 EU grant to EUSP to improve election monitoring in Russia, after which Rosobrnadzor inspected and cited the university with technical infractions, followed by temporary closure for not meeting fire-safety standards .

The university was reopened shortly afterward but continued to face difficulties. Passage of Russia’s “ law on undesirable organizations ” forced EUSP to forego foreign funding in 2015. In 2016, Rosobrnadzor launched another wave of inspections, citing the school with 120 violations , including the lack of a fitness room and an information stand against alcoholism, after a conservative Russian politician and a key-author of Russia’s “ gay propaganda law ” had logged a series of complaints , reportedly after hearing that EUSP was teaching inappropriate content in its gender studies curriculum . Other possible reasons suggested by the media involve interests in lucrative construction contracts for the building in which EUSP is housed. In March 2017, EUSP’s license was revoked . Appeals are currently working their way through the courts while the fate of the university remains uncertain. 

Tertiary Degree Structure

Prior to the introduction of the Bologna three-cycle degree structure in 2003, tertiary education in Russia consisted mainly of long single-cycle degree programs of five to six-year duration leading to the award of a “Diploma of Specialist,” followed by a doctoral research degree called Kandidat Nauk (Candidate of Science). In 2007, the single-cycle Specialist program was replaced with a two-cycle degree system consisting of an undergraduate Bakalavr (Bachelor) degree, and a graduate Magistr (Master) degree in many fields of study. In these fields, Specialist degrees are being phased out, and the last waves of students studying under the old structure are currently reaching graduation. However, implementation of the two-cycle Bakalavr/Magistr system has not been mandated across the board, and long Specialist degrees continue to be awarded in a number of fields, including the professions and technical disciplines. The three degrees still in common circulation are thus:

• Bakalavr : Bakalavr degrees in Russia are always four years in duration (240 ECTS credits). (In other European countries the length of bachelor’s degrees varies between three and four years.) Bakalavr degrees are awarded in a wide variety of disciplines and require completion of a thesis (prepared over a time period of four months) and passing of a final state examination in addition to coursework. Admission is based on EGE results in disciplines related to the major of the program.
• Magistr : Magistr degrees are research-oriented graduate degrees that are always two years in length (120 ECTS). Programs conclude with the defense of a thesis and state examination. Admission requires a Bakalavr degree, but universities are free to set additional admission requirements, including entrance examinations and interviews. Bachelor graduates that completed a degree in a different field of study generally have to pass an entrance exam to demonstrate proficiency in the intended area of study. Holders of Specialist degrees are also eligible for admission.
• Specialist Degrees : Specialist programs are at least five years in length and involve state requirements of approximately 8,200 hours of instruction, a thesis, and state examination. Programs lead to the award of the “Diploma of Specialist” and are generally considered to be professionally rather than academically oriented, although the Specialist degree has the same legal standing as the Magistr degree and gives full access to doctoral programs.

European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits are used in Bakalavr and Magistr programs, but, as of now, rarely in Specialist programs. The ECTS grading scale, as well as a new 0-100 grading scale, have been introduced in recent years, but are generally not used on state format academic transcripts, which continue to be issued using the standard 2 to 5 grading scale. Degree programs at both public and private universities conclude with state examinations and the defense of a thesis in front of a State Attestation Commission.

Diploma Supplements existed in Russia prior to the Bologna reforms, and are still issued for all Russian tertiary degrees.

Kandidat Nauk and Doktor Nauk

Students obtain entrance to doctoral research programs – or aspirantura – on the basis of Magistr or Specialist degrees. Doctoral programs are usually three years in length, including lectures and seminars, and independent original research. Upon completion of the study program, doctoral candidates are awarded a diploma of completion of aspirantura . A final Kandidat Nauk degree is conferred only after the public defense of the doctoral dissertation.

Another type of doctoral program, the Doktor Nauk (Doctor of Science), requires additional study beyond the Kandidat Nauk . It is a higher doctorate that entails the completion of another dissertation and takes most candidates anywhere between five and fifteen years to complete. The Doktor Nauk is required to obtain full-tenured professorship in Russia, as well as the prestigious rank of “Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences.” Full tenure is otherwise only granted to professors with at least 15 years of outstanding teaching service at a university.

Teacher Education

Teacher training in Russia takes place both in post-secondary vocational education and the tertiary education sector, depending on the level. Pre-school and elementary school teachers are commonly trained at pedagogical colleges and are allowed to work as teachers on the basis of the Diploma of Middle Level Professional Education (although pre-school and elementary teacher training programs are also offered at universities). Secondary school teachers, on the other hand, are taught at universities and tertiary-level teacher training institutes. Upper-secondary school teachers are required to have a Specialist (or Magistr ) degree. Programs include academic study in the areas of teaching specialization, pedagogical and methodological subjects, and an in-service teaching internship.

Document Requirements

Russia is a signatory to the Hague Apostille Convention and officially certifies documents for use in other signatory states through government agencies. WES relies on this process in the authentication of academic documents from Russia.

Secondary Education

• Final graduation certificate including all subjects and grades – E.g. Certificate of (Complete) Secondary General Education ( Attestat o Srednem (Polnom) Obshchem Obrazovanii including Prilozhenie or Tabel ) – Certified by apostille through an authorized body of education of the Russian Federation. (See here for a list of appropriate education authorities).
• Precise, word-for-word English translations of all documents

Post-Secondary and Higher Education

• Degree Certificate and Academic Transcript – Certified by apostille through an authorized body of education of the Russian Federation. See here for a list of appropriate education authorities.

Click here for a PDF file of the academic documents referred to below.

• Attestat o srednem obshchem obrazovanii (Certificate of General Secondary Education)
• Diplom o srednem professionalnom obrazovanii (Diploma of Middle Level Professional Education)
• Diploma of Specialist
• Bakalavr (Bachelor)
• Magistr (Master)
• Kandidat Nauk (Candidate of Sciences)

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of World Education Services (WES).

References [ + ]

What others are reading What Others Are Reading

Education in the united states of america, education in the philippines, education in india, education in south korea.

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Design Updates: As part of our ongoing effort to make FederalRegister.gov more accessible and easier to use we've enlarged the space available to the document content and moved all document related data into the utility bar on the left of the document. Read more in our feature announcement .

Postsecondary Student Success Grant

A Rule by the Education Department on 08/15/2024

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

• Document Details Published Content - Document Details Agency Department of Education Agency/Docket Number ED-2024-OPE-0069 CFR 34 CFR chapter undef Document Citation 89 FR 66225 Document Number 2024-17709 Document Type Rule Pages 66225-66232 (8 pages) Publication Date 08/15/2024 Published Content - Document Details
• View printed version (PDF)
• Document Dates Published Content - Document Dates Effective Date 09/16/2024 Dates Text These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion are effective September 16, 2024. Published Content - Document Dates

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, general comments, requirements, definitions, final priorities, types of priorities, final requirements, final definitions, final selection criterion, executive orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, regulatory impact analysis, regulatory flexibility act certification, paperwork reduction act of 1995, collection of information: using data for continuous improvement.

Comments are no longer being accepted. See DATES for details.

FederalRegister.gov retrieves relevant information about this document from Regulations.gov to provide users with additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.

Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions for the Postsecondary Student Success Grant Program

• Sharing Enhanced Content - Sharing Shorter Document URL https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-17709 Email Email this document to a friend Enhanced Content - Sharing
• Print this document

Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.

This document is also available in the following formats:

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 08/14/2024 at 8:45 am.

It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:

• the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
• the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to
• the agency docket number / agency internal file number
• the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.

Department of Education

• 34 CFR Chapter VI
• [ED-2024-OPE-0069]

Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion.

The Department of Education (Department) issues priorities, requirements, definitions, and a selection criterion for use in the Postsecondary Student Success Grant (PSSG) program. The Department may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We intend for these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion to support projects that equitably improve postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, upward transfer, and completions of value, by leveraging data and implementing, scaling, and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support data-driven decisions and actions that lead to credentials that support economic success and further education.

These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion are effective September 16, 2024.

Nemeka Mason-Clercin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th floor, Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: (202) 987-1340. Nalini Lamba-Nieves, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, room 5C127, Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: (202) 453-7953. Email: [email protected] .

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the PSSG program is to equitably improve postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, upward transfer, and completions of value, by leveraging data and implementing, scaling, and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support data-driven decisions and actions that lead to credentials that support economic success and further education.

Assistance Listing Number: 84.116M.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d .

We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions in the Federal Register on June 7, 2024 ( 89 FR 48517 ) (NPP). That document contained background information and the Department's reasons for proposing the particular priorities, requirements, and definitions. There are several differences between the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions and these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion. They include changing Proposed Priority 4 on using data for continuous improvement to a selection criterion and adding examples of evaluation strategies; revising the scaling requirements for the mid-phase and expansion priorities; revising the definition of “completions of value”; and revising the examples of allowable uses of funds to include using data to administer the program effectively at the institution and/or State or system levels, capacity building, rigorous evaluations, technology-assisted supports, tutoring and supplemental instruction, peer mentoring, and support for students with disabilities.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 23 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities, requirements, or definitions.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since publication of the NPP follows.

Comments: Several commenters praised the Department for conducting rulemaking for the PSSG program and for the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. For example, several commenters supported the Department's use of evidence standards within Proposed Priorities 1, 2, and 3, and the use of completions of value. Other commenters supported the Department's proposed uses of funds.

Discussion: We appreciate the support of the grant program and the priorities, requirements, and definitions.

Changes: None.

Comments: Several commenters proposed recommendations for which priorities and selection criteria from the NPP should be utilized in a competition, how the selection criteria should be evaluated, what information applicants should be provided, and other components of the application process. Others suggested that we apply the requirements in the recently updated Uniform Grants Guidance.

Discussion: The components of an individual application, including which specific priorities to use, and the guidelines for the application process are laid out in the notice inviting applications that is developed for each competition and do not require additional rulemaking for this grant program. The requirements from the new Uniform Grants Guidance can be utilized without inclusion in the NFP since they have already gone through rulemaking.

Comments: One commenter criticized the priorities, stating that it is discriminatory to focus on “underserved students” and that the program lacks accountability measures to prevent misuse of the research project support services for certain students and suggested that there should be an opt-out provision for students.

Discussion: The PSSG program is designed to enable institutions to implement evidence-based projects to support student success for a targeted group of students who are underrepresented among college completers. However, nothing in these priorities precludes applicants from proposing to also serve students who are not included in the definition of “underserved students” yet need additional support to complete college. The program holds grantees accountable through, among other things, monitoring of the grants, which includes requiring grantees to report annually on program-specific performance measures. Regarding the opt-out provisions, ( print page 66226) institutions manage their own opt-in/opt-out policies with regard to student participation in their grant-funded activities.

Comments: Two commenters questioned the effectiveness of taking a statistics-focused approach to improving student outcomes.

Discussion: Research demonstrates that data-informed decision-making is an important component of a people-driven continuous improvement process to improve student outcomes, which is the approach promoted in this grant program. [ 1 ]

Comments: One commenter expressed concern about the privacy of student data.

Discussion: The Department does not collect individual-level data for the PSSG program. Institutions that use student-level data to support individuals through to completion must comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) ( 20 U.S.C. 1232g ; 34 CFR part 99 ).

Comments: One commenter suggested that the priorities and requirements be used to collect enrollment and persistence data on students with disabilities.

Discussion: Under the final selection criterion under which applicants will identify or describe how they will develop performance and outcome measures, applicants will also describe how they will disaggregate data by student subgroups, which may include students with disabilities if relevant to the project. In addition, under Priorities 1, 2, and 3, projects must be focused on improving outcomes for underserved students, which may include students with disabilities. Nothing in the proposed requirement regarding allowable use of funds precluded support for students with disabilities, but we are explicitly adding it to the list of examples to underscore the importance of supporting this population.

Changes: We have added support for students with disabilities as an explicit allowable student success strategy in the allowable uses of funds requirement.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department consider whether the programs in which students are being retained or to which they are transferring meet the value threshold in the definition of “completions of value.”

Discussion: The Department does not have the capacity to apply the value measure at the program level, and PSSG currently is not targeted at the program level. However, we recognize the importance of not limiting this measure to completion. Accordingly, we are revising the definition of “completions of value” to also address retention and transfer outcomes. In responding to Priorities 1, 2, and 3, applicants will be expected to demonstrate how their proposed projects will improve postsecondary success for underserved students by increasing completions of value that lead to further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or lead to economic mobility.

Changes: We added to the definition of “completions of value” that students must be retained at and/or transfer to institutions conferring completions of value.

Comments: One commenter suggested we retain the focus of the PSSG program on degree completion, rather than establish a new definition of “completions of value,” because they claimed it would be burdensome to the grant application and administration processes for the applicant to demonstrate post-completion return on investment due to limited available data.

Discussion: The Department intends to use existing College Scorecard data and generate additional College Scorecard measures related to completions of value that institutions can use as part of their reporting on this metric for PSSG, since we recognize that it is difficult for some institutions to obtain earnings data.

Comments: Three commenters suggested that the Department adopt a selection criterion regarding data collection and continuous improvement processes at the institution after the grant period, rather than address the topic through a priority. Another commenter suggested we add examples of evaluation strategies to this priority that include rapid-cycle experimentation, pilots, feasibility studies, and implementation research.

Discussion: We agree with the commenters about the importance of this component to this grant program and believe that if we address it through a selection criterion instead of a priority, it will incentivize more applicants to develop robust data collection and continuous improvement strategies, since it will be factored into the scores of all applicants. While all of the evaluation strategies the commenter mentions are already allowable, we have added them as examples to make it clear for future applicants.

Changes: We have changed Proposed Priority 4 to a selection criterion and added examples of evaluation strategies.

Comments: One commenter suggested that we eliminate Proposed Priority 5, stating that the grant awards should not be selected based on specific strategies to improve retention and completion, and another commenter requested that we keep it. One commenter suggested we include it as an allowable use of funds instead of a priority. Finally, one commenter praised the Department for including this priority but suggested that we add experiential learning in addition to credentials of value.

Discussion: We believe that college-to-career pathways and supports are a critical component of student success, and therefore are retaining this as a priority. We agree with the commenter about the important role experiential learning can play, especially for adult learners with some college but no credential, and added language to the priority to reflect this.

Changes: We have added language to Proposed Priority 5 to indicate that participating in experiential learning can be part of a college-to-career pathway.

Comment: In response to our request in the NPP for feedback on the proposed scale requirements for the mid-phase and expansion tiers of evidence, we received numerous comments with recommendations. A common theme among the commenters was to suggest that we eliminate the use of specific numbers of students required in order to demonstrate scale or, if maintained, lower the number to 350 from EDGAR's current definitions of “strong evidence” and “moderate evidence.” In lieu of using population metrics, commenters had several suggestions, including utilizing the rigor of evaluations, the caliber of the research, the reasonableness of the costs, the strategy to effectively scale, and the impacts on college completion—specifically to advance equity or participant outcomes. One commenter suggested that we use, instead of the proposed scale requirements for the mid-phase and expansion tiers of evidence, a three-part requirement for each grant type that would include requiring all mid-phase ( print page 66227) and expansion grant applicants to demonstrate they will be able to conduct a well-powered study with the number of students they propose to serve; meet the minimum standard for studies that meet the definition of “moderate evidence” or “strong evidence,” which is 350 students; and implement the intervention at multiple sites with mid-phase grants implemented at multiple campuses and expansion grants implemented either at multiple institutions or multiple campuses, where the campuses serve different types of underserved students or in different locales.

Discussion: We agree with the comments on aligning the scale and multisite requirements with the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) guidelines defined in EDGAR given one of the stated goals of the program is to generate quality evidence about what works to improve postsecondary student success. Because the WWC guidelines for “moderate evidence” and “strong evidence” do not differ in the required number of sites or scale, we changed the priority language so that the requirements for mid-phase and expansion projects do not include a specific number of students, and we do not differentiate in the number of sites or students required for moderate and strong evidence. We also agree with the comments on ensuring the projects demonstrate positive impact on underserved populations to align with the goal of the program to equitably improve outcomes.

Changes: For mid-phase projects, we have changed the priority to provide that projects must be implemented at multiple institutions of higher education or multiple campuses of the same institution and be intentionally designed to detect the impact of the project, if any, on all students served by the project as well as on at least one population of underserved students (as defined in this document) or between institutions of different locales. For expansion projects, we have changed the priority to provide that projects must be implemented at multiple institutions of higher education and be intentionally designed to detect the impact of the project, if any, on all students served by the project as well as on at least one population of underserved students (as defined in this notice) or between institutions of different locales.

Comments: One commenter suggested adding a priority for projects at lower-resourced institutions serving a significant population of high-need students and with low completion rates or large completion disparities.

Discussion: We agree with the commenter that projects should be at institutions that are lower-resourced and have a significant population of underserved students and completion disparities. That is why the eligibility is targeted to title III and V institutions, which are generally under-resourced institutions with a disproportionate enrollment of students from groups who are underrepresented among college completers, such as students from low-income backgrounds.

Comments: Numerous commenters suggested we add to the list of allowable uses of funds. Recommendations included adding capacity-building, the costs of rigorous evaluation, data to administer the program, development and use of data systems to leverage integrated data systems, data systems, data capacity support, professional development resources for data and institutional effectiveness researchers, credit for prior learning, adaptive courseware, hybrid-flex courses, peer mentoring strategies, supplemental instruction, mental health, basic needs, and the integration of academic coursework and career advising.

Discussion: We agree with the commenters that all of these are allowable uses. While the list provided in the proposed requirement is not comprehensive, several of the suggested uses are critical components for the PSSG program, so we have added to the list of examples. The list in the proposed requirement included several allowable uses to support Proposed Priority 5, including integrated career planning, counseling, and coaching, work-based learning opportunities, and college-to-career navigation support, so we do not think other examples regarding the integration of academic coursework and career advising are needed. It also already included basic needs and mental health uses. Developing and using data systems is already included as an allowable use and the approaches to do so are not limited by the current language.

Changes: We have added using data to administer the program effectively at the institution and/or State or system levels, capacity building, and rigorous evaluation to the list of examples of allowable uses of funds. We also have added technology-assisted supports, tutoring and supplemental instruction, and peer mentoring as examples of allowable uses of funds for student success strategies.

Comments: One commenter suggested that we provide that if a grantee uses funds to include financial assistance as a component of their project, they must propose to use at least one additional allowable component in conjunction with the financial assistance.

Discussion: The Department does not believe such a stipulation necessary. As a tiered evidence program, PSSG is designed to allow the available evidence of what works in improving postsecondary student outcomes to guide applicants in designing their proposed activities. The Department also believes that applicants are in the best position to determine what uses of funds would best serve to improve their students' postsecondary outcomes. Under each of the priorities, successful applicants will identify the key project components based on their review of the studies they cite as evidence for their projects. The applicant must develop a project that meets the goals of the program as laid out in the priorities but can do so by selecting the tools that they choose.

Comments: One commenter suggested adding language to the independent evaluation requirement to ensure that the evaluations are “well-designed, well-implemented, and sufficiently powered” to meet WWC standards for “moderate evidence” or “strong evidence.”

Discussion: The Department agrees that the evaluation of these projects should be well-designed, well-executed, and sufficiently powered to yield credible results. We will use selection criteria to ensure that projects include a plan to conduct evaluations that are intentionally designed to meet WWC standards (with or without reservations). As part of the selection process, WWC-certified peer reviewers will assess the rigor of the evaluation plans. Accordingly, it would be redundant to also address this area of focus in the independent evaluation requirement.

Comment s: While praising the requirement that evaluations be posted to ERIC, two commenters suggested that the Department not put the burden on the grantee to submit the evaluations to ERIC. Instead, they suggested that grantees submit the evaluation reports to the Department within one month of completion and the Department post this information to the Awards page.

Discussion: We disagree with the commenters that requiring the grantee to submit evaluations to ERIC would be burdensome. We agree that it is critical to make sure the evaluations are transparent and made public. We intend ( print page 66228) to share the evaluations publicly on the Department's website.

Comments: Several commenters submitted recommendations for the requirements of evaluations that are submitted, including that they use the most updated version of the WWC Handbook; that the evaluations of early-phase projects be designed to meet WWC standards with or without reservations and that the evaluations of mid-phase and expansion grants be designed to meet WWC standards without reservations; that evaluations have methodologies appropriate to the research question being studied; and that the Department provide institutions with clear guidance on how to submit a relevant study for review to determine if a study meets WWC standards, including that the institutions have an equitable opportunity to compete at the expansion phase without being limited based on studies that are readily accessible in WWC.

Discussion: We appreciate the suggestions to ensure that the evaluation methods are all evidence based and high quality. These recommendations do not require rulemaking for this grant program and would be considered in the application and peer review process.

Comments: Two commenters recommended not restricting the indirect cost rate.

Discussion: The Department maintains limiting the indirect cost reimbursement to 8 percent of a modified total direct cost base. The Department continues to believe that this limitation effectively maximizes the Federal resources that support direct costs associated with the project.

Comments: Several commenters had recommendations for the types of entities that would be eligible for the grant. Four commenters suggested that eligibility not be limited to institutions that are designated as a title III or V school, including one suggestion that public two-year community and technical colleges be added. Two commenters suggested allowing non-profit organizations to be an eligible entity alone, rather than requiring a partnership with a title III or V institution, and another commenter suggested that we require the institution to be the lead applicant. A couple commenters supported allowing non-profits to apply in partnership with title III or V institutions. One commenter asked that businesses be able to partner with institutions, and one commenter asked that for-profit institutions be prohibited from applying.

Discussion: The Department believes that targeting funding to title III and V institutions is the best use of the available funds because these institutions disproportionately enroll students from groups who are underrepresented among college completers, such as students from low-income backgrounds. Supporting retention and completion strategies at these institutions offers the greatest potential to close gaps in postsecondary outcomes. Additionally, these under-resourced institutions are most in need of Federal assistance to implement and evaluate evidence-based postsecondary college retention and completion interventions. More than half of public two-year institutions are title III/V eligible and would be eligible for a grant. Under the eligibility requirement, non-profits may apply for the funding, as long as they do so in partnership with an institution of higher education. It does not matter which entity is the lead applicant since all entities applying through the partnership are subject to the same “Group Application” requirements under 34 CFR 75.127-129 . Given that the innovation would need to occur at an institution, we do not believe it is workable to allow a non-profit to apply without partnership with an institution of higher education. Furthermore, there is nothing that currently prohibits eligible applicants from collaborating with businesses, and for-profit institutions are not eligible institutions.

Comments: One commenter suggested that we specifically include Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) as eligible entities.

Discussion: HSIs are eligible as title III/title V institutions.

Comments: None.

Discussion: In Proposed Requirement 3, we specified certain circumstances under which the Secretary may waive the matching requirement on a case-by-case basis based on certain showings by the “lead applicant.”

Changes: We have revised Requirement 3, section (b) Waiver Authority, to clarify that data showing certain exceptional circumstances should pertain to the “eligible institution(s)” instead of the lead applicant in order to address circumstances where certain eligible entities apply in partnership with title III or V institutions.

Comments: Two commenters suggested changes to the definition of “completions of value.” One commenter suggested we use Threshold 0 from the Postsecondary Value Commission framework, and another commenter suggested we incorporate local workforce data.

Discussion: Our proposed definition aligns with the Postsecondary Value Commission framework by measuring the percentage of students earning enough to recoup their costs and experience an earnings premium over high school graduates, and adds the percentage of students pursuing further education. We recognize the importance of not comparing schools nationally on earnings and so our definition also utilizes State-level high school earnings data. The Department does not have the capacity to factor in local workforce data.

Changes: We adjusted the definition to clarify how the percentage of students is calculated and how State earnings data is used in the construction of the metric.

Comments: One commenter suggested that in the definition of “underserved student,” we include a more detailed description of “student of color” to align with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)'s Race and Ethnicity Standards.

Discussion: The term “student of color” is undefined, consistent with the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities, to ensure consistency across the Department's discretionary grant programs and to allow institutions to define the term in a manner they choose, to be consistent with how they do so internally for other purposes.

The Secretary establishes the following priorities for use in the PSSG Program.

Priority 1—Early Phase.

Projects that are designed to improve postsecondary success for underserved students by increasing completions of value that lead to further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or lead to economic mobility, and are supported by evidence that meets the definition of Demonstrates a Rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 ) or Promising Evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 ).

Priority 2—Mid-Phase: Projects Supported by Moderate Evidence.

Projects that are designed to improve postsecondary success for underserved students by increasing completions of value that lead to further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or lead to economic mobility, and are supported by evidence that meets the definition of Moderate ( print page 66229) Evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 ). Projects under this priority must be implemented at multiple institutions of higher education or multiple campuses of the same institution and be intentionally designed to detect the impact of the project, if any, on all students participating in the project as well as on at least one population of underserved students or between institutions of different locales.

Priority 3—Expansion: Projects Supported by Strong Evidence.

Projects that are designed to improve postsecondary success for underserved students by increasing completions of value that lead to further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or lead to economic mobility, and are supported by evidence that meets the definition of Strong Evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 ). Projects under this priority must be implemented at multiple institutions of higher education and be intentionally designed to detect the impact of the project, if any, on all students participating in the project as well as on at least one population of underserved students or between institutions of different locales.

Priority 4—Projects That Support College-to-Career Pathways and Supports.

Projects that propose to build upon demonstrated progress toward integrating, or that propose a plan to integrate, career-connected learning and advising support into their postsecondary success strategies, which may include participation in experiential learning, to ensure students earn completions of value that lead to economic success and/or further education. Projects may include aligning academic coursework with career pathways and outcomes; developing and implementing program-level credential maps to create college-to-career pathways, including across institutions via transfer; integrating career planning, counseling, and coaching into holistic advising support; offering work-based learning opportunities aligned with students' programs of study; and providing navigation support to help graduates transition from college to career.

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:

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) ).

The Secretary establishes the following requirements for use in the PSSG Program.

Requirement 1: Uses of Funds.

Program funds must be used for one or more of the following allowable uses of funds:

(a) Developing and using data systems, tools, and training to implement data-driven processes and interventions as part of a comprehensive continuous improvement effort, as well as to administer the program effectively at the institution and/or State or system levels;

(b) Implementing student success strategies, including but not limited to whole-college improvement models; course redesign to implement co-requisite remediation or career-connected math pathways including through use of technology-assisted supports; tutoring and supplemental instruction; intensive, integrated advising models including program maps with progress checks, case management approaches, coaching, and peer mentoring; financial support, including need-based aid, emergency aid, and basic needs and behavioral health support and services; transfer support (as applicable), including four-year transfer maps, co-enrollment and co-advising across institutions, and regional transfer partnerships; support for students with disabilities; career support, including integrated career planning, counseling, and coaching, work-based learning opportunities, and college-to-career navigation support; or other evidence-based student success strategies and capacity building to implement student success strategies; and

(c) Providing for rigorous evaluation of the program interventions.

Requirement 2: Indirect Cost Rate Information.

A grantee's indirect cost reimbursement is limited to eight percent of a modified total direct cost base. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www.ed.gov/​about/​offices/​list/​ocfo/​intro.html .

Requirement 3: Matching Requirements and Exceptions.

(a) Matching Requirement. Grantees must provide a ten percent match, which may include in-kind donations.

(b) Waiver Authority. The Secretary may waive the matching requirement on a case-by-case basis upon a showing of any of the following exceptional circumstances:

(1) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve an area with high rates of poverty in the eligible institution(s)' geographic location(s), defined as a Census tract, a set of contiguous Census tracts, an American Indian Reservation, Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau), Alaska Native Village Statistical Area or Alaska Native Regional Corporation Area, Native Hawaiian Homeland Area, or other Tribal land or county that has a poverty rate of at least 25 percent as determined every 5 years using American Community Survey 5-Year data;

(2) Serving a significant population of students from low-income backgrounds at the eligible institution(s)' location(s), defined as at least 50 percent (or the eligibility threshold for the appropriate institutional sector available at https://www2.ed.gov/​about/​offices/​list/​ope/​idues/​eligibility.html#app ) of degree-seeking enrolled students receiving need-based grant aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA); or

(3) Significant economic hardship as demonstrated by low average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent undergraduate student at the eligible institution(s)' location(s), in comparison with the average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent undergraduate student of institutions that offer similar instruction without need of a waiver, as determined by the Secretary in accordance with the annual process of designation of title III and title V institutions.

Requirement 4: Limitation on Grant Awards.

The Department will make awards to only applicants that are not the individual or lead applicant in a current active grant from the PSSG program. ( print page 66230)

Requirement 5: Supplement-not-Supplant.

Grant funds must be used so that they supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the funds that would otherwise be available for the activities to be carried out under the grant and in no case supplant those funds.

Requirement 6: Independent Evaluation.

Grantees must conduct an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the project and submit the evaluation report to ERIC, available at https://eric.ed.gov/​ , in a timely manner.

Requirement 7: Eligible Entities.

Eligible entities are title III or V institutions; nonprofits in partnership with title III or V institutions; States in partnership with title III or V institutions; or systems of public institutions of higher education.

The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in the PSSG program.

Completions of value measures the percentage of credentials that lead to further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or that lead to economic mobility through earning enough to experience a premium over high school graduates in one's State and earning enough to recoup one's investment in postsecondary education. The student must also be retained at, or transferring to, an institution that confers completions of value.

Continuous improvement means using plans for collecting and analyzing data about a project component's (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 ) implementation and outcomes (including the pace and extent to which project outcomes are being met) to inform necessary changes throughout the project. These plans may include strategies to gather ongoing feedback from participants and stakeholders on the implementation of the project component.

English learner means an individual who is an English learner as defined in section 8101(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, or an individual who is an English language learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Historically Black College or University means an institution that meets the eligibility requirements under section 322(2) of the HEA.

Independent evaluation means an evaluation of a project component that is designed and carried out independently of, but in coordination with, the entities that develop or implement the project component.

Minority-serving institution means an institution that is eligible to receive assistance under sections 317 through 320 of part A of title III, or under title V of the HEA.

Student with a disability means any student enrolled at an institution of higher education (including those accepted for dual enrollment) who meets the definition of an individual with a disability as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( 42 U.S.C. 12102 ).

Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities has the meaning ascribed it in section 316(b)(3) of the HEA.

Underserved student means a student in one or more of the following subgroups:

(a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty.

(b) A student of color.

(c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.

(d) An English learner.

(e) A student with a disability.

(f) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

(g) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+) student.

(h) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.

(i) A student who is the first in their family to attend postsecondary education.

(j) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.

(k) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in postsecondary education.

(l) A student who is enrolled in, or is seeking to enroll in, postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.

(m) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an adult student with limited English proficiency.

Using Data for Continuous Improvement.

The extent to which the proposed project will build upon demonstrated progress toward improved student outcomes, or the extent to which the proposed project includes a plan to improve student outcomes for underserved students, by using data to continually assess and improve the outcomes associated with funded activities and sustain data-driven continuous improvement processes at the institution after the grant period.

Applicants addressing this selection criterion must—

(a) Identify, or describe how they will develop, the performance and outcome measures they will use to monitor and evaluate implementation of the intervention(s), including baseline data, intermediate and annual targets, and disaggregation by student subgroups;

(b) Describe how they will assess and address gaps in current data systems, tools, and capacity, and how they will monitor and respond to performance and outcome data to improve implementation of the intervention(s) on an ongoing basis and as part of formative (which may include rapid-cycle evaluation, pilots, feasibility studies, and implementation research) and summative evaluation of the intervention(s); and

(c) Describe how institutional leadership will be involved with, and supportive of, project leadership and how the project relates to the institution's broader student success priorities and improvement processes.

This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use any of these priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criterion, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register .

Under Executive Order 12866 , the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 , as amended by Executive Order 14094 , defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( print page 66231)

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 , as amended by Executive Order 14094 .

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563 , which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866 , as amended by Executive Order 14094 .

To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(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 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 final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion 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 .

The potential costs associated with these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion would be minimal, while the potential benefits are significant. The Department believes that this final regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible entities. Participation in this program is voluntary, and the costs imposed on applicants by this regulatory action would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The potential benefits of implementing the program would outweigh the costs incurred by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with the application would be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, we have determined that the costs of implementation would not be burdensome for eligible applicants, including small entities.

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 these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is 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 Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

The Secretary certifies that these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The small entities that this final regulatory action would affect are institutions that meet the applicable eligibility requirements. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits would outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.

Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for PSSG program funds, an eligible applicant would evaluate the requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving PSSG funds. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of an application.

This final regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on any small entity once it receives a grant because it would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this program.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) ( 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This helps ensure that the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

The final selection criterion contains information collection requirements. Under the PRA the Department has submitted this selection criterion to OMB for its review.

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the collection ( print page 66232) under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

Eligible entities under this program are title III or V institutions; nonprofits in partnership with title III or V institutions; States in partnership with title III or V institutions; or systems of public institutions of higher education. The collection of information would include eligible applicants responding to this final selection criterion: Using Data for Continuous Improvement, which we changed from a priority to a selection criterion based on public comment in response to the NPP. The Department will utilize the selection criteria in selecting eligible applicants for funding. Eligible applicants must respond to the selection criteria within the application package for this program. We estimate the annual burden for the information collection to average 8,400 hours, from 210 eligible applicants at 40 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, we estimate the total burden for this collection to be 8,400 hours. At $47.20 per hour, the total annualized estimated cost for 210 eligible applicants to respond to final selection criteria is approximately $396,480.

Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.8(d) , the Department is soliciting comments on the information collection through this document. Between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register , OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in this requirement. Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives your comments on the Postsecondary Student Success Grant (PSSG) Program Application Information Collection Request by September 16, 2024. Comments related to the information collection activities must be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number ED-2024-OPE-0069 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery by referencing the Docket ID number and the title of the information collection request at the top of your comment. Comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the PRA Coordinator of the Strategic Collections and Clearance Governance and Strategy Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 4C210, Washington, DC 20202-1200.

We consider your comments on this proposed collection of information in—

• Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information we collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

Accessible Format: On request to one of the program contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov . At this site you can view this document, as well as all other Department documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access Department documents 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.

Nasser Paydar,

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

1.  See, for example, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (2019). Innovation in Higher Education: A Case Study of Georgia State University. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://agb.org/​wp-content/​uploads/​2019/​01/​case_​study_​innovation_​georgia.pdf ; and Gagliardi, J., Parnell, A., and Carpenter-Hubin, J. (Eds). (2018). The Analytics Revolution in Higher Education: Big Data, Organizational Learning, and Student Success. Routledge.

[ FR Doc. 2024-17709 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Legal Status
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

• [email protected]
• 204-229-7647
• Apply for PSESP

Interested applicants of the MMF Post-Secondary Education Support Program are required, if applicable under their specific post-secondary institution to also apply for the Louis Riel Bursary in order to be considered eligible. 

About the Louis Riel Bursary

The MMF continues to support post-secondary students through the Louis Riel Bursary. These bursaries are available to Metis students at several post secondary institutions across Manitoba and are administered through the Louis Riel Institute in partnership with the post-secondary institutions.

Qualified students are required to complete an application that may be one or two parts – depending on their individual post-secondary institute. The Louis Riel Institute then confirms that the applicant is eligible for the bursary through verification of Metis ancestry and the post-secondary institution determines the recipients based on their individual assessment criteria(s). Students are eligible to apply for the Louis Riel Bursary every year they are enrolled at their post-secondary institution.

Students who are interested in applying for this award can either contact their post-secondary institution directly or contact the Louis Riel Institute to request an application and get further details.

For inquires please email [email protected] or call 204-984-9480

Copyright © 2022 Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. All rights reserved.

Virtual Tour

Experience University of Idaho with a virtual tour. Explore now

• Discover a Career
• Find a Major
• Experience U of I Life

More Resources

• Admitted Students
• International Students

Take Action

• Find Financial Aid
• View Deadlines
• Find Your Rep

Helping to ensure U of I is a safe and engaging place for students to learn and be successful. Read about Title IX.

Get Involved

• Clubs & Volunteer Opportunities
• Recreation and Wellbeing
• Student Government
• Student Sustainability Cooperative
• Academic Assistance
• Safety & Security
• Career Services
• Health & Wellness Services
• Register for Classes
• Dates & Deadlines
• Financial Aid
• Sustainable Solutions
• U of I Library

• Upcoming Events

Review the events calendar.

Stay Connected

• Vandal Family Newsletter
• Here We Have Idaho Magazine
• Living on Campus
• Campus Safety
• About Moscow

The largest Vandal Family reunion of the year. Check dates.

Benefits and Services

• Vandal Voyagers Program
• Vandal License Plate
• Submit Class Notes
• Make a Gift
• View Events
• Alumni Chapters
• University Magazine
• Alumni Newsletter

SlateConnect

U of I's web-based retention and advising tool provides an efficient way to guide and support students on their road to graduation. Login to SlateConnect.

Common Tools

• Administrative Procedures Manual (APM)
• Class Schedule
• OIT Tech Support
• Academic Dates & Deadlines
• U of I Retirees Association
• Faculty Senate
• Staff Council

College of Education, Health and Human Sciences

Physical Address: 921 Campus Drive Moscow ID, 83844

General Contact: Phone: 208-885-6772 Email: [email protected]

Student Services: Phone: 208-885-6610

Fax: 208-885-1071

Mailing Address: University of Idaho Boise Center 322 E. Front Street Boise, ID 83702

Phone: 208-334-2999

Fax: 208-364-4035

Email: [email protected]

Web: Boise Center

Coeur d'Alene

Mailing Address: University of Idaho CDA Center 1031 N. Academic Way, Suite 242 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814

Phone: 208-292-2519

Fax: 208-667-5275

Email: [email protected]

Web: CDA Center

Secondary Education, M.A.T.

Career information is not specific to degree level. Some career options may require an advanced degree.

Current Job Openings and Salary Range

in ID, WA, OR, MT and HI

Entry-Level

Senior-Level

• Career Options
• Education Administrator, Preschool and Childcare Center/Program
• Education Administrator, Elementary and Secondary School
• Education Administrator, Postsecondary
• Director, Religious Activities and Education
• Education Teacher, Postsecondary
• Instructional Coordinator
• Interpreter and Translator

Regional Employment Trends

Employment trends and projected job growth in ID, WA, OR, MT & HI

*Job data is collected from national, state and private sources. For more information, visit EMSI's data sources page .

• Degree Prep

To prepare for a M.A.T. in Secondary Education leading to secondary teacher certification, applicants should have a bachelor’s degree in one of the content areas taught in an Idaho school for which the University of Idaho has an approved program. Applicants must have a minimum overall 3.0 GPA. If the GPA minimum is not met you can be considered for admission if you:

• Have an undergraduate GPA of 3.0 or higher your last 60 semester credits or 90 quarter credits
• Have worked in the program-specific profession for five or more years
• Have a letter of support from a faculty member in the department
• Write a detailed statement/essay describing your professional experience and potential to succeed academically

Secondary Content Areas (which University of Idaho has an approved program)

• Business Technology
• Earth/Space Science
• English as a New Language
• English Language Arts
• Government/Civics
• Marketing Technology
• Mathematics
• Natural Science
• Physical Education
• Teacher Librarian
• Degree Roadmap

Students prepare with a major professor a master’s degree study plan outlining all course work to be completed to fulfill the requirements for this one-year program. Students must submit the plan before or during the first semester to the College of Graduation studies.

• EDCI 570: Introduction to Research
• EDCI 501:Seminar
• EDCI 543: Learning, Development and Assessment
• EDCI 544: Teaching Culturally Diverse Learners
• EDCI 545: Technology, Teaching and Learning
• EDCI 550: Contexts of Education
• EDCI 563: Literacy Methods for Content Learning
• EDCI 598: Internship
• EDCI 520: Educating for Exceptionalities
• EDCI 431: Secondary English Methods & EDCI 441: Secondary English Practicum
• EDCI 432: Secondary Social Studies Methods & EDCI 442: Secondary Social Studies Methods Practicum
• EDCI 433: Secondary Science Methods & EDCI 443: Secondary Science Methods Practicum
• EDCI 434: Secondary Mathematics Methods & EDCI 454: Secondary Mathematics Methods Practicum
• EDCI 436: Secondary Art Methods & EDCI 446: Secondary Art Methods Practicum
• EDCI 437: Secondary Foreign Language Methods & EDCI 447: Second Language Teaching Methods Practicum

Candidates must pass the appropriate Praxis II exam for their content area. Visit the Idaho Praxis Exam page for further information.

Several tracks are available ranging from 12-Month to 18-Month. To learn more, visit our CourseworkTrack page.

• Scholarships

Visit the  Financial Aid office  for available scholarships.

• Internships

Upon completion of your coursework, you will be required to take the Idaho certification exam. You also will complete a one-semester internship in a classroom environment where you will learn alongside experienced teachers. You will receive personal mentorship from our leading education faculty members. Learn more about semester internships .

• Job Openings and Salary Range
• Employment Trends

Value Knowledge, Educate

This program provides advanced professional foundational courses that emphasize teacher education. Students who have a bachelor’s degree in the field they wish to teach may pursue this one-year program which will give them the teaching strategies and learning theories to facilitate student learning.

• Program can be completed in as little as one year.
• Completion allows teaching sixth through 12th grades in Idaho.
• Faculty members provide students with educational programs that are based on the latest research.

News and Features

Curriculum and Instruction

Meet the Faculty

Secondary Education