[Federal Register: April 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 15949-15954]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08ap09-44]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Striving Readers
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.371A.
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
for 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. The Assistant Secretary intends to use the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to provide Federal
financial assistance to support the implementation and evaluation of
intensive, supplemental literacy interventions for struggling readers.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Marcia J. Kingman,
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E106,
Washington, DC 20202-6400.
If you prefer to send your comments by e-mail, use the following
address: Marcia.Kingman@ed.gov. You must include the term ``Striving
Readers--Comments on FY 2009 Proposed Priorities'' in the subject line
of your electronic message.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia J. Kingman. Telephone: (202)
401-0003 or by e-mail: Marcia.Kingman@ed.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the
[[Page 15950]]
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed
priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion your 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
priorities, 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 the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria in room 3E106, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time,
Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of this program is to raise the
reading levels of adolescent students in ESEA Title I-eligible schools
with 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 existing adolescent literacy initiatives
or creating new initiatives that provide intensive, supplemental
literacy interventions for struggling readers.
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.
Proposed Priorities: This notice contains two proposed priorities.
Proposed Priority 1--Supplemental Literacy Intervention for
Struggling Readers in the Middle Grades:
Background:
One of the greatest obstacles to achieving President Obama's
ambitious goal of regaining our Nation's global leadership in
educational attainment is the inadequate literacy skills that too many
young people bring with them as they enter high school. Without strong
literacy skills, high school students cannot master the rigorous
academic content they need to prepare for postsecondary education,
careers, and active participation in our democracy. Students in the
middle grades and in high school who have low-level reading skills also
are at greater risk of dropping out of school.
The Striving Readers program awards competitive grants to support
the implementation and rigorous evaluation of promising adolescent
literacy interventions intended to increase our understanding of how we
can improve the literacy skills of adolescents most effectively. The
Department awarded more than $24 million for the first eight grants
under the program in March, 2006 and has supported continuation of
those grants with an additional $88.6 million in subsequent years.
These projects are now entering their third year and are serving more
than 45,000 secondary school students annually, including 7,300
adolescents who read two or more years below grade level. The
Department released year-one implementation studies last year, and
expects to release impact evaluations of the first two years of project
implementation this summer.
Focus on Supplemental Literacy Intervention for Struggling Readers:
Each of the Striving Readers projects funded in FY 2006 supports
both an intensive supplemental literacy intervention for struggling
readers (students who read two or more years below grade level) and a
schoolwide literacy initiative that includes literacy instruction in
all content-area classes and is intended to improve the literacy skills
of all students. In Proposed Priority 1, we are proposing to support
projects that focus exclusively on the implementation of a supplemental
literacy intervention for struggling readers. While teaching literacy
in every content-area class is necessary if all students are to acquire
high-level literacy skills--the complex set of skills that enables one
to read critically, comprehend, reason, and write persuasively--
students with reading difficulties need support in addition to the
support they receive in content-area classes. Struggling readers,
through intense interventions that occur in a supplemental class, must
have a real opportunity to catch up with their peers, graduate from
high school, and secure a place in college and the workplace after
graduation. Given limited available resources for this program, we
believe that the primary focus of this priority should be the urgent
needs of these adolescents.
Under Proposed Priority 1, we also are proposing that projects
address the needs of struggling readers by implementing a school-year-
long literacy intervention that supplements the regular English
language arts instruction students receive and that delivers
instruction exclusively or principally during the school day. Research
indicates that an intensive, supplemental intervention of this kind is
more likely to accelerate the development of grade-level literacy
skills by struggling readers than are other strategies or approaches.
Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention
Practices, a practice guide published in 2008 by the Institute of
Education Sciences' What Works Clearinghouse, found strong research
evidence that students who have only partial mastery of the
prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for reading at
grade level need more intensive help than can be provided by teachers
during English language arts or other classes (Institute of Education
Sciences, 2008).
Proposed Priority 1 would also require that this supplemental
literacy intervention be research-based and include, at a minimum, a
number of practices that many researchers in the field of adolescent
literacy agree are critical to the effectiveness of a supplemental
literacy intervention for struggling readers. These practices include
the use of a reliable screening assessment to identify students with
reading difficulties, a reliable diagnostic reading assessment to
pinpoint students' instructional needs, explicit vocabulary
instruction, direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction,
and content intended to improve student motivation and engagement in
literacy learning (Institute of Education Sciences, 2008; Boardman,
Roberts, Vaughn et al., 2008; Biancarosa and Snow, 2006).
To meet Proposed Priority 1, the supplemental literacy intervention
also must have been implemented in at least one school in the United
States within the past five years. The purpose of this requirement is
to ensure that the limited funds available for new awards are used to
support interventions that are fully developed and that can be
implemented by the schools included in the project without significant
modification. While there is a need for greater investment in the
development of new literacy interventions, at this time, the Department
seeks to focus on replicating
[[Page 15951]]
successful supplemental literary interventions in multiple schools.
Focus on Students in the Middle Grades:
Proposed Priority 1 would also focus on projects that serve
struggling readers in any of grades 6 through 8 because research
indicates that early and intense intervention in the middle grades is
critical to putting students with below-grade-level literacy skills on
a path to graduation when they enter high school (Balfanz, Herzog, and
Mac Iver, 2007).
The number of adolescents in the middle grades who need assistance
with reading is alarming. Twenty-seven percent of eighth-grade students
in the United States scored below basic in reading on the most recent
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Forty-two percent
of eighth-grade students eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch
scored below basic (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007).
According to one estimate, approximately half of the students who enter
a typical high-poverty, urban high school read at a sixth- or seventh-
grade level (Balfanz et al., 2002).
When students enter high school with reading skills that are
significantly below grade level, they are at great risk of dropping
out, particularly during the ninth-grade year. One analysis of the
school experiences and outcomes of students who were members of the
Class of 2000 in Philadelphia found that more than three-quarters of
the students who dropped out in ninth grade entered high school with
reading skills that were one or more years below grade level. Fifty-
eight percent of these ninth-grade dropouts entered the ninth grade
with reading skills that were three or more years below grade level
(Neild and Balfanz, 2006). Similarly, an analysis of longitudinal
student data for three large California districts found that more than
sixty percent of students who scored ``far below basic'' on an eighth-
grade reading assessment dropped out before graduation (Kurlaender,
Reardon, and Jackson, 2008).
Proposed Priority 1--Supplemental Literacy Intervention for
Struggling Readers in the Middle 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 8 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.
Proposed Priority 2--Rigorous and Independent Evaluation:
Background:
Under section 1502(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (ESEA), the Secretary is required to evaluate Striving Readers
projects ``using rigorous methodological designs and techniques,
including control groups and random assignment, to the extent feasible,
to produce reliable evidence of effectiveness.'' Consequently, we are
proposing a priority for applications that includes an evaluation plan
that measures, through a randomized field trial, the effectiveness of
the proposed supplemental literacy intervention in achieving desired
outcomes.
The statutory evaluation requirement coincides with the needs of
the adolescent literacy field for better information about what works.
School systems across the country are beginning to develop
comprehensive literacy programs that extend elementary literacy
instruction into middle and high schools, but there is little empirical
data to support some of these secondary-level programs. And, although
the marketplace is producing a wealth of ``off-the-shelf''
interventions for students with reading deficiencies, most of these
interventions have not been subjected to rigorous evaluations.
The critical need for a stronger research base on adolescent
literacy necessitates that funded projects conduct careful, rigorous
studies of the supplemental literacy interventions that will be
implemented. Therefore, we have designed Proposed Priority 1 to be used
in conjunction with Proposed Priority 2. Each project funded under
Proposed Priority 1--Supplemental Literacy Intervention for Struggling
Readers in the Middle Grades would be required to contract with an
independent evaluator to conduct an experimental design evaluation and
provide information and data for dissemination to the literacy
community. The evaluation for each project must include at least 750
struggling readers, the minimum sample required to detect approximately
3-5 months of growth in reading achievement on standardized assessments
for the typical student in grades 6 through 8. In addition, each
project would be required to include at least 5 eligible schools. These
schools may be part of a single local educational agency (LEA) or
multiple LEAs. The Department plans to provide technical assistance to
help grantees and their evaluation partners with evaluation design and
implementation.
Proposed 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 the Middle 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 hall, electives, or another activity that
does not involve supplemental literacy instruction;
(c) Include rigorous and appropriate procedures to monitor the
integrity of
[[Page 15952]]
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 enrolled in no
fewer than 5 schools in each year of the evaluation; 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 8.
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)).
Proposed Requirements:
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes the following requirements for this program. We may apply
these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
Proposed Eligibility Requirement:
Background:
Several State educational agencies have recently published
comprehensive literacy plans that go beyond the traditional State focus
on reading instruction in the early grades. These plans create policies
and guidelines for extending literacy instruction into middle and high
schools. In general, the new State plans acknowledge that improvements
in adolescent literacy are the cornerstone for secondary-school reform
and that those improvements must be accomplished through the teaching
of literacy skills in all content-areas as well as through the
provision of targeted, supplemental literacy interventions to
struggling readers. To accomplish the mission embodied in those State
plans, States are working with schools and districts to modify State
literacy standards and assessments; to identify research-based literacy
programs; to create cohorts of literacy coaches; to revise teacher
preparation and training so that it includes education in content-based
literacy strategies; to develop literacy professional development for
in-service teachers; and to help improve the infrastructure of schools
in order to better support literacy instruction.
Recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds
appropriated for Title I School Improvement Grants and for the State
Fiscal Stabilization Fund are available as financial support for
executing many of the components of State comprehensive literacy plans
as well as for creating comprehensive plans in States that are just
beginning to address adolescent literacy needs. We are proposing that
within the larger effort of building State-wide programs that will
improve literacy for all adolescents, the limited funds available
through the Striving Readers program be used by States to target
services to struggling readers.
By proposing to limit eligibility to State educational agencies, we
intend to partner with States, not only through the ARRA but also
through these grants, to help States address the needs of struggling
readers.
Proposed 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.
Proposed Application Requirements:
Eligible Schools:
Background:
We are proposing that the applicant SEA submit, for each eligible
school it intends to include in the project, certain eligibility
information to ensure that reviewers can adequately judge the extent of
the school's willingness to participate fully in the evaluation and
implementation of the supplemental literacy intervention. As a part of
this application requirement, we also would require each applicant to
submit, for each eligible school it intends to include in its project,
State assessment data to verify that a large enough group of struggling
readers exists among enrolled students to ensure an adequate sample
size for the evaluation.
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, a minimum of 75 students
enrolled in grades 6 through 8 in the school 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
[[Page 15953]]
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.
Proposed Logic Model and Assessment Requirements:
Background:
We are proposing to require applicants to include, in their
applications, a logic model of the supplemental literacy intervention
that will allow reviewers to evaluate the merits of the intervention
and the relation between the intervention and student outcomes. We are
also proposing that applicants identify in their applications the
nationally normed, reliable, and valid screening, diagnostic, and
outcome reading assessments that they will use as they implement and
evaluate the effects of the supplemental literacy intervention.
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.
Proposed Definitions:
Background:
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes 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;
(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 8; and
(c) Enrolled not fewer than 75 students in any of grades 6 through
8 during the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years 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;
(b) Are reading two or more grades below grade level when measured
on an initial screening reading assessment.
Proposed Selection Criteria:
Background:
The purposes of the Striving Readers grant program are to improve
the literacy skills of adolescent struggling readers and to help build
a strong, scientific, research base for specific strategies that
improve adolescent literacy skills. To support those purposes, we are
proposing the following selection criteria that we believe will allow
us to fund the most promising supplemental literacy interventions for
struggling readers and that will ensure that the evaluations of those
interventions meet the research community's highest standard and
provide reliable findings that inform adolescent literacy practice.
Proposed Selection Criteria:
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes 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 that includes, at a minimum, the
following practices:
(i) Explicit vocabulary instruction;
[[Page 15954]]
(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 and for diagnosing individual student needs.
(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; and
(6) The extent to which the proposed budget allocates sufficient
funds to carry out a high-quality evaluation of the proposed project.
Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria:
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department. 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 one or more of 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 proposed regulatory
action.
The potential costs associated with this proposed 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 proposed regulatory action, we have determined
that the benefits of the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this proposed 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.
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: April 3, 2009.
Joseph C. Conaty,
Director, Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-7995 Filed 4-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P