[Federal Register: June 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 111)]
[Notices]
[Page 27891-27897]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jn09-129]
[[Page 27891]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Striving Readers; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009; Notices
[[Page 27892]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Striving Readers
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.371A.
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
under the Striving Readers program grant competition. The Assistant
Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2009 and later
years. We take this action to support the implementation and evaluation
of intensive, supplemental literacy interventions for struggling
adolescent readers.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria are effective July 13, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia J. Kingman, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3E106, Washington, DC 20202-
6400. Telephone: (202) 401-0003 or by e-mail: Marcia.Kingman@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purposes of the Striving Readers program
are to raise the literacy levels of adolescent students in schools that
are eligible for assistance under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), and that enroll
significant numbers of students reading below grade level and to build
a strong, scientific research base for identifying and replicating
strategies that improve adolescent literacy instruction. The program
supports expanding the implementation of locally or regionally
developed adolescent literacy initiatives, as well as the
implementation of commercially published supplemental literacy
interventions, for struggling readers.
Additional information about the Striving Readers program can be
found at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/index.html.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6492.
Applicable Program Regulations: The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81,
82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99, as applicable.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) for this competition in the
Federal Register on April 8, 2009 (74 FR 15949-15954). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria. In addition to some minor editorial changes, there are
several substantive differences between the NPP and this notice of
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
(NFP). These changes are explained in the Analysis of Comments and
Changes section elsewhere in this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 21
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities. We did not
receive any comments on the proposed requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the NFP since publication of the NPP follows.
We group comments according to the priorities. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor changes.
Priority 1--Supplemental Literacy Intervention for Struggling Readers
in the Middle Grades
Comment: Several commenters suggested that we require projects to
implement a schoolwide adolescent literacy initiative in addition to
offering struggling readers an intensive, supplemental literacy
intervention. Through a schoolwide literacy intervention, teachers in
all academic disciplines would teach literacy skills within the
curriculum of their content area and all students would receive
instruction in how to improve their literacy skills.
Discussion: We agree that all secondary school students, including
struggling readers, could benefit from a school-wide literacy
initiative and that such initiatives are important in ensuring that all
students graduate from high school with the literacy skills they will
need to succeed in postsecondary education and careers. However,
because a lesser amount of funds is available for new grants in FY 2009
as compared to previous years and what will be available in FY 2010, we
have limited the focus of the priority to intensive, supplemental
literacy interventions for struggling readers. In future competitions,
the Department hopes to support projects that implement both schoolwide
literacy initiatives for all students and intensive, supplemental
literacy interventions for struggling readers.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that we revise Priority 1 to
require that the intensive, supplemental literacy intervention be
aligned with the regular literacy instruction for all students in both
content and pedagogy.
Discussion: We agree that the intensive, supplemental intervention
should complement and be consistent with the regular literacy
instruction that all students in the school receive. We expect,
however, that this will be a key consideration for each applicant as it
reviews and selects the intervention that it will propose to implement
in its project. For this reason, we do not believe it is necessary to
revise the priority to make this a requirement.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed the view that some developed
interventions, such as those that may be purchased ``off the shelf,''
are not created to identify and build on individual students' strengths
or address their specific needs. In order to maximize the effectiveness
of each intervention, they recommended that the priority be revised to
require the use of highly skilled reading specialists who can vary
instructional decisions according to individual student needs.
Discussion: We agree that, to be most effective, interventions
should have the capacity to identify and build on individual students'
strengths and address their individual needs because the cause of an
adolescent's difficulties in reading may differ significantly from
student to student. A number of intensive, supplemental interventions
for struggling readers do include the use of highly skilled reading
specialists for these and other reasons, while other interventions
address these issues through the use of other trained personnel or
through other means. Since one of the selection criteria that peer
reviewers will use to evaluate applications requires each applicant to
provide research and other empirical evidence that demonstrate that the
supplemental literacy intervention it proposes to implement is likely
to be effective in improving the reading skills of struggling readers,
we do not believe it is necessary to mandate the use of highly skilled
reading specialists or establish other mandates with regard to the
personnel who will be involved in delivering the intervention.
In addition, although one of our requirements is that applicants
implement a fully developed
[[Page 27893]]
intervention, we are not requiring that the intervention be one that
can be bought ``off the shelf.'' We support the implementation of
locally or regionally developed adolescent literacy interventions as
well as commercially published adolescent literacy interventions.
Consistent with the purposes of this program, however, we do not
support an intervention that is in the research stage and has not yet
been fully developed, and we do not support interventions that have
already been evaluated through large-scale experimental evaluations
unless the proposed evaluation of such an intervention would
substantially increase knowledge about the effectiveness of the
intervention among a population different than those studied in
previous experimental evaluations.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the priority to
require that projects give priority to serving English language
learners and language minority learners.
Discussion: The struggling readers who will be served by the
supplemental literacy intervention will be identified through the use
of a nationally normed, reliable, and valid screening reading
assessment. We expect that English language learners will comprise a
significant proportion of the students who will be served by Striving
Readers projects because these students are overrepresented among
struggling readers. The 2007 National Assessment of Educational
Progress reading assessment found that 71 percent of eighth-grade
English language learners enrolled in public schools scored below the
Basic achievement level (National Center for Education Statistics,
2007). Accordingly, we do not believe it is necessary to add this type
of requirement to the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested we clarify in the priority
the meaning of the word ``supplemental'' in the term ``supplemental
literacy intervention.''
Discussion: We use the word ``supplemental'' to describe how the
literacy intervention will fit into a student's daily school schedule.
Struggling students will enroll in a supplemental intervention as an
add-on or appendix to their regular course schedule of mathematics,
science, social studies, and English. A supplemental literacy
intervention would most likely appear as an elective in the student's
schedule.
We also recognize that, in some Response to Intervention (RTI)
models, the term ``supplemental'' may be used to describe particular
types of interventions that are implemented at different tiers of the
model. ``Supplemental,'' for example, may be the adjective used to
describe interventions that are implemented in the third tier of an RTI
model. However, our use of the term ``supplemental'' is not intended to
refer to any particular tier or class of interventions in an RTI model.
We use it only to indicate that the intervention must be delivered as a
supplement to the regular academic instruction that students would
ordinarily receive.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the priority be
amended to include high school students, as well as students in the
middle grades, arguing that the need for intensive, supplemental
literacy interventions is as great in grades 9 through 12 as in grades
6 through 8. The commenters also noted that State needs for improving
instruction in the middle grades and at the high school level vary and
that the priority should give applicants the option of using Striving
Readers funds in whatever secondary school grades the needs are the
greatest.
Discussion: We agree that applicants should be given the option of
using Striving Readers funds at whatever secondary grade level would
most benefit the State's students.
Changes: Priority 1 has been changed to include students in grades
6 through 12. To reflect this change in the range of students, we have
made conforming changes to paragraph (i) of Priority 2; paragraph (b)
of the requirement regarding eligible schools; and paragraphs (b) and
(c) of the definition of eligible school.
Priority 2--Rigorous and Independent Evaluation
Comment: One commenter encouraged us to set a higher minimum
threshold for the number of schools included in each project. We had
proposed to require projects to include a minimum of five schools in
order to meet evaluation needs. The commenter suggested that setting a
higher minimum would help define these literacy projects as State
initiatives and would add credibility to the evaluation results.
Discussion: We encourage applicants to serve as many schools as
possible; however, we do not believe that a higher minimum number of
schools is needed.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested that we reduce the number of
struggling readers (75) per school that we require as the minimum
number of students needed to support a rigorous, experimental
evaluation.
Discussion: We proposed the requirement of a minimum of 75
struggling readers per school per year to ensure that the process of
student-level random assignment yields treatment and control group
samples that are comparable. Student-level random assignment in schools
with fewer than 75 eligible struggling readers is more likely to result
in treatment and control groups that are not comparable. However, we
have revised Priority 1 to give applicants the option of including
students in grades 9 through 12, as well as in grades 6 through 8.
Because high schools typically have significantly larger enrollments
than middle or junior high schools, this change may enable more
applicants to identify 5 or more schools that have 75 or more
struggling readers.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that screening students for placement
in supplemental interventions through the administration of a
nationally normed assessment would require careful planning and
coordination by the evaluator and school administrators. The commenter
expressed the view that the timing of the screening would most likely
require that screening tests be administered in the school year prior
to the year of full program implementation. The commenter asked about
the timing of grant awards.
Discussion: We will make awards by September 30, 2009, and we
expect the supplementary literacy intervention to be fully implemented
in all schools included in a project by the start of school year 2010-
11. The time period that precedes full program implementation will be
used to prepare for evaluation and implementation. The Department has
set aside funds for technical assistance to evaluators. Project
directors and evaluators will cooperate with technical assistance
providers by completing a series of plans for screening students for
eligibility, randomizing students or schools, collecting data,
providing professional development, and planning for other crucial
processes identified by the technical assistance provider.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters proposed that we require evaluations to
include the direct collection of implementation data, data on the level
of student participation, and an assessment of the quality of
professional development. In addition, one of the commenters noted that
evaluations need to employ a wider set of statistical tools such as
sampling, staggered starting time, and the use of
[[Page 27894]]
more effective measures and that evaluations need to provide for the
evaluation of fidelity of instruction for the control group. The
commenter also suggested that a local literacy specialist be involved
in collecting data for the evaluation.
Discussion: The Institute of Education Sciences will review all of
the evaluation plans to help ensure that the impact reports produced by
evaluators meet rigorous standards for scientific evidence and will
consider these comments in the course of that review.
Changes: None.
Comment: A commenter asked about the availability of funds to cover
administrative costs incurred by the State educational agency in
implementing and evaluating the supplemental literacy interventions.
Discussion: Grant funds are available to cover reasonable and
necessary expenses incurred in carrying out the project, which may
include State administrative costs.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: We specified in the NPP that to be considered eligible
an applicant must include in its evaluation design a sample size that
includes no fewer than 750 struggling readers enrolled in no fewer than
5 schools in each year of the evaluation. After the publication of the
NPP, we realized that applicants would benefit from a clarification of
the required sample size.
Changes: Although, we have not made a substantive change in the
definition of the sample size as it appeared in paragraph (h) of
Priority 2, we have added two sentences that expand on the definition
by including examples of an adequate sample size.
Requirements and Definitions--Eligible Schools
Comment: None.
Discussion: We specified in the NPP that to be considered an
eligible school under this program, an applicant must include in its
application, among other things, assessment data for the 2007-08 and
2008-09 school years that demonstrate that a minimum of 75 students in
the grades to be served by the supplemental literacy intervention were
struggling readers. After the NPP was published, we realized that the
2008-09 State assessment data may not be available in time for
applicants to include these data in their applications. We have
modified this requirement to provide that an applicant must include the
2007-08 and 2008-09 data or data for the most recent two years for
which data are available. We have made a similar change in the
definition of eligible schools.
Changes: The requirement for eligible schools and the definition of
eligible schools have been changed to provide that an applicant must
include in its application the 2007-08 and 2008-09 assessment data or
data for the two most recent years for which data are available.
Requirements and Selection Criteria--Supplemental Literacy Intervention
Logic Model and Assessment Requirements; Project Design
Comment: None.
Discussion: We proposed in the NPP that to be considered for an
award under this competition, an applicant must include in its
application evidence regarding the screening, diagnostic, and outcome
reading assessments of student literacy skills that the applicant would
use to inform the identification of struggling readers and the content
of their instruction. We also proposed in the Project Design criterion
that the Secretary would evaluate applications in part on the extent to
which the proposed project using reading assessments for screening
struggling readers and for diagnosing individual student needs.
Although we identified the purposes of two of the three kinds of
assessments (screening and diagnostic) in both of these sections, we
did not specify the purpose of the outcome reading assessment. To
correct this omission, we have modified this requirement and the
Project Design selection criterion to indicate that the purpose of the
outcome reading assessment is to evaluate the effectiveness of the
supplemental literacy intervention.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (c) of the Supplemental
Literacy Intervention Logic Model and Assessment Requirements and
paragraph (4) of the Project Design selection criterion to indicate
that the purpose of the outcome reading assessment is to evaluate the
effectiveness of the supplemental literacy intervention.
Final Priorities
Priority 1--Supplemental Literacy Intervention for Struggling Readers
in Middle and High School Grades
To be eligible for consideration under this priority, an applicant
must propose to implement a supplemental literacy intervention during
the second, third, and fourth years of the project period that--
(a) Will be provided to struggling readers (as defined elsewhere in
this notice) in any of grades 6 through 12 in no fewer than 5 eligible
schools;
(b) Supplements the regular English language arts instruction
students receive;
(c) Provides instruction exclusively or primarily during the
regular school day, but that may be augmented by after-school
instruction;
(d) Is at least one full school year in duration;
(e) Includes the use of a nationally normed, reliable, and valid
screening reading assessment (as defined elsewhere in this notice) to
identify struggling readers;
(f) Includes the use of a nationally normed, reliable, and valid
diagnostic reading assessment (as defined elsewhere in this notice) to
pinpoint students' instructional needs;
(g) Uses a research-based literacy model that is flexible enough to
meet the varied needs of struggling readers, is intense enough to
accelerate the development of literacy skills, and includes, at a
minimum, the following practices:
(1) Explicit vocabulary instruction.
(2) Direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction.
(3) Opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and
interpretation.
(4) Instruction in reading foundational skills, such as decoding
and fluency (for students who need to be taught these skills).
(5) Course content intended to improve student motivation and
engagement in literacy learning.
(6) Instruction in writing; and
(h) Has been implemented in at least one school in the United
States during the preceding five years.
Priority 2--Rigorous and Independent Evaluation
To be eligible for consideration under this priority, an applicant
must propose to support a rigorous experimental evaluation of the
effectiveness of the supplemental literacy intervention it implements
under Priority 1 (Supplemental Literacy Intervention for Struggling
Readers in Middle and High School Grades) during the second, third, and
fourth years of the project that will--
(a) Be carried out by an independent evaluator whose role in the
project is limited solely to conducting the evaluation;
(b) Use a random lottery to assign eligible struggling readers in
each school in the project either to the supplemental literacy
intervention or to other activities in which they would otherwise
participate, such as a study
[[Page 27895]]
hall, electives, or another activity that does not involve supplemental
literacy instruction;
(c) Include rigorous and appropriate procedures to monitor the
integrity of the random assignment of students, minimize crossover and
contamination between the treatment and control groups, and monitor,
document, and, where possible, minimize student attrition from the
sample;
(d) Measure outcomes of the supplemental literacy intervention
using, at a minimum:
(1) The reading/language arts assessment used by the State to
determine whether a school has made adequate yearly progress under part
A of title I of the ESEA.
(2) A nationally normed, reliable, and valid outcome reading
assessment (as defined elsewhere in this notice) that is closely
aligned with the literacy skills targeted by the supplemental literacy
intervention;
(e) Use rigorous statistical models to analyze the impact of the
supplemental literacy intervention on student achievement, including
the use of students' prior-year test scores as a covariate in the model
to improve statistical precision and also including appropriate
statistical techniques for taking into account the clustering of
students within schools;
(f) Include an analysis of the fidelity of implementation of the
critical features of the supplemental literacy intervention based on
data collected by the evaluator;
(g) Include measures designed to ensure that the evaluator obtains
high response rates to all data collections;
(h) Include no fewer than 750 struggling readers per year in all of
the schools and grades served by the supplemental literacy
intervention. To meet the eligibility requirements, an applicant with 5
schools would need an average of 150 struggling readers in all grades
served by the intervention per school. An applicant with 10 schools
would also meet the eligibility requirements if each school had 75
struggling readers in all grades served by the intervention; and
(i) Be designed to detect not less than a 0.10 standard deviation
impact of the supplemental literacy intervention on student
achievement, which represents approximately 3 to 5 months' growth in
reading achievement on standardized assessments for the typical student
in grades 6 through 12.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following requirements for this program. We may apply
these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
Eligible Applicants: To be considered for an award under this
competition, an applicant must be a State educational agency (SEA) that
applies on behalf of itself and one or more LEAs that have governing
authority over the eligible schools (as defined elsewhere in this
notice) that the applicant proposes to include in the project.
Eligible schools: To be considered for an award under this
competition, an eligible applicant must include in its application the
following with respect to each school it proposes to include in the
project:
(a) The school's name, location, and enrollment disaggregated by
grade level for the 2008-09 school year.
(b) State or other assessment data that demonstrate that, during
each of the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years (or the most recent two
years for which data are available), a minimum of 75 students in the
grades to be served by the supplemental literacy intervention were
struggling readers (as defined elsewhere in this notice).
(c) Evidence that the school is eligible to receive funds under
part A of title I of the ESEA, pursuant to section 1113 of the ESEA.
(d) A letter from the superintendent of the LEA that has governing
authority over the school and the principal of the school in which
they--
(1) Agree to implement the proposed supplemental literacy
intervention during the 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 school years,
adhering strictly to the design of the intervention;
(2) Agree to allow eligible struggling readers to be randomly
assigned (by lottery) to either the supplemental literacy intervention
curriculum or 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; and
(3) Agree to participate in the evaluation, including in the
evaluator's collection of data on student outcomes and program
implementation.
Supplemental Literacy Intervention Logic Model and Assessment
Requirements: To be considered for an award under this competition, an
applicant must include in its application the following evidence with
respect to the supplemental literacy intervention it proposes to
implement and evaluate:
(a) Evidence that the supplemental literacy intervention has been
implemented in at least one school in the United States during the
preceding five years.
(b) A one-page logic model that shows a clear, logical pathway
leading from the project inputs and activities, through classroom
instruction, to the expected impacts on students.
(c) The nationally normed, reliable, and valid screening,
diagnostic, and outcome reading assessments (as these reading
assessments are defined elsewhere in this notice) of student literacy
skills that the applicant would use to inform the identification of
struggling readers and the content of their instruction, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of the supplemental literacy intervention.
Definitions
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes several definitions that will help clarify the population
of students eligible for services under this competition and the tools
to be used to identify those eligible students. We may apply one or
more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in
effect.
Diagnostic reading assessment means an assessment that is--
(a) Valid, reliable, and based on scientifically based reading
research; and
(b) Used for the purpose of--
(1) Identifying a child's specific areas of strength and weakness;
[[Page 27896]]
(2) Determining any difficulties that a child may have in learning
to read and the potential cause of such difficulties; and
(3) Helping to determine possible reading intervention strategies
and related special needs.
Eligible school means a school that--
(a) Is eligible to receive funds under part A of title I of the
ESEA, pursuant to section 1113 of the ESEA;
(b) Serves students in any of grades 6 through 12; and
(c) Enrolled not fewer than 75 students in the grades that will be
served by the supplemental literacy intervention during the 2007-08 and
2008-09 school years (or the two most recent years for which data are
available) whose reading skills were two or more years below grade
level.
Outcome reading assessment means an assessment that is--
(a) Valid, reliable, and nationally normed;
(b) Closely aligned with the literacy skills targeted by the
supplemental literacy intervention; and
(c) Used for the purpose of--
(1) Measuring student reading achievement; and
(2) Evaluating the effectiveness of the supplemental literacy
intervention.
Screening reading assessment means an assessment that is--
(a) Valid, reliable, and based on scientifically based reading
research; and
(b) A brief procedure designed as a first step in identifying
children who may be at high risk for delayed development or academic
failure and in need of further diagnosis of their need for special
services or additional literacy instruction.
Struggling readers means readers who--
(a) Have only partial mastery of the prerequisite knowledge and
skills that are fundamental for reading at grade level; and
(b) Are reading two or more grades below grade level when measured
on an initial screening reading assessment.
Selection Criteria
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following selection criteria for evaluating an
application under this program. We may apply one or more of these
criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. In the notice
inviting applications or the application package or both we will
announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.
(a) Significance.
(1) The potential contribution of the project to the development
and advancement of theory, research, and practices in the field of
adolescent literacy, including--
(i) In the case of a supplemental literacy intervention that has
not been evaluated through a large-scale experimental evaluation, the
extent to which other empirical evidence (such as smaller-scale
experimental or quasi-experimental studies of the effects of the
intervention on student achievement) demonstrates that the intervention
is likely to be effective in improving the reading skills of struggling
readers; or
(ii) In the case of a supplemental literacy intervention that has
been evaluated by one or more large-scale experimental evaluations, the
extent to which those evaluations provide evidence that demonstrates
that the intervention is likely to be effective in improving the
reading skills of struggling readers and that the proposed evaluation
would increase substantially knowledge in the field of adolescent
literacy, such as by studying the effectiveness of the intervention
among a different population than studied in previous experimental
evaluations or by using an improved evaluation design (such as one that
has a marked increase in statistical power).
(2) The extent to which the proposed supplemental literacy
intervention can be replicated in a variety of settings without
significant modifications.
(b) Project Design.
(1) The extent to which the supplemental literacy intervention uses
a research-based literacy model that is flexible enough to meet the
varied needs of struggling readers, is intense enough to accelerate the
development of literacy skills, and includes, at a minimum, the
following practices:
(i) Explicit vocabulary instruction;
(ii) Direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction;
(iii) Opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and
interpretation;
(iv) Instruction in reading foundational skills, such as decoding
and fluency (for students who need to be taught these skills);
(v) Course content designed to improve student motivation and
engagement in literacy learning; and
(vi) Instruction in writing.
(2) The extent to which the professional development model proposed
for the project has sufficient intensity (in terms of the number of
hours or days).
(3) The extent to which the provider of the professional
development identified in the application has the appropriate
experience and knowledge to provide high-quality professional
development.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project uses nationally
normed, valid, and reliable screening reading assessments for screening
struggling readers, diagnostic reading assessments for identifying
individual student needs, and outcome assessments for evaluating the
effectiveness of the supplemental literacy intervention.
(c) Project Evaluation.
(1) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes data from the
reading/English language arts assessment used by the State to measure
adequate yearly progress under part A of title I of the ESEA and from a
second, evaluator-administered, nationally normed, reliable, and valid
measure of student reading achievement that is closely aligned with the
goals of the intervention.
(2) The extent to which the evaluation plan describes an objective
and appropriate method for the independent evaluator to conduct random
assignment of students to treatment and control conditions; rigorous
and appropriate methods for monitoring the integrity of random
assignment and for minimizing crossover and contamination between the
treatment and control groups; and rigorous and appropriate methods for
monitoring, documenting, and, where possible, minimizing, student
attrition from the sample.
(3) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear, well-
documented, and rigorous method for measuring the fidelity of
implementation of the critical features of the intervention.
(4) The extent to which the evaluation plan describes rigorous
statistical procedures for the analysis of the data that will be
collected, including:
(i) A clear discussion of the relationship between hypotheses,
measures, and independent and dependent variables.
(ii) Appropriate statistical techniques for taking into account the
clustering of students within schools.
(iii) The use of data on students' achievement in prior years as a
covariate to improve statistical precision.
(iv) In the case of qualitative data analyses, the use of
appropriate and rigorous methods to index, summarize, and interpret
data.
(5) The extent to which the independent evaluator identified in the
application has experience in conducting scientifically based reading
research and in designing and conducting experimental evaluations.
[[Page 27897]]
(6) The extent to which the proposed budget allocates sufficient
funds to carry out a high-quality evaluation of the proposed project.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice 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.
Executive Order 12866: This notice 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 final regulatory
action.
The potential costs associated with this final regulatory action
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 final regulatory action, we have determined
that the benefits of the final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this final 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 notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
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.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: You can view this document, as
well as all other documents of this Department 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.
Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated
authority to Joseph C. Conaty, Director, Academic Improvement and
Teacher Quality Programs for the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, to perform the functions of the Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education.
Dated: June 5, 2009.
Joseph P. Conaty,
Director, Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-13754 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P