[Federal Register: February 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 9290-9297]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25fe05-63]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Smaller Learning Communities Program
AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priority, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 and subsequent years'
funds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education
proposes a priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
under the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) program. The Assistant
Secretary will use the priority, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for a competition using fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds
and may use them in later years.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 28, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed priority,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to Deborah Williams,
U.S. Department of Education, OVAE, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Potomac
Center Plaza, Room 11064, Washington, DC 20202-7241. If you prefer to
send your comments through the Internet, use the following address:
deborah.williams@ed.gov. You must include the term ``SLC Proposed
Requirements'' in the subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Williams. 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:
Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priority,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. To ensure that your
comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final
priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge
you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement,
definition, or selection criterion that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed
priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please let
us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential
costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria at Potomac Center Plaza, Room 11064, 550 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed requirements and selection
criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid,
please contact Deborah Williams. Telephone: (202) 245-7770 or via
Internet: deborah.williams@ed.gov.
Background
The Smaller Learning Communities program is authorized under title
V, part D, subpart 4 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7249), as amended by Public Law 107-110, the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
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 non-
experimental, some evidence suggests that smaller schools may have
advantages over larger schools. Research suggests that the
[[Page 9291]]
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 proposed 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, the notice proposes to
extend the project period from three to five years. In addition, we are
proposing an increase in 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.
Discussion of Priority
We will announce the final priority, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice
and other information available to the Department. This notice does not
preclude us from proposing or using additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use a priority, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register. When inviting applications we
designate the 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
Proposed Priority: Helping All Students To Succeed in Rigorous Academic
Courses
This proposed priority would support 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
Proposed Application Requirements
The Assistant Secretary proposes the following application
requirements for this SLC competition. These proposed 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. 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 proposed application
requirement follows.
Eligibility
We propose that, 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 would be based upon
data from the current school year or data from the most recently
completed school year. We would 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. We
propose that LEAs may apply on behalf of no more than 10 schools.
Rationale
The Department needs this information to determine if each school
identified in an application meets the proposed definition of a large
high school and to ensure that an LEA is not
[[Page 9292]]
applying for more than 10 schools. Schools under construction do not
have actual enrollment data to be used to determine eligibility.
School Report Cards
We propose to 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'' would
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.
Rationale
The Department needs the ``report cards'' to verify the accuracy of
the information the LEA provides in its application about student
academic achievement and other student outcomes at each school.
Types of Grants
We propose awarding implementation grants to applicants to support
the creation or expansion of an SLC or SLCs within each targeted high
school. We do not propose funding any planning grants this year.
Grants will be awarded for a period up to 60 months. We propose to
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 anticipate awarding the entire grant amount at the time of the
initial award.
To apply for grant funds, applicants must be prepared to implement
a new SLC project within each targeted high school or to expand an
existing SLC project. The first year of grant funds is not to be used
for planning purposes.
Rationale
Effectively implementing an SLC project requires significant prior
planning and preparation, as well as extensive consultation with, and
participation by, school personnel, parents, students, and community
leaders. It requires fundamentally rethinking how a school is organized
and how instruction and other direct services to students are
delivered. It is not a discrete activity that can be carried out by a
handful of teachers and school personnel without the involvement of the
larger school community. Grants would be available to those LEAs that
have engaged in extensive planning activities and developed plans for
implementing or expanding an SLC project at one or more high schools.
Since the inception of the SLC program in 2000, the Department has
funded grants dedicated to SLC planning activities. Planning grants
have been awarded to more than 350 districts. Now, resources, planning
tools, and SLC research are much more prevalent and accessible for
schools and districts than was the case at the outset of the SLC
program. Therefore, in order to focus the SLC program on the actual
implementation of SLC strategies designed to improve student
achievement, this year the Department will not offer a separate
competition for planning grants. Schools receiving SLC grants need to
be fully prepared to take on the activities outlined in their proposals
and be able to document well-established support for the SLC project.
Our proposal to extend the maximum length of the project period of
grants from 36 to 60 months is appropriate, given the nature and focus
of the SLC grant. Students who enter high school in the first year of
the grant will be only in 11th grade by the end of a three-year grant;
their experiences in the 12th grade and their post-high school outcomes
will be unknown. The experiences of the LEAs that received the first
SLC grants in FY 2000 also suggest that some schools may need more time
to undertake the extensive restructuring associated with a successful
SLC project that makes meaningful changes in curriculum and
instructional practices. Therefore, we propose extending the grant
period to a maximum of five years.
Consortium Applications and Educational Service Agencies
In an effort to encourage systemic, district-level reform efforts,
we propose permitting 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 propose to 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.
Rationale
This requirement is designed to ensure that each LEA that receives
assistance under this program will manage and coordinate school-level
activities as part of a single, coherent, district-wide reform
strategy. This will help LEAs make the most effective and efficient use
of SLC resources and assist them in aligning SLC activities with other
district-level initiatives, including the implementation of activities
carried out under other programs funded by the ESEA and the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. For the same reason, we
are proposing to require that the LEA have governing authority over
each high school it includes in its application. A high school will
have considerable difficulty implementing or expanding an SLC project
without the involvement of the entity that has governing authority over
the school and has responsibility for implementing other Federal,
State, and local programs and initiatives that involve the school.
We are proposing to make an exception for an educational service
agency that applies on behalf on an eligible high school with the
concurrence of the entity that has governing authority over that
school, because educational service agencies are organized for the
explicit purpose of providing education-related services to entities
with governing authority over schools, to schools, and to their
students. We note that educational service agencies are included in the
ESEA statutory definition of LEA but typically do not have governing
authority over high schools they serve. Generally, the administrative
control or direction of a high school is vested in a public board of
education or another public authority other than an educational service
agency. However, we recognize that not all entities that have
administrative control or direction of eligible high schools have the
capacity to apply for and administer an
[[Page 9293]]
SLC grant. For some districts and schools, educational service agencies
provide resources and expertise to assist them in performing functions
that they otherwise could not, by themselves, perform efficiently or at
all.
Budget Information for Determination of Award
We propose that LEAs may receive, on behalf of a single school, up
to $1,175,000, depending upon the size of the school, during the 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, we propose a
limit of 10 schools that an LEA may include in a single application for
a grant.
The following chart provides the ranges of awards per high school
size that we are proposing:
SLC Grant Award Ranges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student enrollment Award ranges per school
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000-2,000 Students...................... $650,000-$800,000
2,001-3,000 Students...................... $650,000-$925,000
3,001-4,000 Students...................... $650,000-$1,050,000
4,001 and Up.............................. $650,000-$1,175,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual size of awards would 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 would 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 would be required to work with the
Department to revise their proposed budgets to fit within the
appropriate funding range.
Rationale
In previous SLC competitions, some applicants have requested more
funds than the amount that we indicated would be available for a grant.
Their applications included activities that could only be implemented
if the applicants received a funding amount that exceeded the maximum
amount specified in the notice. This strategy put at a competitive
disadvantage other applicants that requested funds within the specified
funding range and outlined a less extensive set of activities. For this
reason, we propose to fund only those applications that request an
amount that does not exceed the maximum amounts specified for the
grants.
We determined these amounts after reviewing the experiences of
previous recipients of SLC funds and examining the design and outcomes
of other similar Federal, State, and privately funded programs.
Requiring applicants to provide detailed, yearly budget information
for the total grant period requested is necessary for us to determine
appropriate grant amounts based on the needs of the LEA and high
schools. We are proposing to increase the individual amount per school
to $1,175,000 and the maximum LEA award amount to $11,750,000 for a
grant of 10 schools. In previous competitions, the grant amount was
substantially less, as was the allowed project period. Because we are
proposing to increase the project period from 36 months to 60 months,
we believed it necessary to increase the grant amount accordingly. The
proposed grant amount also was increased to provide additional support
for independent evaluation activities and for comprehensive strategies
and interventions to assist students who enter high school with reading
or math skills that are significantly below grade level, both of which
we propose to require SLC grantees to implement. Moreover, we have also
been seeking to focus SLC grantees on the more difficult work of making
the curriculum more rigorous and improving instruction, and cautioning
them against pursuing structural changes alone. Implementing these more
complex reforms is likely to be more costly than changing the
organizational structure of schools alone.
Student Placement
We propose that applicants for SLC grants must 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.
Rationale
As in all previous SLC competitions, the Department needs this
information to ensure that each funded project complies with the
requirements of the statute regarding random assignment or student/
parent choice for SLC placement of students. Section 5441(b)(13) of the
ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires
applicants for SLC grants to describe the method of placing students in
the SLC or SLCs, ``such that students are not placed according to
ability or any other measure, but are placed at random or by their own
choice and not pursuant to testing or other judgments.'' For instance,
projects that place students in any SLC on the basis of their prior
academic achievement or performance on an academic assessment are not
eligible for assistance under this program.
Including All Students
We propose to require applicants for grants to implement 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 propose to 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.
Rationale
The purpose of creating SLCs within large high schools is to
provide students with individualized attention, support, and
instruction that will help them excel academically and acquire the
knowledge and skills they need to succeed after high school. Young
people have many different needs and personal resources, but most young
people could benefit from participating in a well-implemented SLC.
While it may be easier to implement incremental reforms that include
only a limited number of students, we do a disservice to young people
when we narrow our sights in this way. For this reason, we propose to
support only projects that will include every student within an SLC.
Performance Indicators
We propose to require applicants to identify in their application
specific performance indicators and annual performance objectives for
each of these indicators. Specifically, we propose to 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 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
[[Page 9294]]
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 would be 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 propose to
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 propose to 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.
Rationale
While creating SLCs can appeal to teachers, students, and parents
for many reasons, their fundamental purpose is to improve academic
achievement and to prepare all young people to participate successfully
in postsecondary education or advanced training, the workforce, and our
communities. Assistance provided under the SLC project should also
support and enhance the efforts of LEAs and schools to fulfill the
ambitious goals of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
For these reasons, it is important that projects measure their
progress in improving student academic achievement and related
outcomes. Two of the indicators we propose to use, student performance
on reading/language arts and mathematics assessments and the graduation
rate, are the same indicators used by States to measure the progress of
LEAs and high schools under part A of title I of ESEA. Performance
objectives for these indicators should equal or exceed the measurable
annual objectives established by the State in its approved
accountability plan for part A of title I of ESEA.
In today's economy, completing some form of postsecondary education
or training beyond high school is often a prerequisite to securing
employment that pays family-supporting wages and offers opportunities
for career advancement. Most parents and students understand this well,
and they consider preparing young people for postsecondary education or
further learning to be one of the central missions of the American high
school. The third indicator we are proposing, entrance into
postsecondary education or advanced training, will measure the success
of LEAs and schools in fulfilling these expectations. Performance
objectives for this indicator should exceed the baseline level of
performance and give particular emphasis to narrowing any gaps between
students in general and economically disadvantaged students, students
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English proficiency.
Our high schools also must prepare young people to succeed in the
workforce. All high school graduates should have the necessary skills
to obtain gainful employment, whether they decide to work in order to
help pay for postsecondary education and their living expenses or
decide to enter the workforce full-time after high school. The extent
to which graduates are able to find employment after leaving high
school is another important measure of the success of a high school in
meeting the needs of its students.
Certainly, LEAs and schools will have other goals they hope to
achieve through the implementation or expansion of an SLC project. For
this reason, we propose to give applicants for grants the opportunity
to identify and establish performance objectives for other indicators
that they consider useful and appropriate, such as, for example, rates
of average daily attendance or incidents of violence and drug and
alcohol use.
Evaluation
We propose to 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. We propose that each evaluation 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 would require grantees
to submit each of these reports to the Department.
In addition, we propose to 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.
Rationale
Implementing or expanding an SLC project is difficult and complex
work that administrators, teachers, and other school personnel must
carry out at the same time that they are carrying out other demanding,
day-to-day responsibilities. An evaluation that provides regular
feedback on the progress of implementation and its impact can help the
project director and school personnel identify their successes and how
they may need to revise their strategies to accomplish their goals. To
be most useful, the evaluation should be objective and be carried out
by an independent third party who has no other role in the
implementation of the project.
High-Risk Status and Other Enforcement Mechanisms
Because the requirements listed in this notice are material
requirements, we propose that 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.
[[Page 9295]]
Rationale
Part of the Department's role in administering grant funds under
the SLC program is to ensure that those funds are used in a manner
consistent with the aims of the grant program. To help ensure proper
use of funds, the Department reserves the right to use the enforcement
actions listed above if grantees fail to meet the requirements of the
law or the SLC program, or if student achievement appears to be
declining during implementation of the grant.
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. Both meetings will be hosted by the
Department.
Rationale
Convening all project directors at an initial meeting allows
Federal staff to provide introductory information on grants
administration and Department regulations, the evaluation process, and
other topics of interest to new grantees. Regional Institutes provide
grantee teams the opportunity to attend forums on topics relevant to
the Department's high school-related activities.
Previous Grantees
We propose to allow an LEA to apply on behalf of a school that
received funds for an implementation grant under the original FY 2000
SLC program competition to apply on behalf of the school for a second
SLC grant under the terms set forth in this notice. LEAs applying on
behalf of schools that received funding for an implementation grant
under the FY 2000 competition would be required to submit a copy of the
final report for their FY 2000 implementation grant. LEAs would not be
able to apply for funding on behalf of schools that received an SLC
implementation grant under the competitions in fiscal years 2001, 2002,
or 2003.
Rationale
The performance period for implementation grants awarded in FY 2000
has ended. These grantees are no longer receiving Federal assistance to
implement SLCs. The performance period for implementation grants
awarded in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 has not yet expired.
Moreover, the original SLC grantees that were awarded funds in FY 2000
were not required to undertake a number of the activities that have
been required in subsequent competitions, including implementing SLCs
``wall-to-wall,'' interventions for students who enter high school with
reading/language arts or mathematics skills that are significantly
below grade level, and an external evaluation. Allowing LEAs to apply
on behalf of these schools for further funding will enable them to
implement activities that were required of schools that were awarded
funds in subsequent SLC competitions.
Definitions
Proposed Definitions
In addition to the definitions set out in the authorizing statute
and 34 CFR 77.1, we propose that 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 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.
Selection Criteria
Proposed Selection Criteria
We propose that the following selection criteria 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 all of these criteria will be 100
points. We will inform applicants of the points or weights assigned
to each criterion and sub-criterion in a notice published in the
Federal Register.
Need for the Project
In determining the need for the proposed project, we will 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
In determining the quality of the implementation plan for the
proposed project, we will consider the extent to which:
(1) 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) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders support the
proposed project and have been involved in its planning and
development.
(3) 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) The applicant demonstrates that it has carried out sufficient
planning and preparatory activities to enable it to implement the
proposed project at the beginning of the school year immediately
following receipt of an award.
Quality of the Project Design
In determining the quality of the project design for the SLC
project, we will consider the extent to which--
(1) 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;
(2) The applicant proposes research-based strategies that are
likely to improve overall student achievement and other outcomes
(including
[[Page 9296]]
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) 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; and that--
(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) 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) 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) 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
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 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) 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) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director and other key personnel; and
(4) The adequacy of resources, including the extent to which the
budget is adequate and costs are directly related to the objectives and
design of the research evaluation and SLC activities.
Quality of the SLC Project Evaluation
In determining the quality of the proposed project evaluation
conducted 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 SLC project;
(2) 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;
(3) 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) The qualifications and relevant training and experience of the
independent evaluator.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed 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 proposed
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 proposed priority, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we have determined that the
benefits of the proposed 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.
[[Page 9297]]
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)
Dated: February 22, 2005.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. E5-767 Filed 2-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P