[Federal Register: April 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 22233-22239]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28ap05-125]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Smaller Learning Communities Program
AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priority, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for fiscal year (FY) 2004 and subsequent years'
funds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education
announces a priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
under the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) program. The Assistant
Secretary will use this priority, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for a competition using fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds
and may use them in later years.
We intend the priority, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria to further the purpose of the SLC program, which is to promote
academic achievement through the creation or expansion of small, safe,
and successful learning environments in large public high schools.
DATES: The final priority, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are effective May 31, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Williams, U.S. Department of
Education, OVAE, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center Plaza, room
11064, Washington, DC 20202-7241. Telephone: (202) 245-7770 or via
Internet: deborah.williams@ed.gov.
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
The Smaller Learning Communities program is authorized under Title
V, Part D, subpart 4 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7249), as amended by Public Law 107-110, the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA).
A strategy that may hold promise for improving the academic
performance of our Nation's young people is the establishment of
smaller learning communities as components of comprehensive high school
improvement plans. The problems of large high schools and the related
question of optimal school size have been debated for the last 40 years
and are of growing interest today.
While the research on school size to date has been largely
nonexperimental, some evidence suggests that smaller schools may have
advantages over larger schools. Research suggests that the positive
outcomes associated with smaller schools stem from the schools' ability
to create close, personal environments in which teachers can work
collaboratively, with each other and with a small set of students, to
challenge students and support learning. A variety of structures and
operational strategies are thought to provide important supports for
smaller learning environments; some data suggest that these approaches
offer substantial advantages to both teachers and students (Ziegler
1993; Caroll 1994).
Structural changes for recasting large schools as a set of smaller
learning communities (SLCs) are described in the Conference Report for
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113, H.R.
Conference Report No. 106-479, at 1240 (1999)). Such methods include
establishing small learning clusters, ``houses,'' career academies,
magnet programs, and schools-within-a-school. Other activities may
include freshman transition activities, advisory and adult advocate
systems, academic teaming, multi-year groupings, ``extra help'' or
accelerated learning options for students or groups of students
entering below grade level, and other innovations designed to create a
more personalized high school experience for students. These structural
changes and personalization strategies, by themselves, are not likely
to improve student academic achievement. They might, however, create
valuable opportunities to improve the quality of instruction and
curriculum and to provide the individualized attention and academic
support that all students need to excel academically. The SLC program
encourages local educational agencies (LEAs) to set higher academic
expectations for all of their students and to implement reforms that
will provide the effective instruction and personalized academic and
social support students need to meet those expectations.
The Department's ongoing efforts to ensure improved outcomes for
students enrolled in programs funded by the SLC program are reflected
in this notice. Many of the changes represent an effort to provide
grantees with sufficient time and resources to carry out their plans
for raising academic achievement through comprehensive structural and
instructional reforms. Toward that end, we are extending the project
period from three to five years. In addition, we are increasing the
award amounts for individual grants.
In an attempt to facilitate the application process, encourage more
LEAs to apply, and raise the quality of proposals received, we have
streamlined the number of selection criteria from the previous
competition. The priority, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in this notice continue to focus on making the curriculum more
rigorous and improving instruction through SLC structures and
strategies.
We published a notice of proposed priority, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for fiscal year (FY) 2004 and
subsequent years' funds in the Federal Register on February 25, 2005
(70 FR 9290) (NPP). This notice of final priority, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria contains several changes from the
NPP. We fully explain these changes in the following section.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the NPP, 17 parties submitted
comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the
priority, requirements,
[[Page 22234]]
definitions, and selection criteria since publication of the NPP.
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 were concerned that grantees with
SLC projects ending this year are at a disadvantage, since they are not
eligible to apply for an additional grant.
Discussion: As we proposed in the NPP, recipients of the first
cohort of grants awarded in the SLC program in 2000 are eligible to
apply for a grant. Based on public comments, however, we have
determined that an LEA may apply on behalf of schools funded in the
second cohort of grants awarded in 2001 under the SLC program as well.
The requirements for improved academic achievement, continuous data
collection and analysis to inform decision-making and program
improvement, and third-party external evaluation of implementation are
among the significant changes that are included in the program
requirements starting with implementation grants awarded in 2003
(cohort 3) and continuing for grants awarded in 2004 (cohort 4).
Accordingly, we do not think these grantees are at a disadvantage.
Change: We have added language in the Previous Grantees section of
the notice to provide that recipients of grants in the second SLC
cohort are eligible to apply for a grant under the conditions set forth
in this notice. After internal review, we also have deleted the
requirement that previous grantees include a copy of their final
performance report in their applications.
Comments: One commenter suggested that we add a ``readiness
criterion'' to the selection criteria that would document support from
stakeholders outside of the school(s).
Discussion: We agree that the commitment of teachers, other school
personnel, parents, students, and other community stakeholders is
required for effective implementation of new or expansion of existing
SLCs. The factors listed under the criterion Foundation for
Implementation specifically address this requirement for continued
involvement of all stakeholders in the planning stages and throughout
the implementation process.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters sought clarification regarding our
proposal to prohibit a grantee from using year 1 of the grant period
for planning purposes. One commenter recommended reinstatement of
planning grants for $50,000 or $100,000 and a requirement that a
grantee begin its implementation plan at the end of one year.
Discussion: When the SLC program was established, few resources
were available regarding effective SLCs and efficient implementation
practices. Accordingly, in the earlier years of this program, planning
grants were awarded to provide funding to enable grantees to convene
stakeholders for planning, to research SLCs, to visit various sites,
and to participate in development opportunities as they decided whether
they would apply for an implementation grant or not. Currently there
are more readily available resources, planning tools, and SLC findings
from research and practice that may inform the planning in schools and
districts for the implementation process so that implementation can
take place earlier. We do expect some new SLC implementation activities
or expansion of some existing SLC to be completed during the first year
of the grant; full implementation, however, is not expected in the
first year of the project. As required in the selection criterion,
Quality of the Management Plan, the application must include clearly
defined responsibilities and detailed timelines and milestones for
accomplishing project tasks for the project performance period.
Changes: We have added language to the Types of Grants section
under Application Requirements to allow grantees to use the first year,
if necessary, for some planning activities, and for investigation and
piloting of SLC structural changes, strategies, services, more rigorous
course offerings, and interventions that may be implemented in the SLCs
as part of their whole-school reform initiative.
Comments: One commenter recommended that districts be allowed to
apply for a grant on behalf of high schools under construction.
Discussion: Schools under construction do not have actual student
enrollments. Consistent with language in the Conference Report for
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199), we have
decided that to be considered an eligible large high school for
purposes of this program, the school must have an actual enrollment of
1,000 or more students at the time of application.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that we consider citing
``highly specified reform models'' in the selection criterion, Quality
of Project Design.
Discussion: There are many resources available for use by
applicants as they decide what reform models will work best in their
specific environment. Resources are available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/slcp/resources.html
and many other Web sites that may inform
decision-making with regard to models and practices to use as the
proposed SLC project is designed. Applicants should investigate various
research-based strategies, services, and interventions that are likely
to improve overall student achievements and program outcomes. Thus, a
citation of ``highly specified reform models'' in the selection
criteria is unnecessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department establish
the performance target for the graduation rate performance indicator
and give preference to applicants with the highest graduation rate in a
standard number of years.
Discussion: The performance indicators and annual performance
objectives included in the grant application are established by each
applicant and are based upon factors at each school included in the
grant application. It is not possible for us to set a target for
graduation outcomes that would be realistic for all potential
applicants. Further, there are no competitive preference priorities
established for this competition.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested clarification regarding the award
ranges and whether the recommendations were for one year or the full
period of the grant.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that potential applicants
may be confused about how to calculate the amount of award they are
requesting.
Changes: We have added language in the Budget Information for
Determining Award section under Application Requirements that makes it
clear that the award recommendations are for the 60-month grant period.
Comments: One commenter requested clarification regarding group
applications.
Discussion: We realize it may be beneficial for school districts to
form a consortium for development and implementation of an SLC project.
Per the Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR), applicants may apply as a consortium. The regulations, at 34
CFR 75.127-72.129, set out the details of group applications. All
members of a consortium must be eligible entities.
[[Page 22235]]
The applicant is considered the grantee and is legally responsible for
the grant. The consortium members must enter into an agreement that
binds each member to every statement and assurance made by the
applicant in the application, and the applicant must submit the
agreement with its application.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters requested clarification regarding the
determination of ``high-risk'' status for grantees.
Discussion: Designation of a grantee as ``high-risk'' is based on
factors that arise during the grant or may be based on past grant
performance results. The designation is made only after measures have
been taken by the Program Officer to help the grantee remedy any
deficiencies. Any such designation would be done in accordance with 34
CFR 80.12 of EDGAR.
Changes: None.
Note: This notice of final priority, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, 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 priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
competitive 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)).
Priority
Priority: Helping All Students To Succeed in Rigorous Academic Courses
This priority supports projects to create or expand SLCs that will
implement a coherent set of strategies and interventions that are
designed to ensure that all students who enter high school with
reading/language arts or mathematics skills that are significantly
below grade level ``catch up'' quickly so that, by no later than the
end of the 10th grade, they have acquired the reading/language arts and
mathematics skills they need to participate successfully in rigorous
academic courses that will equip them with the knowledge and skills
necessary to transition successfully to postsecondary education,
apprenticeships, or advanced training.
These accelerated learning strategies and interventions must:
(1) Be grounded in the findings of scientifically based and other
rigorous research;
(2) Include the use of age-appropriate instructional materials and
teaching and learning strategies;
(3) Provide additional instruction and academic support during the
regular school day, which may be supplemented by instruction that is
provided before or after school, on weekends, and at other times when
school is not in session; and
(4) Provide sustained professional development and ongoing support
for teachers and other personnel who are responsible for delivering
instruction.
Application Requirements
The Assistant Secretary announces the following application
requirements for this 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 in title V, part
D, subpart 4, section 5441(b) of the ESEA. LEAs, including schools
funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and educational service
agencies, applying on behalf of large public high schools, are eligible
to apply for a grant. A discussion of each application requirement
follows:
Eligibility
To be considered for funding, LEAs must identify in their
applications the name(s) of the eligible large high school(s) and the
number of students enrolled in each school. A large high school is
defined as one having grades 11 and 12, with 1,000 or more students
enrolled in grades 9 and above. 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. LEAs may
apply on behalf of no more than 10 schools.
School Report Cards
We require that LEAs provide, for each school 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 indicators for
students in the LEA as a whole and also shows the performance of the
school's students on statewide assessments.
Types of Grants
We will award implementation grants to applicants to support the
creation or expansion of an SLC or SLCs within each targeted high
school. We will not fund any planning grants this year; however, full
implementation is not expected in the first year of the grant. In the
first year of the implementation grant, grantees will be allowed to
continue planning activities including, but not limited to, (a)
convening stakeholders who are actively involved in the continuing
development of the new SLCs or expansion of SLCs at the targeted
schools; (b) investigating and testing new structures and strategies to
be implemented throughout the performance period; (c) piloting more
rigorous academic courses and requirements to better prepare students
for transition to postsecondary education; (d) surveying staff to
inform the plans for high quality and sustained professional
development throughout the implementation process; (e) conducting
surveys of students, staff, and community stakeholders to inform
continuous improvement throughout the implementation process; and (f)
collecting and analyzing data to inform the initiatives planned for the
implementation project.
Grants will be awarded for a period up to 60 months. We require
that applicants 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 will
award the entire grant amount at the time of the initial award. We also
require that applicants provide detailed yearly plans, including
benchmarks, for the total grant period requested.
[[Page 22236]]
Consortium Applications and Educational Service Agencies
In an effort to encourage systemic, district-level reform efforts,
we permit an individual LEA to submit only one grant application in a
competition, specifying in each application which high schools the LEA
intends to fund.
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 that includes in its application evidence that the
entity that has governing authority over the eligible high school
supports the application. An LEA, however, may form a consortium with
another LEA and submit a joint application for funds. The consortium
must follow the procedures for group applications described in 34 CFR
75.127-75.129 in the Education Department General Administrative
Regulations (EDGAR).
An LEA is eligible for only one grant whether the LEA applies
independently or as part of a consortium.
Budget Information for Determination of Award
LEAs may receive, on behalf of a single school, up to $1,175,000,
depending upon the size of the school. This award is for the full 60-
month project period. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible
schools could receive up to $11,750,000 per grant. To ensure that
sufficient funds are available to support SLC activities, LEAs may not
include more than 10 schools in a single application for a grant.
The following chart provides the ranges of awards per high school
size for 60-month SLC grants:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AP05.086
The actual size of awards will be based on a number of factors.
These factors include the scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the
proposed project and the range of awards indicated in the application.
Applications that request more funds than the maximum amounts
specified for any school or for the total grant will not be read as
part of the regular application process. However, if after the
Secretary selects applications to be funded, it appears that additional
funds remain available, the Secretary may choose to read those
additional applications that requested funds exceeding the maximum
amounts specified. If the Secretary chooses to fund any of those
additional applications, applicants will be required to work with the
Department to revise their proposed budgets to fit within the
appropriate funding range.
Student Placement
We require applicants for SLC grants to include a description of
how students will be selected or placed in an SLC and an assurance that
students will not be placed according to ability or any other measure,
but will be placed at random or by student/parent choice and not
pursuant to testing or other judgments.
Including All Students
We require applicants for grants to create or expand an SLC project
that will include every student within the school by no later than the
end of the fifth school year of implementation. Elsewhere in this
notice, we define an SLC as an environment in which a 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.
Performance Indicators
We require applicants to identify in their application specific
performance indicators and annual performance objectives for each of
these indicators. 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
[[Page 22237]]
levels on the reading/language arts and mathematics assessments used by
the State to determine whether a school has made adequate yearly
progress under part A of title I of the ESEA, as well as these
percentages disaggregated by subject matter and the following
subgroups:
(A) Major racial and ethnic groups;
(B) Students with disabilities;
(C) Students with limited English proficiency; and
(D) Economically disadvantaged students.
(2) The school's graduation rate, as defined in the State's
approved accountability plan for part A of title I of the ESEA;
(3) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training for the semester
following graduation;
(4) The percentage of graduates who are employed by the end of the
first quarter after they graduate (e.g., for students who graduate in
May or June, this would be September 30);
(5) Other appropriate indicators the LEA may choose to identify in
its application, such as rates of average daily attendance and year-to-
year retention; achievement and gains in English proficiency of limited
English proficient students; the incidence of school violence, drug and
alcohol use, and disciplinary actions; or the percentage of students
completing advanced placement courses and the rate of passing advanced
placement tests (such as Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate) and courses for college credit.
Applicants are required to include in their applications baseline
data for each of these indicators and identify performance objectives
for each year of the project period. We further require recipients of
grants to report annually on the extent to which each school achieves
its performance objectives for each indicator during the preceding
school year. We require grantees to include in these reports comparable
data, if available, for the preceding three school years so that trends
in performance will be more apparent.
Evaluation
We require each applicant to provide assurances that it will
support an evaluation of the 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 first four years of the project period and a final report that
would be completed at the end of the fifth year of implementation and
that will include information on implementation during the fifth year
as well as information on the implementation of the project across the
entire project period. We require grantees to submit each of these
reports to the Department.
In addition, we require that the evaluation be conducted by an
independent third party, selected by the applicant, whose role in the
project is limited to conducting the evaluation.
High-Risk Status and Other Enforcement Mechanisms
Requirements listed in this notice are material requirements.
Failure to comply with any requirement or with any elements of the
grantee's application would 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 showing a decline
in student achievement after two years of implementation of the grant;
the grantee's failure to make substantial progress in completing the
milestones outlined in the management plan included in the application;
and the grantee's expenditure of funds in a manner that is inconsistent
with the budget as submitted in the application.
Required Meetings Sponsored by the Department
Applicants must set aside adequate funds within their proposed
budget to send their project director to a two-day project directors'
meeting in Washington, DC, and to send a team of five key staff
members, including their external evaluator, to attend a two-and-a-
half-day Regional Institute. The Department will host both meetings.
Previous Grantees
An LEA that was awarded an implementation grant on behalf of a
school under the original SLC program competition held in 2000 (Cohort
1) may apply on behalf of the school for a second SLC grant under the
terms set forth in this notice. An LEA that was awarded an
implementation grant on behalf of a school under the competition held
in 2002 (Cohort 2) may apply on behalf of the school for a second grant
under the terms set forth in this notice. LEAs would not be able to
apply for funding on behalf of schools that received an SLC
implementation grant under the competitions held in 2003 (Cohort 3) and
2004 (Cohort 4).
Definitions
In addition to the definitions set out in the authorizing statute
and 34 CFR 77.1, the following definitions also apply to this program:
BIA School means a school operated or supported by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
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.
Smaller Learning Community (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.
Selection Criteria
The following selection criteria will be used to evaluate
applications for new grants under this program. We may apply these
selection criteria to any SLC competition in the future.
Note: The maximum score for a grant under this program is 100
points. The points or weights assigned to each criterion and sub-
criterion are indicated in parentheses.
Need for the Project (10 Points)
In determining the need for the proposed project, we consider the
extent to which the applicant will:
(1) Assist schools that have the greatest need for assistance, as
indicated by, relative to other high schools within the State, one or
more of the factors below:
(A) Student performance on the academic assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics administered by the State under part A,
Title I of the ESEA, including gaps in the performance of all students
and that of student subgroups, such as economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with
disabilities, or students with limited English proficiency.
(B) The school's dropout rate and gaps in the graduation rate
between all students and student subgroups.
(C) Disciplinary actions.
(D) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training in the semester
following graduation, and gaps between all students and student
subgroups.
Foundation for Implementation (20 Points)
In determining the quality of the implementation plan for the
proposed
[[Page 22238]]
project, we consider the extent to which:
(1)(5 points) Teachers and administrators within each school
support the proposed project and have been and will continue to be
involved in its planning and development, including, particularly,
those teachers who will be directly affected by the proposed project.
(2)(5 points) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders
support the proposed project and have been and will continue to be
involved in its planning and development.
(3)(5 points) The proposed project is consistent with, and will
advance, State and local initiatives to increase student achievement
and narrow gaps in achievement between all students and student
subgroups.
(4)(5 points) The applicant demonstrates that it has carried out
sufficient planning and preparatory activities to enable it to begin to
implement the proposed project at the beginning of the school year
immediately following receipt of an award.
Quality of the Project Design (30 Points)
In determining the quality of the project design for the SLC
project, we consider the extent to which--
(1)(5 points) 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 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;
(2)(5 points) The applicant proposes research-based strategies that
are likely to improve overall student achievement and other outcomes
(including graduation rates and enrollment in postsecondary education),
narrow any gaps in achievement between all students and student
subgroups, and address the particular needs identified by the school
under the paragraph titled Need for the Project, such as--
(A) More rigorous academic curriculum for all students and the
provision of academic support to struggling students who need
assistance to master more challenging academic content;
(B) More intensive and individualized educational counseling and
career and college guidance, provided through mentoring, teacher
advisories, adult advocates, or other means;
(C) Strategies designed to increase average daily attendance,
increase the percentage of students who transition from the 9th to 10th
grade, and improve the graduation rate; and
(D) Expanding opportunities for students to participate in advanced
placement courses and other academic and technical courses that offer
both high school and postsecondary credit.
(3)(5 points) The applicant will implement accelerated learning
strategies and interventions that will assist students who enter the
school with reading/language or mathematics skills that are
significantly below grade level and that:
(A) Are designed to equip participating students with grade-level
reading/language arts and mathematics skills by no later than the end
of the 10th grade;
(B) Are grounded in scientifically based research;
(C) Include the use of age-appropriate instructional materials and
teaching and learning strategies;
(D) Provide additional instructional and academic support during
the regular school day, which may be supplemented by instruction that
is provided before or after school, on weekends, and at other times
when school is not in session;
(E) Will be delivered with sufficient intensity to improve the
reading/language arts or math skills, as appropriate, of participating
students; and
(F) Include sustained professional development and ongoing support
for teachers and other personnel who are responsible for delivering
instruction.
(4)(5 points) 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 those staff need to participate
effectively in the development, expansion, or implementation of an SLC.
(5)(5 points) The proposed project fits into a comprehensive
district high school improvement strategy to increase the academic
achievement of all district high school students, reduce gaps between
the achievement of all students and student subgroups, and prepare
students to enter postsecondary education or the workforce.
(6)(5 points) The proposed project is part of a cohesive plan that
uses funds provided under the ESEA, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Technical Education Act, or other Federal programs, as well as local,
State, and private funds sufficient to ensure continuation of efforts
after Federal support ends.
Quality of the Management Plan (20 Points)
In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed
project, we consider the following factors:
(1)(5 points) The adequacy of the proposed management plan to
achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within
budget, including clearly defined responsibilities and detailed
timelines and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;
(2)(5 points) The extent to which time commitments of the project
director and other key personnel are appropriate and adequate to
implement the SLC project effectively.
(3)(5 points) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of the project director and other key personnel; and
(4)(5 points) The adequacy of resources, including the extent to
which the budget is adequate and costs are directly related to the
objectives and SLC activities.
Quality of the SLC Project Evaluation (20 Points)
In determining the quality of the proposed project evaluation
conducted by an independent, third party evaluator, we consider the
following factors--
(1)(5 points) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are
thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of the proposed SLC project;
(2)(5 points) The extent to which the evaluation will collect and
report accurate qualitative and quantitative data that will be useful
in assessing the success and progress of implementation, including, at
a minimum--
(A) Measures of student academic achievement that provide data for
the performance indicators identified in the application, including
results that are disaggregated for economically disadvantaged students,
students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with
disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and other
subgroups identified by the applicant; and
(B) Other measures identified by the applicant in the application
as performance indicators;
[[Page 22239]]
(3)(5 points) 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 identify areas for needed
improvement.
(4)(5 points) The qualifications and relevant training and
experience of the independent evaluator.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final priority, 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 this notice of final priority,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are those resulting
from 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 priority, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we have determined that the
benefits of the final priority, 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.
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
.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7249.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.215L, Smaller
Learning Communities Program.)
Dated: April 22, 2005.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 05-8514 Filed 4-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P