[Federal Register: March 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 16253-16263]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30mr05-69]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Smaller Learning Communities Program
AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education
announces final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for a special competition under the Smaller Learning
Communities (SLC) program. The Assistant Secretary may use these
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for a
special competition using a portion of fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds and
also in future years. The priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria announced in this notice will not be used for all FY
SLC 2004 competitions. Projects funded using these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will create and/or
expand SLC activities as well as participate in a national research
evaluation of supplemental reading programs. The Department will
conduct another SLC competition later this year, awarding additional FY
2004 funds, for projects that will not participate in the national
research evaluation. Requirements, priorities, definitions, and
selection criteria for that competition were proposed in a notice in
the Federal Register on February 25, 2005.
We announce these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria to focus Federal financial assistance on an
identified national need for scientifically based data on supplemental
reading programs for adolescents.
DATES: Effective Date: These final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are effective April 29, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Fitzpatrick, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 11120, Potomac Center
Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7120. Telephone: (202) 245-7809.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Improving adolescent literacy is one of the major challenges facing
high schools today. High school students must have strong literacy
skills in order to acquire the knowledge and skills in English/language
arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and other courses that they
need in order to prepare for further learning, for careers, and for
active participation in our democracy. Too many young people are now
entering high school without these essential skills. At a time when
they will soon enter high school, one-quarter of all eighth-grade
students and more than 40 percent of those in urban schools scored
below the basic level on the National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP) assessment of reading in 2003. According to one estimate, at
least one-third of entering ninth graders are at least two years behind
grade level in their reading skills (Balfanz, et al., 2002). Many of
these young people become discouraged and drop out before they reach
the twelfth grade. Large numbers of those who do persist through their
senior year leave high school nearly as unprepared for the future as
when they entered it. Twenty-eight percent of twelfth-grade public
school students scored below the basic level on the NAEP 2002 reading
assessment. These students face a bleak future in an economy and
society that demand more than ever before, higher levels of reading,
writing, and oral communication skills.
Recognizing the importance of improving the literacy skills of
America's children and youth, President Bush established, as key
priorities, the implementation of scientifically based approaches to
reading in the early grades and the development of new knowledge about
how best to help adolescents read well.
One current initiative, the Adolescent Literacy Research Network,
created by the Department's Office of Vocational and Adult Education
(OVAE) and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS) in collaboration with the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (NICHD), supports six five-year experimental
research projects. These projects are examining cognitive, perceptual,
behavioral, and other mechanisms that influence the development of
reading and writing abilities during adolescence, as well as the extent
to which interventions may
[[Page 16254]]
narrow or close literacy gaps for adolescents.
While these and other long-term, scientifically based research
studies promise to provide a stronger foundation for designing more
effective literacy interventions for adolescents, a number of
noteworthy supplemental reading programs for adolescents are already
available and have attracted great attention from high school leaders
concerned about the literacy skills of their freshman students. High
schools that have created freshman academy SLCs to ease the transition
of ninth-grade students to high school are among those most interested
in addressing the needs of ninth graders whose reading skills are
significantly below grade level. Unfortunately, however, there is
little or no scientifically based evidence that schools can consult to
inform their decision-making regarding the selection and implementation
of these reading programs.
To augment the research initiative of the Adolescent Literacy
Research Network, the Department is now seeking to partner with local
educational agencies (LEAs) in a national research evaluation that will
examine the effectiveness of two supplemental reading programs that
will be implemented within freshman academy SLCs. Section 5441(c)(2)(B)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA), authorizes SLC funds to be
used to ``research, develop, and implement strategies for effective and
innovative changes in curriculum and instruction, geared to challenging
State academic content standards and State student academic achievement
standards.'' The Department announces in this notice priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for use in connection
with a special competition under the SLC program that will provide a
new opportunity for interested LEAs that are implementing freshman
academy SLCs to partner with us to evaluate the effectiveness of two
promising supplemental reading programs for ninth-grade students who
are participating in freshman academies and whose reading skills are
two to four years below grade level.
The Department's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has awarded
a contract to MDRC and the American Institutes of Research (AIR) to
conduct this evaluation of supplemental reading programs. AIR solicited
proposals from vendors of classroom-based supplemental reading programs
seeking to participate in this initiative. When evaluating supplemental
reading programs for this initiative, MDRC and AIR considered whether
the vendors' supplemental reading programs were suitable for
implementation within freshman academies, were research-based, and were
designed to address all aspects of reading, from basic alphabetic
skills to higher-level comprehension and writing. They also evaluated
the extent to which the programs were designed to address issues of how
to motivate adolescents to read. MDRC and AIR convened an independent
panel of experts on adolescent literacy in January 2005 to evaluate the
programs submitted for consideration. The panel focused its assessment
on the extent to which a program incorporates the features judged by
experts in the field to be indicative of a high-quality adolescent
reading program and the extent to which there is research-based
evidence of the program's effectiveness.
Based on the expert panel's recommendations, MDRC and AIR selected
the two most promising programs for evaluation through this initiative.
These programs are (1) Strategic Instruction Model, from the University
of Kansas's Center for Research on Learning (http://www.kucrl.owg), and
(2) Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy from the Strategic
Literacy Initiative, from WestEd (http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/pj/179
). Both programs can be implemented to meet the needs of ninth-grade
students who are reading two to four years below grade level. They both
provide instruction in advanced decoding skills, vocabulary,
comprehension, writing, and metacognition. Both give students
opportunities to read a wide range of material and prepare them for
work in other content areas.
Interested LEAs that are selected to participate in this initiative
will implement the supplemental reading programs during the 2005-06 and
2006-07 school years in high schools that have established freshman
academy SLCs. In an LEA that receives a grant on behalf of two large
high schools, one of those high schools will be randomly assigned to
implement one of the two reading programs; the other high school will
implement the other program. Similarly, in an LEA that receives a grant
on behalf of four large high schools, two of those schools will each be
randomly assigned to implement one of the two reading programs and the
remaining two high schools will be assigned a reading program in a
manner that ensures that two high schools implement one program, and
two implement the other. The programs will serve ninth-grade students
in freshman academy SLCs whose reading skills are two to four years
below grade level. Working with MDRC and AIR, each high school will
select by lottery approximately 50 students from a pool of a minimum of
125 eligible ninth-grade students enrolled in a freshman academy to
participate in the supplemental reading program; the remaining students
will continue in their elective course, study hall, or other activity
in which they would otherwise participate. The evaluators will work
with each LEA and high school to assess the effectiveness of the
supplemental reading program with two consecutive cohorts of ninth-
grade students in 2005-6 and 2006-7. After the completion of the 2006-
07 school year, participating high schools will have gained valuable
data about the effectiveness of these supplemental reading programs in
their schools. These data will help them to decide whether to expand
the supplemental reading program to include all eligible students, to
select and implement another supplemental reading program, or to
implement no program at all.
The Department will award 60-month grants using the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria announced in this
notice. In addition to supporting the other broader SLC activities at
each participating high school, each grant will fully fund the costs of
implementing the supplemental reading program, technical assistance
from the program vendor, and the cost of participating in the
evaluation.
The evaluation will provide researchers, policy-makers, school
administrators, teachers, and parents throughout the United States with
important information about these supplemental reading programs and
adolescent literacy development, and answer three important questions:
(1) Do specific supplemental reading programs that support
personalized and intensive instruction for striving ninth-grade readers
significantly improve reading proficiency?
(2) What are the effects of supplemental reading programs on in-
school outcomes such as attendance and course-taking behavior, and on
longer-term outcomes such as student performance on State assessments
in the tenth or eleventh grade?
(3) Which students benefit most from participation in the programs?
LEAs and participating high schools will benefit in a number of
ways from partnering with the Department in this initiative. They will
make an important contribution to improving our now-limited knowledge
of how we can help most effectively at-risk young people
[[Page 16255]]
who enter high school with limited literacy skills. They will receive
grant funds to support the implementation of a promising supplemental
reading program and high-quality professional development for the
teachers who will provide instruction. After the second year of the
grant, once the two-year period of supplemental reading program
implementation has been completed, participating schools will be free
to expand the program to include all eligible students or implement a
new program, if they choose. Finally, the grant will also provide
sufficient funds to support a broader SLC project that expands or
creates new SLC structures and strategies in participating high
schools. Those funds will be available for use throughout the 60-month
grant period.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for a special competition using a
portion of FY 2004 funds and subsequent years funds (NPP) in the
Federal Register on January 27, 2005 (70 FR 3910). This notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria contains
several significant changes from the NPP. We fully explain these
changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section that follows.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the NPP, 13 parties submitted
comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria since
publication of the NPP follows.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes--and
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority.
Comments: A number of commenters requested clarification about the
definition of a supplemental reading program and requested more
guidance about what activities would exclude LEAs from eligibility.
Discussion: In order to gauge the effectiveness of the
comprehensive supplemental reading programs being studied, it is
essential that students in the ``control group'' (i.e. students who do
not participate in the supplemental reading program) not receive
instruction that is or has been influenced by the presence of another
supplemental reading program in their school that is similar to the
programs being studied. Moreover, teachers who have received
professional development in or who have previously participated in a
similar supplemental reading program may, even unknowingly, incorporate
elements unique to those supplemental reading programs into their
regular English classes, and upset the integrity and reliability of the
research study. We understand that most high schools provide some sort
of extra help in reading for struggling readers in all grades and do
not intend to exclude schools from participation in this study for that
reason. For the purposes of this study, however, it is important that
the extra help given to striving ninth-grade readers not be in the form
of a comprehensive, year-long classroom-based supplemental reading
program similar to the programs being evaluated through this study.
Changes: We have retained the requirement that LEAs cannot apply on
behalf of schools if those schools have recently implemented a
comprehensive supplemental reading program, but we have added a more
precise definition for ``supplemental reading program.'' In addition,
we have added to Priority 1 a requirement that LEAs that wish to apply
on behalf of schools that have implemented other types of reading
interventions must provide a detailed description of their past reading
intervention activities. We will consider each school on a case-by-case
basis and have modified the Foundation for Implementation of the
Supplemental Reading Program selection criterion to reflect that we
will consider the extent to which the applicant demonstrates an
appropriate foundation for participation in the research study, without
the presence of reading programs that might affect the outcomes of the
study. We also have modified this criterion to reflect that we will
consider whether the teachers have previously received professional
development in a supplemental reading program.
Comments: A number of commenters sought clarification as to whether
LEAs would be able to apply on behalf of schools that are currently
carrying out activities funded through an SLC grant.
Discussion: The NPP stated that we would ``accept applications from
LEAs whether or not they are applying on behalf of schools that have
previously received funding under the Federal SLC program.'' We meant
for this language to convey that LEAs may apply on behalf of schools
currently receiving SLC funds, on behalf of schools that have never
received funding, or on behalf of schools that received funding that
has now expired.
Changes: We have revised the Eligibility section to clarify that we
will accept applications from LEAs whether or not they are applying on
behalf of schools that have previously received funding under the
Federal SLC program or that are currently receiving funding under the
Federal SLC program.
Comments: One commenter stated that the requirement that
participating schools should have an active enrollment of at least
1,000 students is too restrictive.
Discussion: The SLC program serves large high schools. Consistent
with language in the Conference Report for Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199), the Department has decided that to be
considered a large high school for purposes of this program, the school
must enroll 1,000 or more students.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that alternative high school
programs that have an active enrollment of at least 1,000 students and
meet all other eligibility requirements should be eligible to apply.
Discussion: LEAs are welcome to apply on behalf of any eligible
high schools under their purview, provided that the schools satisfy the
requirements we establish through this notice. A public alternative
program would be considered a high school for the purposes of this
special SLC competition if that program is recognized by a State
educational agency as an independent high school.
Changes: None.
Comments: A number of commenters requested that schools be eligible
to apply even if they have recently implemented a supplemental reading
program, provided that they can offer evidence that the supplemental
reading program formerly implemented in the school was ineffective.
Discussion: Ineffective reading programs might not fit the full
definition of ``supplemental reading programs'' as defined elsewhere in
this notice. Applicants should review this definition to determine if
their previous reading program differs from the supplemental reading
programs we describe. If their previous reading program would not be
considered a supplemental reading program under the definition in this
notice, then they may apply.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters were concerned that so-called
``vertical'' SLCs (i.e., those SLCs which include students in grade
nine, but also students in grades 10 through 12) were not clearly
included in the definition of freshman academy.
Discussion: For the purposes of conducting a cohesive evaluation,
we prefer to work with schools that are implementing fairly similar
freshman SLCs in all of the schools participating
[[Page 16256]]
in the study. That said, we balance this hope for a set of fairly
homogenous SLC structures to be involved in the study against our need
to secure a sufficient number of qualified applications. We also
understand that other forms of SLCs might better meet the needs of
students of different schools. Therefore, in our proposed definition of
freshman academy, we stated that: ``A freshman academy may include
ninth-grade students exclusively or it may be part of an SLC, sometimes
called a ``house,'' that groups together a small number of ninth-
through twelfth-grade students for instruction by the same core group
of academic teachers. The term freshman academy refers only to the
ninth-grade students in the house.'' We think that this language
clearly conveys that schools with a sufficient number of striving
ninth-grade readers who are enrolled in ``vertical'' SLCs are eligible
to apply to participate in the study. For schools with vertical SLCs,
we count the ninth-grade students in those SLCs as the ``freshman
academy.''
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked that we add additional requirements
to our definition of freshman academy, requiring schools to provide
evidence that their freshman academy SLCs incorporate a number of
qualities such as elements of autonomy, identity, and interdisciplinary
teaching teams.
Discussion: We recognize that there are many opinions about how
freshman academies should be organized. After careful analysis, we have
selected a wide variety of unique and challenging requirements that
applicants must meet in order to even be eligible to participate in
this study. We feel that imposing additional requirements on schools
could significantly hinder our ability to collect a sufficient number
of applications, without which the entire study would be impossible.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern that this initiative
might send the message that reading instruction for striving readers is
somehow limited to the ninth grade and suggested that we consider
requiring schools to incorporate literacy interventions for all
students in the school.
Discussion: An initiative to strengthen reading instruction for
struggling ninth-grade readers should not be read as a statement that
the Department believes that reading instruction in later grades is
unimportant. Many students with low-level reading skills are unable to
continue past the ninth grade and drop out before reaching further
grades. As we stated in the NPP, one-quarter of all eighth-grade
students and more than 40 percent of those in urban schools scored
below the basic level on the National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP) reading assessment in 2003. According to one estimate, at least
one-third of entering ninth graders are at least two years behind grade
level in their reading skills (Balfanz, et al., 2002).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the proposed priority for
districts applying on behalf of four schools puts rural districts at a
disadvantage compared to their urban counterparts, and reduces the
generalizability of any future research findings based on this study.
Discussion: We agree that the proposed priority may give larger
LEAs, such as LEAs in urban areas and those in States that organize
their school districts by county, an advantage in the competition,
although this outcome is not the intent of the priority. As we
explained in the NPP, maintaining the integrity of the random
assignment process would be more challenging if we permitted a larger
number of districts to participate in the study. Accordingly, while we
agree that studying the implementation of the supplemental reading
programs across a greater number of districts with a broad range of
demographic conditions could possibly strengthen certain aspects of the
research evaluation, we believe that the potential benefits from doing
so are outweighed by the benefits of conducting this study in the most
coherent manner possible, with a smaller number of districts.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that we not require districts to
apply on behalf of pairs of schools so that districts with just one
school can apply.
Discussion: The design of the research study depends upon comparing
the results of the implementation of supplemental reading programs
across schools within a district. The pairing of schools permits us to
study the comparative effectiveness of these programs, not just the
effectiveness of each program in individual schools. In order to reduce
the chance that we will exclude districts with only one school, we
allow LEAs to join together and submit consortium applications on
behalf of two or four schools, so long as those LEAs share a
geographical border.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter felt that the proposed special competition
would be an inefficient use of funding and that there is currently no
need for more research in this area.
Discussion: As we noted in the NPP, there is little or no
scientifically based research in this area.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that we remove the stipulation in
our definition of ``striving ninth grade readers'' that these students
must be in the ninth grade ``for the first time,'' and pointed out that
many students lacking basic literacy skills are unable to be promoted
to the tenth grade.
Discussion: We agree, and note that removing this stipulation might
allow more schools to be eligible to apply.
Change: We removed the words ``for the first time'' from our
definition of ``striving ninth-grade readers.''
Comment: One commenter suggested that we require written commitment
from the teachers and school administrators directly involved with
implementation of the supplemental reading program.
Discussion: We agree that requiring participating teachers and
school administrators to provide written commitment that they will
implement the supplemental reading programs in accordance with our
requirements may help to promote faithful implementation of the
supplemental reading program. In the NPP, we proposed to require LEAs
to provide a letter committing to the requirements of the supplemental
reading program, if the LEA did not require approval by a district
research office or research board. We did not, however, propose to
require a letter of commitment from the individual teachers responsible
for implementing the supplemental reading program.
Changes: We have added a new requirement to Priority 1 for
applicants to provide written commitments from the superintendent and
the principal at each school on whose behalf the application is made,
whether or not the district also requires approval from a research
office or research board, that they will meet the requirements of the
research design. We also added a requirement under Priority 1 for the
full-time teacher implementing the supplemental reading program to
provide a letter of interest and a resume. We also revised the
selection criteria to highlight that we consider the experience of the
teacher, as evidenced in part by his or her resume and letter of
interest.
Comments: One commenter requested more information about the
supplemental reading programs selected for the study and an assurance
that the programs would be tailored to meet the needs of adolescent
readers rather than being an extension of programs tailored for younger
readers.
[[Page 16257]]
Discussion: The two supplemental reading programs selected for this
study have been developed specifically for a high school audience.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter described the supplemental reading program
being implemented in a potential applicant district and asked whether
the research design for this study could allow for three groups of
students--one group enrolled in the supplemental reading program we
assign, one group enrolled in the district's current reading program,
and one group as a ``control group.''
Discussion: In order to make conclusions about the effectiveness of
the two supplemental reading programs we are studying in this
evaluation, we must study the implementation of these programs in at
least 32 schools (16 schools per program). Studying the effectiveness
of a third reading program would require an equal number of schools to
implement that third program because studying a program in only one
school would not produce enough data to assess its effectiveness.
Moreover, elsewhere in this notice we prohibit applicants from
implementing any supplemental reading program similar to the reading
programs being studied.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested that preference be given to
applications from so-called ``unit'' districts that do not include
eighth-grade ``feeder'' schools.
Discussion: We appreciate the unique challenges faced by high
school districts that play little role in the education of their
students before the students enroll in their high school(s). The focus
of this special competition, however, is to fund a national research
evaluation of the supplemental reading programs at the ninth-grade
level. So long as participating schools meet the unique requirements
set forth in this notice, we do not believe that the administrative
relationship between those schools and their feeder middle schools
should influence the weight we give their applications.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested that we add a requirement for
schools to implement a ``Pre-Freshman'' academy, in addition to the
ninth-grade freshman academy, in order to foster better transitions
with the eighth-grade feeder schools.
Discussion: We appreciate the importance of alignment and smooth
transitions between eighth-grade and ninth-grade schooling experiences
for students. That said, we have decided not to impose an additional
requirement on applicants to implement a pre-freshman academy because
we believe that imposing additional requirements on applicants could
significantly hinder our ability to fund a sufficient number of
applications, without which the entire study will be impossible.
Moreover, participating schools may carry out activities to improve the
transition from the eighth to the ninth grade as part of their broader
SLC project, provided that their efforts do not disturb the faithful
implementation of the supplemental reading programs being studied under
the national research evaluation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that random assignment by
lottery of students into the supplemental reading programs would be too
difficult to implement.
Discussion: We understand the difficulties related to implementing
a complex research study such as the one we will conduct through this
special competition. We will work with the contractors and reading
program vendors to ensure that schools have proper support and guidance
throughout the assignment process, including help with implementing the
lottery and in obtaining parental consent.
Changes: We have made a few changes to Priority 1 and the
Participation in the Research Evaluation requirement to clarify that
applicants will work with the contractors to carry out certain aspects
of the supplemental reading program's implementation, including
implementation of the lottery, the administration of surveys and
diagnostic assessments of the student's reading skills, and recruitment
and analysis of student eligibility to participate in the program.
Comment: One commenter suggested we budget more funds to cover the
salary and benefits of the teacher implementing the supplemental
reading program.
Discussion: We agree that, under the language proposed in the NPP,
we did not budget enough funds to cover the salary and benefits of the
teacher implementing the supplemental reading program.
Changes: We have increased the amount of funds to be reserved for
the supplemental reading program, from $230,000 to $250,000, and
therefore increased the total maximum award amount to $1,250,000 per
school. We now require that each school reserve $150,000 for
implementation of the supplemental reading program during the 2005-06
school year and $100,000 for the implementation of the program during
the 2006-07 school year. We have also added a requirement that each
school set aside approximately $25,000 of these reserved supplemental
reading program funds during the first year and $15,000 during the
second year to cover materials and support provided by the supplemental
reading program developers.
Comment: One commenter requested that learning disabled students
not be excluded from the definition of ``striving ninth-grade
readers.''
Discussion: In drafting our definition of striving ninth-grade
readers, we excluded learning-disabled students because we assumed that
in most instances those students receive other intensive forms of
supplemental instruction outside of the regular English/language arts
classroom. However, we agree that if these students are not receiving
any other forms of supplemental instruction, and they are two to four
years behind grade level in their reading skills, they should be
included within the definition of striving ninth-grade readers.
Changes: We have removed the language from the definition of
striving ninth-grade readers that excluded students with learning
disabilities, and have added language to the section entitled
Eligibility to specify that students with learning disabilities may be
included in the pool of eligible students if they are not receiving
other forms of supplemental instruction and otherwise meet the
definition of a striving ninth-grade reader.
Other Changes: Upon our internal review, we have made the following
changes, in order to clarify some possibly confusing language in the
NPP:
(1) In Priority 1, we have changed ``recruit 125 or more students
for the program'' to ``work with the LEA, school officials, MDRC, and
AIR to recruit 125 or more students for the program''; we have changed
``obtain parental consent'' to ``work with the LEA, school officials,
MDRC, and AIR to obtain parental consent''; we have changed ``Assign a
language arts teacher'' to ``Assign a language arts or social studies
teacher''; and we have added the language ``Designate a substitute or
replacement teacher in the event that the teacher of the supplemental
reading program takes a leave of absence, resigns, or is otherwise
unwilling or unable to participate.''
(2) In Priority 1, we have added a requirement that applicants must
designate a substitute or replacement teacher in the event that the
teacher of the supplemental reading program takes a leave of absence,
resigns, or is otherwise unwilling or unable to participate. We state
elsewhere in this
[[Page 16258]]
notice that the LEA and participating high schools must provide a full-
time teacher to provide instruction in the supplemental reading program
for 225 minutes each week. This language did not leave room for the
teacher to take a leave of absence or otherwise fail to provide all of
the instruction for the program. By adding this requirement, we are
clarifying that substitutes can be used in the event that the teacher
is unwilling or unable to participate.
(3) In Priority 1, the section entitled Participation in the
National Research Evaluation, and the Selection Criteria, we have
changed the words ``English/language arts teacher'' to ``English/
language arts or social studies teacher.'' The original language was
meant to convey that the teacher implementing the supplemental reading
program should teach a subject that incorporates literacy instruction.
Social studies teachers fit that definition, and, therefore, should
have been included.
(4) In the Eligibility section, we added language to clarify when
educational service agencies are eligible to apply for a grant under
this competition.
(5) In the section entitled Participation in the Research
Evaluation, we have changed ``The LEA must'' to ``The LEA and the
participating high schools must''; and we have changed ``a project
coordinator who would participate in the professional development'' to
``a project coordinator who would be able to participate in the
professional development.'' We also have changed ``The LEA must provide
transcripts and State assessment data for the entire pool of eligible
students for the 2005-6, 2006-7, 2007-8 and 2008-9 school years'' to
``The LEA must provide transcripts and State assessment data for the
entire pool of eligible students for the 2004-5, 2005-6, 2006-7, 2007-8
and 2008-9 school years.'' We have added ``2004-2005'' to the list of
school years for which the LEA must provide the Department with
transcripts and State assessment data because we state that we will
consider data from the 2004-5 school year in other sections of the
notice. Adding 2004-2005 to this section simply adds clarity and
internal consistency within this notice.
(6) In the definition of Striving Ninth-Grade Readers, we have
changed ``who took the State's eighth-grade standardized assessment
with minimal accommodations'' to ``who took the State's eighth-grade
standardized reading or language arts assessment in English with
minimal accommodations.''
(7) In the Selection Criteria, we removed paragraph (3) from the
Need for Participation in the Supplemental Reading Program. This
paragraph referred to the broader SLC project, not the supplemental
reading program, and was needlessly confusing. The new criterion which
has been added to the Quality of the Project Design of the Broader SLC
Project addresses some of the same issues covered by the deleted
criterion.
Note: This notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria does not solicit applications.
In any year in which we choose to use these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting
applications we designate each priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational. 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 either (1)
awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to
which the application meets the competitive preference priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
competitive preference 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 invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other
applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Priorities
Priority 1--Participation in a National Research Evaluation That
Assesses the Effectiveness of Supplemental Reading Programs in Freshman
Academies
To be eligible for consideration under this priority, an applicant
must--
(1) Apply on behalf of two or four large high schools that are
currently implementing freshman academies;
(2) Provide a detailed description of literacy classes and/or other
activities implemented within the last two years that were designed to
promote the reading achievement of striving ninth-grade readers (as
defined elsewhere in this notice) at any of the schools on behalf of
which the LEA has applied;
(3) Provide documentation of the LEA's and schools' willingness to
participate in a large-scale national evaluation that uses
scientifically based research methods. Each LEA must include in its
application a letter from its superintendent and the principals of the
high schools named in the application, agreeing to meet the
requirements of the research design, and each LEA must include in its
application a letter from its research office or research board
agreeing to meet the requirements of the research design, if such
approval is needed according to local policies;
(4) Agree to implement two designated supplemental reading programs
for striving ninth-grade readers, one in each eligible high school,
adhering strictly to the design of the reading program, with the
understanding that the supplemental reading program will be either the
Strategic Instruction Model or Reading Apprenticeship Academic
Literacy, as assigned to each school by the evaluation contractor;
(5) Assign a language arts or social studies teacher, providing his
or her name, resume, and a signed letter of interest, in each
participating high school to: (a) Participate in professional
development necessary to implement the supplemental reading program
(which will include travel to Washington, DC, or another off-site
location during the first two weeks in August of 2005); (b) teach the
selected supplemental reading program to participating students for a
minimum of 225 minutes per week for each week of the 2005-2006 and
2006-07 school years; (c) complete two surveys; (d) assist with the
administration of surveys and student assessments; (e) work with the
LEA, school officials, MDRC, and AIR to recruit 125 or more students
for the program and the larger research evaluation; (f) determine
students' eligibility to participate in the research evaluation, with
the guidance of the evaluation contractor; and (g) work with the LEA,
school officials, MDRC, and AIR to obtain parental consent for students
to participate in assessments and other data collections;
(6) Designate a substitute or replacement teacher in the event that
the teacher of the supplemental reading program takes a leave of
absence, resigns, or is otherwise unwilling or unable to participate;
and
(7) Agree to provide, prior to the start of school years 2005-06
and 2006-07, for each participating high school, a list of at least 125
striving ninth-grade readers who are eligible to participate in the
research evaluation; work with the contractor to assign by lottery 50
of those students in each participating high school to the supplemental
reading program and assign the remaining
[[Page 16259]]
students to other activities in which they would otherwise participate,
such as a study hall, electives, or other activity that does not
involve supplemental reading instruction; provide students selected for
the supplemental reading program with a minimum of 225 minutes per week
of instruction in the supplemental reading program for each week of the
school year; and allow enough flexibility in the schedules of all
eligible students so that students who are not initially selected by
lottery to participate in the supplemental reading program may be
reassigned, at random, to the program if students who were initially
selected for the program transfer to another school, drop out, or
otherwise discontinue their participation in supplemental reading
instruction during the school year.
Priority 2--Number of Schools
The Secretary gives priority to applications from LEAs applying on
behalf of four high schools that are implementing freshman academies
and that commit to participate in the research evaluation.
Requirements
Application Requirements
The Assistant Secretary announces the following application
requirements for this special SLC competition. These requirements are
in addition to the content that all SLC grant applicants must include
in their applications as required by the program statute under title V,
part D, subpart 4, section 5441(b) of the ESEA. A discussion of each
application requirement follows:
Eligibility
To be considered for funding, an applicant must be an LEA,
including schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA schools)
and educational service agencies, that applies on behalf of two or four
large high schools that have implemented, and continue to implement, at
least one freshman academy SLC by no later than the 2004-2005 school
year.
An educational service agency is only eligible if it can show in
its application that the entity or entities with governing authority
over the eligible high schools on whose behalf the educational service
agency is applying supports the application.
LEAs must identify in their applications the names of the two or
four large high schools proposed to participate in the research
evaluation, the number of students currently enrolled in each school,
disaggregated by grade level, and the number enrolled in freshman
academies. We will not accept applications from LEAs on behalf of one,
three, or more than four schools. We require that each school include
grades 11 and 12 and have an enrollment of 1,000 or more students in
grades 9 through 12.
Enrollment figures must be based upon data from the current school
year or data from the most recently completed school year. We will not
accept applications from LEAs applying on behalf of schools that are
being constructed and do not have an active student enrollment at the
time of application.
The LEA also must provide an assurance that each of the schools
identified in its application: (1) Is implementing at least one
freshman academy SLC during the 2004-05 school year; (2) will continue
to implement at least one freshman academy SLC during the 2005-06 and
2006-07 school years; and (3) did not implement a classroom-based
supplemental reading program, as defined elsewhere in this notice, for
striving ninth-grade readers during the 2004-05 school year. For each
school identified in the application, LEAs also must provide evidence
that a minimum of 125 striving ninth-grade readers (as defined
elsewhere in this notice) were enrolled at the school during each of
the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years. Students with learning
disabilities may be included among the pool of striving ninth-grade
readers if they do not receive other intensive supplemental literacy
instruction outside of the regular English/language arts classroom, and
otherwise meet the definition of striving ninth-grade readers stated
elsewhere in this notice. We will accept applications from LEAs whether
or not they are applying on behalf of schools that have previously
received funding under the Federal SLC program or that are currently
receiving funding under the Federal SLC program. Eligible schools would
be those currently implementing freshman academy SLCs, though the
freshman academies need not have been funded through a prior Federal
SLC grant.
School Report Cards
We require that LEAs provide, for each of the schools included in
the application, the most recent ``report card'' produced by the State
or the LEA to inform the public about the characteristics of the school
and its students, including information about student academic
achievement and other student outcomes. These ``report cards'' must
include, at a minimum, the following information that LEAs are required
to report for each school under section 1111(h)(2)(B)(ii) of the ESEA:
(1) Whether the school has been identified for school improvement; and
(2) information that shows how the academic assessments and other
indicators of adequate yearly progress compare to those of students in
the LEA and the State, as well as performance of the school's students
on the statewide assessment as a whole.
Consortium Applications and Governing Authority
In an effort to encourage systemic, LEA-level reform efforts, we
permit an individual LEA to submit only one application on behalf of
multiple schools. Accordingly, the LEA is required to specify in its
application which high schools would participate.
In addition, we require that an LEA applying for a grant under this
competition apply only on behalf of a high school or high schools for
which it has governing authority, unless the LEA is an educational
service agency applying in the manner described in the section in this
notice entitled Educational Service Agencies. An LEA, however, may form
a consortium with another LEA with which it shares a geographical
border and submit a joint application for funds. In such an instance,
the consortium must apply on behalf of either two or four high schools
and follow the procedures for group applications described in 34 CFR
75.127 through 75.129 in the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). For example, an LEA that wishes to
apply for a grant but only has one eligible high school may partner
with a neighboring LEA, if the neighboring LEA has another eligible
high school.
Educational Service Agencies
We permit an educational service agency to apply on behalf of
eligible high schools only if the educational service agency includes
in its application evidence that the entity or entities that have
governing authority over each of the eligible high schools supports the
application.
Budget Information for Determination of Award
LEAs may receive up to $1,250,000 per school during the 60-month
project period. This is an increase from the maximum range of awards
($550,000 to $770,000) that we established in the previous SLC program
competitions, plus an additional $250,000 to cover additional expenses
related to participation in the research evaluation.
[[Page 16260]]
In its budget calculations, each school will reserve $150,000 for
implementation of the supplemental reading program during the 2005-06
school year and $100,000 for the implementation of the program during
the 2006-07 school year. Of this amount, approximately $25,000 must be
reserved the first year, and $15,000 must be reserved the second year,
to cover materials and support provided by the supplemental reading
program developers. These funds will also support the salary and
benefits of one full-time-equivalent teacher who will be responsible
for providing the supplemental reading program instruction and
performing administrative functions related to the conduct of the
research evaluation, professional development, technical assistance
provided by the program developer, and the purchase of curriculum
materials and the technology necessary to deliver instruction. The
remaining $1,000,000 will be available to support other activities
related to the creation or expansion of SLCs in the school. For one
application, LEAs may receive up to $5,000,000, if applying on behalf
of four schools. Grants will support participation in the research
evaluation over the first two years of the project period, and a
broader SLC project, including such activities as extensive redesign
and improvement efforts, professional development, or direct student
services, over five years.
Applicants are required to provide detailed, yearly budget
information for the total grant period requested. Understanding the
unique complexities of implementing a program that affects a school's
organization, physical design, curriculum, instruction, and preparation
of teachers, we anticipate awarding the entire amount at the time of
the initial award.
The actual size of awards will be based on a number of factors.
These factors include the scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the
proposed program and the range of awards indicated in the application
notice.
Student Placement within the Broader SLC Project
Applicants must include in their applications a description of how
students will be selected or placed in the broader SLC project such
that students will not be placed according to skills or any other
measure, but will be placed at random or by student/parent choice and
not pursuant to testing or other judgments.
Performance Indicators for the Broader SLC Project
We require applicants to identify in their applications specific
performance indicators and annual performance objectives for these
indicators and one core indicator. Specifically, we require applicants
to use the following performance indicators to measure the progress of
each school:
(1) The percentage of students who score at the proficient and
advanced levels on the mathematics assessments used by the State to
measure adequate yearly progress under part A of title I of the ESEA,
as well as these percentages disaggregated by the following subgroups:
(A) Major racial and ethnic groups.
(B) Students with disabilities.
(C) Students with limited English proficiency.
(D) Economically disadvantaged students.
(2) At least two other appropriate indicators the LEA identifies,
such as rates of average daily attendance, year-to-year retention,
achievement and gains in English proficiency of limited English
proficient students; incidence of school violence, drug and alcohol
use, and disciplinary actions; or the percentage of students completing
advanced placement courses or passing advanced placement tests.
Applicants must identify annual performance objectives for each
indicator in their application.
Evaluation of Broader SLC Projects
We require each applicant to provide an assurance that it will
support an evaluation of its broader SLC project that provides
information to the project director and school personnel and that will
be useful in gauging the project's progress and in identifying areas
for improvement. Each evaluation must include an annual report for each
of the five years of the project period and a final report to be
completed at the end of the fifth year. We require grantees to submit
each of these reports to the Department. We require that the evaluation
be conducted by an independent third-party evaluator selected by the
LEA whose role in the project is limited to conducting the evaluation.
Participation in the Research Evaluation
We require each applicant to provide an assurance that it and each
participating high school will take several actions to assist in
implementing the research evaluation, including:
(1) The LEA and the participating high schools must implement the
supplemental reading program adhering strictly to the design of the
program, including purchasing all necessary instructional materials,
technology, professional development, and student materials in
sufficient time for the program to be implemented at the start of the
2005-06 and 2006-07 school years and in sufficient quantity to serve
approximately 50 students each year.
(2) The LEA and the participating high school(s) must agree to
allow a contractor to use a lottery to assign randomly 50 of the
expected 125 or more students determined to be eligible to participate
in the supplemental reading class and the remainder to serve as non-
participants.
(3) The LEA must provide a language arts or social studies teacher
for each participating high school who will receive professional
development in the supplemental reading program (five days during
summer 2005 and at least two follow-up days during each of the 2005-
2006 and 2006-2007 school years), assist the contractor in recruiting
and determining the eligibility of students, and teach the supplemental
reading program to the participating students for a minimum of 225
minutes per week for each week of the 2005-2006 and 2006-07 school
years. This teacher is required to complete two brief surveys (at the
beginning and end of the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years) to
provide information on his or her preparation, professional
development, and experiences.
(4) The LEA must agree to work jointly with the contractor to
administer a diagnostic group assessment of reading skills at the
beginning and the end of the ninth-grade year to assess whether or not
those students participating and not participating in the supplemental
reading program have made gains in reading skills. This reading
assessment might also need to be administered again at the end of the
tenth-grade year.
(5) The LEA must provide transcripts and State assessment data for
the entire pool of eligible students for the 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07,
2007-08, and 2008-09 school years, in a manner and to the extent
consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
(20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR part 99).
(6) The LEA must designate a project coordinator who will be
eligible to participate in the professional development and serve as a
resource and coordinator for teachers involved in the research study.
This project coordinator must also work with the LEA's technology
office (if necessary) and the curriculum developers to
[[Page 16261]]
organize the purchase of computer equipment and software needed to
implement the supplemental reading program. The project coordinator may
not be the language arts or social studies teacher responsible for
teaching the supplemental reading program.
(7) The LEA and participating high schools must allow enough
flexibility in developing the participating students' daily schedules
to accommodate the supplemental reading program, which can be
implemented either in a 45-minute language arts period or through a
larger period of 90 minutes, depending on the schools' scheduling.
(8) The LEA and participating high schools must allow the
evaluation team to observe both the classrooms implementing the
supplemental reading program and other English or language arts
classrooms in the school.
High-Risk Status and Other Enforcement Mechanisms
Because the requirements listed in this notice are material
requirements, failure to comply with any requirement or with any
elements of the grantee's application will subject the grantee to
administrative action, including but not limited to designation as a
``high-risk'' grantee, the imposition of special conditions, or
termination of the grant. Circumstances that might cause the Department
to take such action include, but are not limited to: The grantee's
failure to implement the designated supplemental reading programs in a
manner that adheres strictly to the design of the program; the
grantee's failure to purchase all necessary instructional materials,
technology, professional development, and student materials in
sufficient time for the programs to be implemented at the start of the
2005-06 and 2006-07 school years; and the grantee's failure to adhere
to any requirements or protocols established by the evaluator.
Definitions
In addition to the definitions in the authorizing statute and 34
CFR 77.1, the following definitions also apply to this special
competition. We may apply these definitions in any year in which we run
an SLC supplemental reading program competition.
Broader SLC Project means an SLC project at the site of the high
school aside from, and in addition to, that high school's
implementation of a supplemental reading program and participation in
the research evaluation.
Freshman Academy means a form of SLC structure that groups ninth-
grade students into an environment in which a core group of teachers
and other adults within the school knows the needs, interests, and
aspirations of each ninth-grade student well, closely monitors each
student's progress, and provides the academic and other support each
student needs to transition to high school and succeed. Student
enrollment in (or exclusion from) a freshman academy is not based on
skills, testing, or measures other than ninth-grade status and student/
parent choice or random assignment. A freshman academy differs from a
simple grouping of ninth-graders in that it incorporates programs or
strategies designed to ease the transition for students from the eighth
grade to high school. A freshman academy may include ninth-grade
students exclusively or it may be part of an SLC, sometimes called a
``house,'' that groups together a small number of ninth- through
twelfth-grade students for instruction by the same core group of
academic teachers. The term freshman academy in this situation refers
only to the ninth-grade students in the house.
Large High School means an entity that includes grades 11 and 12
and has an enrollment of 1,000 or more students in grades 9 and above.
Research evaluation means the study of the effectiveness of
supplemental reading programs that are implemented within freshman
academies and that is being sponsored by the Department of Education
and is described elsewhere in this notice.
Smaller Learning Community (or SLC) means an environment in which a
core group of teachers and other adults within the school knows the
needs, interests, and aspirations of each student well, closely
monitors each student's progress, and provides the academic and other
support each student needs to succeed.
Striving Ninth-Grade Readers means those students who are enrolled
in the ninth grade and who read English at a level that is two to four
grades below their current grade level, as determined by an eighth-
grade standardized test of reading. The term includes those students
with limited English proficiency who are enrolled in ninth grade, who
read English at a level that is two to four grades below their current
grade level, and who took the State's eighth-grade standardized reading
or language arts assessment in English with minimal accommodations
(defined as having the test directions read to them orally, having
access during the test to a dictionary, and/or being able to take the
test without a time limit).
Supplemental Reading Program means a comprehensive, full-year,
classroom-based program that provides instruction for students reading
two to four years below their grade level as a supplement to regular
English language arts classes. After-school or summer enrichment
classes are not considered to be supplemental reading programs. English
language arts classes that are targeted toward struggling readers, but
are not supplemental to another regular English language arts class,
are not considered to be supplemental reading programs.
Selection Criteria
The following selection criteria will be used to evaluate
applications for new grants under this special competition. We may
apply these criteria in any year in which we conduct an SLC
supplemental reading program competition.
Need for Participation in the Supplemental Reading Program
In determining the need for participation in the supplemental
reading program, we will consider the extent to which the applicant
will--
(1) Involve schools that have the greatest need for assistance as
indicated by such factors as: Student achievement scores in English or
language arts; student achievement scores in other core curriculum
areas; enrollment; attendance and dropout rates; incidents of violence,
drug and alcohol use, and disciplinary actions; percentage of students
who have limited English proficiency, come from low-income families, or
are otherwise disadvantaged; or other need factors as identified by the
applicant; and
(2) Address the needs it has identified in accordance with
paragraph (1) through participation in the supplemental reading program
activities.
Foundation for Implementation of the Supplemental Reading Program
In determining the foundation for implementation of the
supplemental reading program, we will consider the extent to which--
(1) Administrators, teachers, and other school staff within each
school support the school's proposed involvement in the supplemental
reading program and have been and will continue to be involved in its
planning, development, and implementation, including, particularly,
those teachers who will be directly affected by the proposed project,
as evidenced in part by a letter of interest from the language arts or
social studies teacher who will teach the supplemental reading program;
[[Page 16262]]
(2) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders support the
proposed implementation of the supplemental reading program and have
been and will continue to be involved in its planning, development, and
implementation;
(3) The proposed implementation of the supplemental reading program
is consistent with, and will advance, State and local initiatives to
increase student achievement and narrow gaps in achievement between all
students and students who are economically disadvantaged, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, or students
with limited English proficiency;
(4) The applicant demonstrates that it has carried out sufficient
planning and preparatory activities, outreach, and consultation with
teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders to enable it to
participate effectively in the supplemental reading program at the
beginning of the 2005-6 school year;
(5) The applicant articulates a plan for using information gathered
from the evaluation of the supplemental reading program to inform
decision and policymaking at the LEA and school levels; and
(6) The applicant, in its description of literacy classes and/or
other activities (implemented, within the last two years, at each of
the high schools on behalf of which the LEA is applying under this
competition) that were designed to promote the reading achievement of
striving ninth-grade readers, demonstrates that those activities will
not affect the outcomes of the research evaluation, and that the ninth-
grade teachers in each school have not previously received professional
development in either the Strategic Instruction Model, Reading
Apprenticeship Academic Literacy, or a similar supplemental reading
program.
Quality of the Project Design for the Broader SLC Project
In determining the quality of the project design for the broader
SLC project we will consider the extent to which--
(1) The applicant demonstrates a foundation for implementing the
broader SLC project, creating or expanding SLC structures or strategies
in the school environment, including demonstrating--
(A) That it has the support and involvement of administrators,
teachers, and other school staff;
(B) That it has the support of parents, students, and other
community stakeholders;
(C) The degree to which the proposed broader SLC project is
consistent with, and will advance, State and local initiatives to
increase student achievement and narrow gaps in achievement; and
(D) The degree to which the applicant has carried out sufficient
planning and preparatory activities to enable it to implement the
proposed broader SLC project at the beginning of the 2005-6 school
year;
(2) The applicant will implement or expand strategies, new
organizational structures, or other changes in practice that are likely
to create an environment in which a core group of teachers and other
adults within the school know the needs, interests, and aspirations of
each student well, closely monitor each student's progress, and provide
the academic and other support each student needs to succeed; and
(3) The applicant will provide high-quality professional
development throughout the project period that advances the
understanding of teachers, administrators, and other school staff of
effective, research-based instructional strategies for improving the
academic achievement of students, including, particularly, students
with academic skills that are significantly below grade level; and
provide the knowledge and skills they need to participate effectively
in the development, expansion, or implementation of a SLC.
Quality of the Management Plan
In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed
project, we consider the following factors--
(1) The adequacy of the proposed management plan to allow the
participating schools to implement effectively the research evaluation
and broader SLC project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities and detailed timelines and milestones for
accomplishing project tasks;
(2) The extent to which time commitments of the project director
and other key personnel, including the teachers who will be responsible
for providing instruction in the supplemental reading program, are
appropriate and adequate to implement effectively the supplemental
reading program and broader SLC project;
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director, program coordinator, and other key personnel
who will be responsible for implementing the broader SLC project;
(4) The qualifications, including relevant training and years of
experience, of the teachers who will be responsible for providing
instruction in the supplemental reading program, as indicated by a
resume and signed letter of interest; and
(5) The adequacy of resources, including the extent to which the
budget is adequate, the extent to which the budget provides sufficient
funds for the implementation of the supplemental reading program, and
the extent to which costs are directly related to the objectives and
design of the research evaluation and broader SLC activities.
Quality of the Broader SLC Project Evaluation
In determining the quality of the broader SLC project evaluation to
be conducted on the applicant's behalf by an independent, third-party
evaluator, we consider the following factors--
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed broader SLC project;
(2) The extent to which the evaluation will collect and annually
report accurate, valid, and reliable data for each of the required
performance indicators, including student achievement data that are
disaggregated for economically disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English proficiency;
(3) The extent to which the evaluation will collect additional
qualitative and quantitative data that will be useful in assessing the
success and progress of implementation, including, at a minimum,
accurate, valid, and reliable data for the additional performance
indicators identified by the applicant in the application;
(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
timely and regular feedback to the LEA and the school on the success
and progress of implementation and will identify areas for needed
improvement; and
(5) The qualifications and relevant training and experience of the
independent evaluator.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential
costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are those resulting
from
[[Page 16263]]
statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for
administering this program effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we have determined that the
benefits of the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
We summarized the costs and benefits of this regulatory action in
the NPP.
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 proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html
.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.215L, Smaller
Learning Communities Program.)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7249.
Dated: March 25, 2005.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 05-6316 Filed 3-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P