[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32440-32449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13775]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Full-Service Community Schools
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.215J
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education announces priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for the Full-Service Community
Schools (FSCS) program. The Secretary may use these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in
fiscal year (FY) 2010 and later years. We take this action to focus
Federal assistance on supporting collaboration among schools and
entities within a community in the provision of comprehensive academic,
social, and health services for students, students' family members, and
community members. We intend the priorities to support the improvement
of student outcomes through their promotion of strong school-community
partnerships that support effective resource coordination and service
delivery. The FSCS program is a ``place-based'' program that can
leverage investments by focusing resources in targeted places, drawing
on the compounding effects of well-coordinated actions. Place-based
approaches can also streamline otherwise redundant and disconnected
programs.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria are effective July 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Staton, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W245, Washington, DC 20202-
5970. Telephone (202) 401-2091 or by e-mail: [email protected].
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 Fund for the Improvement of Education
(FIE), which is authorized by section 5411 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), supports nationally
significant programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary
education at the State and local levels and help all children meet
challenging academic content and academic achievement standards. The
FSCS program, which is funded under FIE, encourages coordination of
academic, social, and health services through partnerships among (1)
public elementary and secondary schools; (2) the schools' local
educational agencies (LEAs); and (3) community-based organizations,
non-profit organizations, and other public or private entities. The
purpose of this collaboration is to provide comprehensive academic,
social, and health services for students, students' family members, and
community members that will result in improved educational outcomes for
children.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7243-7243b.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for this program in the Federal
Register on February 8, 2010 (75 FR 6188-6192). That notice contained
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
There are differences between the notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions and selection criteria (NPP) and this notice
of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
(NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section
elsewhere in this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 11
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority. In addition we do not address general
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria since publication of the notice of proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria follows.
We discuss substantive issues under the title of the item to which they
pertain.
Absolute Priority--Eligible Services
Comment: Two commenters suggested that services provided under the
FSCS program include strong alignment of academic supports and
enrichment activities with existing resources for remedial programming.
In addition, one commenter noted the importance of aligning remedial
education and academic enrichment activities with State standards,
curricula, and academic achievement data to ensure stronger connections
between school day and after-school activities.
Discussion: We agree that remedial education, academic supports,
and enrichment activities should be clearly and deliberately aligned
with other key components of successful schools (e.g., a State's high
academic standards; rigorous curricula; effective teachers; effective
school leadership; well-designed assessments and accountability
systems; positive school climates; and strong professional development)
and are modifying the absolute priority accordingly. We believe that
such coordination and alignment are likely to support student academic
success by promoting cost-effective school-community partnerships that
are tailored to the needs of students and schools.
Changes: We have revised the service category regarding remedial
education in the absolute priority. This category now reads ``Remedial
education, aligned with academic supports and other enrichment
activities, providing students with a comprehensive academic program.''
[[Page 32441]]
Comment: One commenter suggested that the FSCS program require the
use of a standardized social-emotional curriculum for grades K-12 and
require grantees to implement the resiliency-based after-school
activities based on the 40 developmental assets from the Search
Institute's Healthy Communities/Healthy Students program.
Discussion: We decline to adopt the changes suggested by the
commenter because we believe that mandating the use of specific
curricula or frameworks would unduly restrict the flexibility of
applicants to develop FSCS projects that are most appropriately suited
to their particular circumstances. Applicants are free to select
models, which may include those suggested by the commenter, that they
deem most appropriate to address the needs of their proposed project.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that while family literacy and
parental involvement are related activities, they are distinct in scope
and execution and therefore, should not be grouped into a single
service category. The commenter further stated that parent education
and parent leadership programs are related, yet distinct, and should be
listed separately in the final notice.
Discussion: We decline to adopt the changes suggested by the
commenter because we believe that family literacy, parental
involvement, parent education, and parent leadership are related in
that they seek to meaningfully engage parents in ways that support
their children's learning. Services and activities coordinated or
provided by the FSCS should be based on identified needs and aligned
with clearly articulated outcomes, regardless of the comprehensive
nature of the service category itself. Because we believe these
services are so inter-related, we are revising the absolute priority to
consolidate them under one broad service category of family engagement.
Changes: In the absolute priority, we have combined the parental
involvement, family literacy activities, parent education, and parent
leadership program service categories into one service category, which
now reads ``Family engagement, including parental involvement, parent
leadership, family literacy, and parent education programs.''
Comment: Some commenters recommended that in addition to parental
involvement and family literacy activities, family services include
linking families to a wide range of supports, including public health
insurance options, social service programs (e.g., food stamps,
Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), and programs
that encourage family financial stability (e.g., benefit screenings,
assistance in claiming eligible tax credits and income supports,
financial literacy programs, employment services, and asset-building
programs).
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that the receipt of
information about health insurance options, social service programs,
and programs that promote family financial stability can contribute to
the overall well-being of a family. Providing information about health
insurance options is an eligible activity under the primary health care
service category in the absolute priority. We believe that using FSCS
grant funds for activities that improve access to and use of social
services programs and programs that promote family financial stability
is also consistent with the purpose of the FSCS program, and are adding
these activities to the absolute priority. It is important to note,
however, that FSCS Federal grant funds are of greatest benefit when
used to coordinate existing resources and services. Community schools
cannot be sustained if administrators rely entirely on Federal FSCS
funds to provide services.
Changes: We have added a new service category to the absolute
priority that provides for activities that improve access to and use of
social service programs and programs that promote family financial
stability.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the needs of students who
have been chronically absent from school should receive greater
prominence in the list of eligible services in the absolute priority.
The commenter noted that chronic absenteeism during the early
elementary school years can significantly affect a student's future
academic success.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that chronic absenteeism
can significantly affect academic success. We note that there is a
growing body of national research linking chronic absence (missing 10
percent or more of school due to excused or unexcused absences) to poor
academic achievement, dropping out of school, and other negative
outcomes. A report conducted by the National Center for Children in
Poverty in 2008 examined the prevalence, consequences, and potential
contributing factors associated with chronic absence in grades K-3 and
noted that one in ten kindergarten and first-grade students is
chronically absent nationally.\1\ The effects of chronic absence can be
magnified for children living in poverty because they tend to have
access to fewer resources at home to make up for lost time in school.
We will, therefore, add to the service category in the absolute
priority, programs that provide assistance to students who have been
chronically absent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chang, Hedy; Romero, Mariajose. Present, Engaged and
Accounted For: The Critical Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence
in the Early Grades. The Annie E. Casey Foundation; National Center
for Children in Poverty (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: We have revised the service category regarding programs
that provide assistance to students who have been truant, suspended, or
expelled, to include students who have been chronically absent.
Comment: One commenter recommended modifying the service category
regarding nutrition services to include a reference to physical
education classes. The commenter asserted that nutrition, physical
activity, and physical education are equally important in ensuring the
healthy physical development of a child and his or her academic
success.
Discussion: We agree that physical activity and physical education
are important to the healthy development of a child. An underlying goal
of the FSCS program, however, is to supplement the in-school curriculum
with additional services, supports, and opportunities, not to supplant
it. We consider physical education to be a component of the in-school
curriculum that, and as such, should not be supported using FSCS grant
funds. Physical activities, however, are allowable if carried out in
association with nutrition services or with mentoring and youth
development services. We will, therefore, add physical activities to
the nutrition services category in the absolute priority.
Changes: We have revised the nutrition services category to include
physical activities.
Comment: One commenter suggested that while primary health care and
dental care are related to each other, they should be listed as
separate eligible activities and that the need for and delivery of one
or both of these services should be based on the results of a needs
assessment.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the provision of
primary health care or dental care should be based on the needs of
students, students' family members, and community members. We decline,
however, to adopt the changes suggested by the commenter. Listing
primary health care and dental care in one service category is unlikely
to affect the
[[Page 32442]]
coordination or delivery of these services by grantees under this
program. All services and activities coordinated or provided by the
FSCS should be based on identified needs and aligned with clearly
articulated outcomes, regardless of the comprehensive nature of the
service category itself.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that vision care and the
provision of corrective eyewear be explicitly included as an element of
the primary health and dental care service category since vision
problems can interfere with students' academic attainment. The
commenter noted that undiagnosed and untreated vision problems are
especially problematic among low-income and minority children.
Discussion: We agree that access to vision care can affect
students' success in school. Vision screening and vision care,
including the provision of corrective eyewear, are allowable activities
under the primary health care and dental care service category.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to make the changes suggested by the
commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that in addition to counseling
services, clinical mental health services should be included as an
eligible service because many students in low-performing schools also
live in high-poverty neighborhoods with increased rates of trauma due
to violence, drug use, and other environmental stressors.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that addressing the mental
health needs of students and their family members supports social and
academic development and that these services may be broader than the
proposed ``mental health counseling services.'' We recognize that
mental health services encompass a broad range of school- and
community-based services, including but not limited to clinical mental
health services, and that the types of interventions may vary and
should be based on the needs of the service recipient. We are,
therefore, modifying the service category for mental health counseling
services to be more general, which will allow applicants to define the
appropriate range of mental health interventions needed to meet the
needs of their target population.
Change: We have revised the mental health counseling services
service category to read ``Mental health services.''
Competitive Preference Priority--Strategies That Support Turning Around
Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the competitive
preference priority for Strategies that Support Turning Around
Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools may result in the Department
making awards to a cohort of grantees that is limited to only those
Title I schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving. Some
commenters stated that the competitive preference priority should not
be limited only to the persistently lowest-achieving schools but,
instead, be more broadly defined to include all schools that are
eligible for Title I funding. Several commenters contended that it
takes significantly more time, effort, and resources for persistently
lowest-achieving schools to move through the developmental stages of a
community school and to demonstrate results. In order to select
projects with the greatest potential for success, one commenter
suggested that the Department select a subset of applicants with
schools that are persistently lowest-achieving from among the overall
applicant pool in order to provide a more balanced portfolio of
grantees.
Another commenter stated that the Department's School Improvement
Grants (SIG) program already prioritizes persistently lowest-achieving
schools and provides a significant amount of financial resources to
support implementation of the school intervention models. Other
commenters stated that the competitive preference priority should be
eliminated and that the FSCS program should support the development of
the highest-quality full-service community schools, regardless of Title
I funding status.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns. This
competitive preference priority is aligned with the Department's reform
goal of improving achievement in low-performing schools through
intensive support and effective interventions. Persistently lowest-
achieving schools are most vulnerable and in need of a well-coordinated
and integrated set of services to support their turnaround efforts.
With respect to the SIG program, we note that FSCS program funds
can be used to strengthen implementation of the intervention models
authorized under the SIG program by leveraging resources that support a
comprehensive academic program and qualify as one or more of the
allowable FSCS services. FSCS funds cannot be used for direct
implementation of the SIG interventions.
In response to commenters' concerns that establishing a competitive
preference priority for these schools would prevent support for the
development of the highest quality full-service community schools, we
note that including this competitive preference priority will not
restrict funding only to those applications that are eligible to
receive competitive preference. All applications will be evaluated and
awarded points based on a number of selection criteria. Further,
applications will be assessed under this competitive preference
priority depending on how well an application meets the priority. We
believe the inclusion of this competitive preference priority will
allow for a balanced portfolio of funded applicants, including but not
limited to, our most educationally disadvantaged, persistently lowest-
achieving schools. For these reasons we have concluded that no changes
to the competitive preference priority should be made.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether a school that used to be a
persistently lowest-achieving school but is no longer a persistently
lowest-achieving school is eligible to receive the competitive
preference. The commenter suggested that a school that was formerly
identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school should be eligible
for the competitive preference if it can demonstrate that it has taken
steps within the last five years to become a full-service community
school.
Discussion: Applications that include schools that are not
persistently lowest-achieving may still apply for funds under the FSCS
program, but would not be eligible for the competitive preference. In
order to meet the competitive preference applicants must propose to
serve schools currently identified by the State as persistently lowest-
achieving schools that are currently implementing or plan to implement
one of three school intervention models (as defined in this notice) to
become full-service community schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked if one of the three school
intervention models must be in place for an entity to be eligible to
apply for a grant under the FSCS program.
Discussion: Applications that propose to serve persistently lowest-
achieving schools that are planning to implement or are currently
implementing one of the three school intervention models are
[[Page 32443]]
eligible for the competitive preference. Applications that do not
propose to serve persistently lowest-achieving schools implementing or
planning to implement one of the three school intervention models may
still apply for an FSCS grant; however, such applications will not be
eligible to receive the competitive preference.
Change: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended adding other priorities. One
commenter suggested adding a competitive preference for applicants that
demonstrate an intention or plan to use site-based work and experience
to catalyze district-wide change. The commenter noted that the presence
of systems-level support and strong infrastructure is likely to result
in the institutionalization of community school strategies. Another
commenter recommended adding a competitive preference priority for
applicants that collaborate with State educational agencies (SEAs) to
develop mutually agreed upon performance measures for demonstrating the
impact of community school interventions.
Discussion: We agree that there is greater potential impact when
full-service community schools have a strong infrastructure in place to
sustain the overall effort and expand the number of FSCS program sites
throughout an LEA or State. Applicants have the flexibility to develop
projects most appropriately suited to the needs and context of their
target population. Accordingly, applicants are free to select models--
including site-based management--they deem most appropriate to the
needs of their proposed projects. Rather than adding a separate
priority to address systemic support and infrastructure, we will revise
the application requirements to focus on the importance of strong
infrastructures to support full-service community schools.
In response to the commenter's recommendation that we add a
competitive preference priority for applicants that collaborate with
SEAs to develop mutually agreed upon community school performance
measures, we decline to add this priority because applicants have the
flexibility to partner with SEAs to develop a set of mutually defined
performance measures but we do not believe this should be a priority.
Changes: We have revised application requirement (4), regarding
organizational capacity, to require applicants to include a description
of the existing or proposed infrastructure that will support the
implementation and sustainability of the full-service community school.
Application Requirements
Comment: None.
Discussion: In the course of reviewing application requirement (1),
regarding a description of the needs of students, students' family
members, and community members to be served, we determined that
requiring information about basic demographic characteristics of the
target population would strengthen our understanding of the service
recipients beyond their status as students, students' family members,
and community members. Therefore, we have revised requirement (1) to
require applicants to provide information about basic demographic
characteristics of the population to be served.
Changes: We have revised application requirement (1) to require
applicants to describe the needs of the students, students' family
members, and community members to be served, including basic
demographic characteristics of the students, students' family members,
and community members.
Comment: Two commenters recommended strengthening the language in
application requirement (2), which would require an applicant to
provide a list of partner entities, to underscore the importance of
realigning existing services and resources in support of the full-
service community school. The commenters noted that community schools
cannot be sustained if administrators rely entirely on the Federal FSCS
program or any single funding stream.
Discussion: We agree that applicants should describe how they will
realign existing resources to sustain the efforts of a full-service
community school. We further believe that an applicant's primary
emphasis should be on coordinating and integrating existing services
and leveraged resources.
Change: We have revised application requirement (2), to provide
that an applicant must describe how existing resources and services
will be coordinated and integrated with new resources and services.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that we revise application
requirement (3), regarding the memorandum of understanding, to provide
that the memorandum of understanding include information about the
services to be provided by partner entities and the results they will
work toward, in addition to the role each partner entity will assume.
Discussion: We agree that the memorandum of understanding should
include information about the role of each partner entity and the
resources and services it will provide. This will help ensure that
applicants have agreements in place to coordinate existing resources
and leverage other resources. Such agreements contribute to the long-
term sustainability of a community school effort. We will change the
language in the final requirements accordingly.
Changes: We have revised application requirement (3) to require
applicants to provide in their applications the memorandum of
understanding between the applicant and all partner entities,
describing the role each partner will assume, the services or resources
it will provide, and the desired results and outcomes.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department revise
application requirement (4), regarding organizational capacity, to
require applicants to include in their applications a description of
the existence of an infrastructure to support community schools at the
LEA level. The commenter asserted that system-wide support promotes
institutionalization of community schools as a strategy that will be
sustained by the LEA over time.
Discussion: As discussed earlier, we agree that system-level
support for community schools can promote better alignment of LEA
policies, practices, and resources with the activities and intended
outcomes of community schools. We also agree that requiring applicants
to address this aspect of organizational capacity would enhance our
ability to identify high-quality applications that are capable of
achieving the desired results and outcomes. We are therefore modifying
this requirement to require applicants to describe the existing or
proposed infrastructure as part of an overall description of the
applicant's experience partnering with the target school(s) and other
partner entities, including the LEA.
Changes: We have revised application requirement (4) to provide
that applicants must include in their applications a description of the
existing or proposed infrastructure to support implementation and
sustainability of the full service community school.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require
applicants to include a ``logic model'' in their applications. The
commenter asserted that inclusion of a logic model promotes strong
alignment of the goals, activities, objectives, performance measures,
and
[[Page 32444]]
outcomes of the project, resulting in a more coherent evaluation plan.
Discussion: We agree that clearly articulated and well-aligned
goals, activities, objectives, performance measures, and project
outcomes are critical to the design of an effective community school
and are modifying the application requirements to make this clear.
Applicants have the flexibility to select a logic model or use an
alternative approach of their choice to describe their projects' well-
aligned goals, activities, objectives, performance measures, and
project outcomes.
Changes: We have revised application requirement (5), regarding a
comprehensive plan, to require that applicants submit a comprehensive
plan that includes a description of well-aligned goals, services,
activities, objectives, performance measures, and project results and
outcomes.
Comment: One commenter suggested that application requirement (6),
which requires applicants to provide a list and description of eligible
services to be provided, be revised. The commenter recommended that we
require applicants to include a description of the applicant's approach
to integrating the existing and new programs and services with the
school's core instructional program.
Discussion: We agree that there should be intentional alignment
among key components of a full-service community school, including the
school's core instructional program, and are revising this requirement
accordingly. A full-service community school should work with its
partners to provide a coordinated, integrated, and results-focused set
of programs and services in response to the needs of its students,
students' family members, and community members. Such alignment is
needed for a full-service community school to be successful in
achieving a range of results and outcomes, including student academic
success.
Changes: We have revised application requirement (6) to require
applicants to include a description of the applicant's approach to
integrating new and existing programs and services with the school's
(or schools') core instructional program and identification of the
intended results and outcomes.
Comment: One commenter suggested revising application requirement
(7), which requires applicants to provide a description of how the
applicant will use data to drive decision-making and measure success.
The commenter recommended that we expand the data collection rubric to
require applicants to track results of health, social, and family
support indicators, in addition to the proposed academic and community
support indicators.
Discussion: We agree that applicants should collect data for a
range of project and program indicators to monitor and assess progress
toward achieving project results and outcomes and that those indicators
should align with the proposed project's goals, objectives, services,
and outcomes. As noted in the NIA, published elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register, all grantees are required to collect and report
on a program-level performance measure relevant to the individuals
served by the project. However, we also believe that it is important
for an applicant's data plan to include information related to project
services as well as the recipients of those services and are revising
the requirement accordingly. Applicants may design their plans based on
the design of their projects. We further believe that it is important
to emphasize in this requirement the need for applicants to ensure that
their data collections and use of data comply with applicable Federal,
State, and other privacy laws and requirements.
Changes: We have revised application requirement (7) to require
applicants to include a description in their applications of their
plans to monitor and assess outcomes of the eligible services provided
and coordinated by the FCSC project as well as the number of
individuals served. We also have revised this requirement to specify
that an applicant's plan must provide for compliance with Federal,
State, and other privacy laws and requirements.
Comment: Two commenters suggested revising application requirement
(8), regarding the role and responsibilities of the full-service
community school coordinator. The commenter recommended that we
emphasize the need for the FSCS coordinator to be an active member of a
joint planning effort consisting of key stakeholders from the school
and community to guide the overall community school strategy and
promote a sense of shared responsibility among all partners. Another
commenter suggested requiring the FSCS coordinator to be a full-time
position.
Discussion: We agree that the FSCS coordinator should work closely
with school leadership and community stakeholders to plan and implement
a community school strategy that aligns with and strengthens core
instruction. Further, the role of the FSCS coordinator should be
closely linked to the leadership and management of the school, beyond
simply coordinating additional programs and services. Such joint
planning encourages (1) identification of and support for mutually
defined results and outcomes that are responsive to students' needs,
(2) alignment of services with those needs, and (3) shared
accountability for achieving intended outcomes and results. We also
agree that performing the duties of an FSCS coordinator entails a full-
time commitment and are revising the requirement accordingly.
Changes: We have revised application requirement (8) to require
that the FSCS coordinator be employed full-time in that position at the
full-service community school and that the applicant include a
description of its proposed approach to ensuring that the FSCS
coordinator engages in joint planning with the principal and key
community stakeholders to guide the proposed full-service community
school.
Comment: One commenter suggested that all full-service community
schools be required to be open from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. so as to
expand community access to the facilities in order to achieve maximum
utilization of available resources.
Discussion: We agree that full-service community schools should
consider creative ways to expand learning opportunities and access to
services and supports, including by extending hours of building
facilities. However, we believe that such decisions are best left to
applicants to determine based on the unique circumstances in their
schools and communities.
Changes: None.
Eligible Applicants
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department broaden the
definition of Eligible Applicants to include a consortium of schools or
an LEA because, as the requirement is currently written, a consortium
of schools in a particular LEA could not apply without the approval of
its LEA.
Discussion: Eligible applicants under the FSCS program are
consortia consisting of an LEA and one or more community-based
organizations, non-profit organizations, or other public or private
entities. A public elementary or secondary school that has the
independent authority to apply for a grant from the Department may do
so. Generally, however, an individual school does not have independent
authority to apply for a grant from the Department, or make the
commitments required of a consortium partner. Consequently, in most
cases, public elementary and secondary schools, while they can serve as
FSCS sites, cannot be consortium partners or lead applicants and will
need their LEA to
[[Page 32445]]
form a consortium and submit an application to the Department.
Changes: None.
Planning
Comment: Some commenters suggested amending the language for the
optional planning year to direct applicants to devote adequate funding
for comprehensive planning, capacity building, technical assistance,
and evaluation. One commenter stated that grantees implementing one of
the three school intervention models should be required to devote
adequate funding for the first year of the project period to plan and
obtain intensive technical assistance to build capacity for
implementing a full-service community school. The commenter noted that
schools undergoing significant restructuring tend to require intensive
support for planning and implementation.
Discussion: We agree that including capacity-building activities as
an allowable use of funds during the planning year will help address
some of the technical assistance needs of projects that are in various
stages of readiness and are modifying the requirement to provide this
clarification. We believe that including comprehensive program planning
and capacity-building as allowable activities in the first year of the
project period will make those activities sufficiently broad in scope
to cover the diverse needs of FSCS applicants, including the need for
intensive technical assistance.
Changes: We have revised the requirement regarding the optional
planning year to allow applicants to use FSCS funds for capacity
building and establishing results-focused partnerships, as well as
comprehensive program planning.
Definitions
Comment: One commenter suggested adding definitions to describe the
concepts of ``results-focused partnerships'' and ``conditions for
learning'' to provide greater context for the FSCS program.
Discussion: We agree that defining ``results-focused partnerships''
would highlight the importance of partners working collaboratively to
achieve shared results and outcomes. In this regard, we believe that it
is important for school-community partnerships to be based on
identified needs and organized around a set of mutually defined results
and outcomes. We are adding a definition of results-focused
partnerships that reflects these key concepts.
In terms of defining ``conditions for learning,'' we acknowledge
that in order for students and the members of the communities in which
they reside to thrive, their schools must be effective. Effective
schools create learning environments that support student academic
success and other outcomes. When characterized by stable leadership and
a strong instructional program, full-service community schools have
been associated with improved attendance and student achievement,\2\
increased family and community engagement,\3\ and improved student
behavior and youth development.\4\ However, we decline to add a
definition of this term because we believe there are numerous factors
that contribute to effective learning and defining the term might limit
applicants' flexibility in developing their proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Krenichyn, Kira, Helene Clark, and Lymari Benitez (2008).
Children's Aid Society 21st Century Community Learning Centers
After-School Programs at Six Middle Schools: Final Report of a
Three-Year Evaluation, 2004-2007. New York: ActKnowledge.
\3\ Quinn, Jane, and Joy Dryfoos (2009). Freeing teachers to
teach: Students in full-service community schools are ready to
learn. American Educator, Summer 2009:16-21.
\4\ Whalen, Samuel (2007). Three Years Into Chicago's Community
Schools Initiative (CSI): Progress, Challenges, and Emerging
Lessons. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved April
9, 2010, from http://www.aypf.org/documents/CSI_ThreeYearStudy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: We have added the term results-focused partnerships to the
Definitions section of this notice and defined it to mean collaboration
between a full-service community school and one or more nonprofit
organizations (including community-based organizations) based on
identified needs and organized around a set of mutually defined results
and outcomes for increasing student success and improving access to
family and community services. We have added this term throughout this
notice, where appropriate.
Comment: One commenter suggested revising the definition of a full-
service community school to highlight the importance of providing
integrated services in response to identified needs. The commenter also
recommended revising the definition of full-service community school
coordinator to underscore the FSCS coordinator's role in planning
jointly with the school principal.
Discussion: We agree that the commenter's suggested edits
strengthen and clarify the meaning of full-service community school and
FSCS coordinator and are revising the definitions accordingly.
Changes: We have revised the first sentence of the definition of
full-service community school to indicate that services must be
integrated as well as coordinated. We have also revised the definition
of full-service community school coordinator to provide that the FSCS
coordinator works closely and plans jointly with the school principal
to drive the development and implementation of the full-service
community school.
Comment: One commenter suggested revising the definition of student
to include all children eligible to attend the school served by the
FSCS grant, not just those enrolled.
Discussion: We believe it is unnecessary to revise the definition
of student because a child residing in the community served by the
full-service community school could be eligible for services under the
definitions of either student's family member or community member. A
student means a child enrolled in a public elementary or secondary
school served by the FSCS grant. A child who lives in the community and
has a sibling or any other related individual living in the same
household as the student would fall under the definition of student's
family member and, therefore, would be eligible for services under that
definition. A child who does not meet the definition of student or
student's family member, but who lives in the community served by the
FSCS grant, would be eligible for services under the definition of
community member.
Changes: None.
Selection Criteria--Quality of Management Plan
Comment: One commenter suggested revising selection criterion
(c)(ii), Quality of the Management Plan, to include consideration of
the applicant's plan to obtain technical assistance for community
school planning and implementation.
Discussion: We do not believe applicants should be required to
obtain technical assistance, but if an applicant were to propose using
FSCS funds to obtain technical assistance, then that would be evaluated
along with other proposed uses of funds. Applicants should determine
for themselves their need for technical assistance in planning and
implementing their proposed project.
Changes: None.
Selection Criteria--Quality of Project Services
Comment: One commenter suggested that we revise selection criterion
(d)(2)(ii), Quality of Project Services, to
[[Page 32446]]
provide for consideration of the likelihood that the services to be
provided will lead to improvements in children's social and emotional
outcomes in addition to outcomes related to student achievement.
Discussion: We agree that a child's academic, social, and emotional
development can contribute to the child's long-term economic and social
success. We decline, however, to revise selection criterion (d)(2)(ii),
Quality of Project Services, in order to maintain focus on the
Department's reform goal of improving the academic achievement of
students. We also believe that consideration of the complete range of
supports and the desired results and outcomes of a proposed project is
best addressed in other selection criteria, such as Quality of the
Project Design.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding a selection criterion
that would be used to judge the extent to which applicants create and
expand technology infrastructure to support the work of community
schools.
Discussion: We agree that use of technology infrastructure can
support attainment of student outcomes as well as support program
management by enhancing a grantee's ability to use data to drive
decision-making and measure success. However, we do not believe it is
necessary to add a selection criterion specifically focused on
technology infrastructure because technology infrastructure may be
addressed in an applicant's responses to other selection criteria, such
as Quality of the Project Design, Adequacy of Resources, and Quality of
the Management Plan.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
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.
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34
CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet the priority.
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: With an invitational priority, we signal our
interest in receiving applications that meet the priority; however,
consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that
meets an invitational priority preference over other applications.
Final Priorities: The Secretary establishes the following
priorities for the Full-Service Community Schools program. We may apply
these priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.
Absolute Priority--Projects That Establish or Expand Full-Service
Community Schools
This absolute priority supports projects that propose to establish
or expand (through collaborative efforts among local educational
agencies, community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and
other public and private entities) full-service community schools, as
defined in this notice, offering a range of services. To meet this
priority, an applicant must propose a project that is based on
scientifically based research--as defined in section 9101(37) of the
ESEA--and that establishes or expands a full-service community school.
Each applicant must propose to provide at least three of the following
eligible services at each participating full-service community school
included in its proposed project:
1. High-quality early learning programs or services.
2. Remedial education, aligned with academic supports and other
enrichment activities, providing students with a comprehensive academic
program.
3. Family engagement, including parental involvement, parent
leadership, family literacy, and parent education programs.
4. Mentoring and other youth development programs;
5. Community service and service learning opportunities.
6. Programs that provide assistance to students who have been
chronically absent, truant, suspended, or expelled.
7. Job training and career counseling services.
8. Nutrition services and physical activities.
9. Primary health and dental care.
10. Activities that improve access to and use of social service
programs and programs that promote family financial stability.
11. Mental health services.
12. Adult education, including instruction of adults in English as
a second language.
Competitive Preference Priority--Strategies That Support Turning Around
Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools
We give competitive preference to applications that propose to
serve persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined in this notice,
and are currently implementing or plan to implement one of three school
intervention models, as defined in this notice, to enable these schools
to become full-service community schools. Applicants seeking to receive
this priority must describe (a) the school intervention model that
would be or is being implemented to improve academic outcomes for
students; (b) the academic, social, and/or health services that would
be provided and why; and (c) how the academic, social and/or health
services provided would align with and support the school intervention
model implemented.
Requirements
Requirements: The Secretary establishes the following requirements
for the FSCS program. We may apply these requirements in any year in
which this program is in effect.
In order to receive funding, an applicant must include the
following in its application:
1. A description of the needs of the students, students' family
members, and community members to be served, including information
about (a) the basic demographic characteristics of the students,
students' family members, and community members; (b) the magnitude or
severity of the needs to be addressed by the project; and (c) the
extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services,
infrastructures, or opportunities have been identified and will be
addressed by the proposed project.
2. A list of entities that will partner with the applicant to
coordinate existing services or to provide additional services that
promote successful student, family, and community results and outcomes.
The applicant must describe how existing resources and services will be
coordinated and integrated with new resources and services.
3. A memorandum of understanding between the applicant and all
partner entities, describing the role each partner will assume, the
services or resources each one will provide, and the desired results
and outcomes.
4. A description of the organizational capacity of the applicant to
provide and coordinate eligible services at a full-service community
school that will
[[Page 32447]]
support increased student achievement. The description must include the
applicant's experience partnering with the target school(s) and other
partner entities; examples of how the applicant has responded to
challenges working with these schools and entities; lessons learned
from similar work or previous community-school efforts, and a
description of the existing or proposed infrastructure to support the
implementation and sustainability of the full-service community school.
Applicants must also describe their past experience (a) building
relationships and community support to achieve results; and (b)
collecting and using data for decision-making and continuous
improvement.
5. A comprehensive plan based on results-focused partnerships, as
defined in this notice, that includes a description of well-aligned
goals, services, activities, objectives, performance measures, and
project results and outcomes. In addition, the plan must include the
estimated total number of individuals to be served, disaggregated by
the number of students, students' family members, and community
members, and the type and frequency of services to be provided to each
group.
6. A list and description of the eligible services to be provided
or coordinated by the applicant and the partner entities; a description
of the applicant's approach to integrating new and existing programs
and services with the school's (or schools') core instructional
program; and identification of the intended results and outcomes.
7. A description of how the applicant will use data to drive
decision-making and measure success. This includes a description of the
applicant's plans to monitor and assess outcomes of the eligible
services provided and coordinated by the FSCS project, as well as the
number of individuals served, while complying with Federal, State, and
other privacy laws and requirements.
8. A description of the roles and responsibilities of a full-time
FSCS coordinator and the proposed approach to ensuring that the FSCS
coordinator engages in joint planning with the principal and key
community stakeholders to guide the proposed full-service community
school.
Eligible Applicants
To be eligible for a grant under this competition, an applicant
must be a consortium consisting of a local educational agency and one
or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or
other public or private entities.
Cost-Sharing or Matching
To be eligible for an award, a portion of the services provided by
the applicant must be supported through non-Federal contributions,
either in cash or in-kind donations. The applicant must propose the
amount of cash or in-kind resources to be contributed for each year of
the grant.
Planning
Interagency collaborative efforts are highly complex undertakings
that require extensive planning and communication among partners and
key stakeholders. Partnerships should be based on identified needs and
organized around a set of mutually-defined results and outcomes. As a
result, applicants under this program may devote funds received during
the first year of the project period to comprehensive program planning,
establishing results-focused partnerships, and capacity building.
Funding received by grantees during the remainder of the project period
must be devoted to program implementation.
Definitions
The Secretary uses the following definitions for this program. We
may apply these definitions in any year in which this program is in
effect.
Community member means an individual who is not a student or a
student's family member, as defined in this notice, but who lives in
the community served by the FSCS grant.
Full-service community school means a public elementary or
secondary school that works with its local educational agency and
community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and other
public or private entities to provide a coordinated and integrated set
of comprehensive academic, social, and health services that respond to
the needs of its students, students' family members, and community
members. In addition, a full-service community school promotes family
engagement by bringing together many partners in order to offer a range
of supports and opportunities for students, students' family members,
and community members.
Full-service community school coordinator means an individual who
works closely and plans jointly with the school's principal to drive
the development and implementation of the FSCS effort and who, in that
capacity, facilitates the partnerships and coordination and integration
of service delivery.
Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the
State under the School Improvement Grants program (pursuant to the
final requirements for the School Improvement Grants program, 74 FR
65618, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2009)--
(1) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that--
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-
achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years;
and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, Title I funds that--
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools
or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of
schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
Results-focused partnership means a partnership between a full-
service community school and one or more nonprofit organizations
(including community-based organizations) that is based on identified
needs and organized around a set of mutually defined results and
outcomes for increasing student success and improving access to family
and community services.
School intervention model means one of the following three specific
interventions described in the final requirements for the School
Improvement Grants program, 74 FR 65618, published in the Federal
Register on December 10, 2009 and summarized as follows:
(1) Turnaround model, which includes, among other actions,
replacing the principal and rehiring no more than 50 percent of the
school's staff, adopting a new governance structure, and implementing
an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned
from one grade to the next as well as aligned with a State's academic
standards.
(2) Restart model, in which a local educational agency converts the
school or closes and reopens it under the management of a charter
school operator, a charter management
[[Page 32448]]
organization, or an education management organization that has been
selected through a rigorous review process.
(3) Transformation model, which addresses four specific areas
critical to transforming persistently lowest-achieving schools: (i)
Replace the principal and take steps to increase teacher and school
effectiveness; (ii) institute comprehensive instructional reforms;
(iii) increase learning time and create community-oriented schools;
(iv) provide operational flexibility and sustained support.
Student means a child enrolled in a public elementary or secondary
school served by the FSCS grant.
Student's family member means the student's parents/guardians,
siblings, and any other related individuals living in the same
household as the student and not enrolled in the school served by the
FSCS grant.
Selection Criteria
Final Selection Criteria
The Secretary establishes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under the FSCS 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, the application package, or both,
we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each
criterion.
(a) Quality of the Project Design.
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed
project consists of a comprehensive plan that includes a description
of--
(i) The project objectives;
(ii) The students, students' family members, and community to be
served, including information about the demographic characteristics and
needs of the students, students' family members, and other community
members and the estimated number of individuals to be served; and
(iii) The eligible services (as listed in the Absolute Priority
described elsewhere in this notice) to be provided or coordinated by
the applicant and its partner entities, how those services will meet
the needs of students, students' family members, and other community
members, and the frequency with which those services will be provided
to students, students' family members, and community members.
(b) Adequacy of Resources.
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the
proposed project.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources to be provided by the applicant and
consortium partners;
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
and
(iii) The extent to which costs are reasonable in relation to the
number of persons to be served and services to be provided.
(c) Quality of the Management Plan.
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the proposed project consists of a
comprehensive plan that includes a description of planning,
coordination, management, and oversight of the eligible services (as
listed in the Absolute Priority described elsewhere in this notice) to
be provided at each school to be served, including the role of the
school principal, the FSCS coordinator, partner entities, parents, and
community members;
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of the FSCS coordinator and other key project personnel
including prior performance of the applicant on similar or related
efforts; and
(iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director, the FSCS coordinator, and other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project.
(d) Quality of Project Services.
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be
provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the project services, the
Secretary considers the following:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective
practice; and
(ii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the
proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of
students as measured against rigorous academic standards.
(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation.
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the extent to which the proposed evaluation--
(i) Sets out methods of evaluation that include the use of
objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended
outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative
data to the extent possible;
(ii) Will provide timely and valid information on the management,
implementation, or efficiency of the project; and
(iii) Will provide guidance on or strategies for replicating or
testing the project intervention in multiple settings.
Factors Applicants May Wish to Consider in Developing an Evaluation
Plan.
The quality of the evaluation plan is one of the selection criteria
by which applications in this competition will be judged. A strong
evaluation plan should be included in the application narrative and
should be used, as appropriate, to shape the development of the project
from the beginning of the project period. The plan should include
benchmarks to monitor progress toward specific project objectives and
also outcome measures to assess the impact on teaching and learning or
other important outcomes for project participants. More specifically,
the plan should identify the individual or organization that has agreed
to serve as evaluator for the project and describe the qualifications
of that evaluator. The plan should describe the evaluation design,
indicating: (1) What types of data will be collected; (2) when various
types of data will be collected; (3) what methods will be used; (4)
what instruments will be developed and when; (5) how the data will be
analyzed; (6) when reports of results and outcomes will be available;
and (7) how the applicant will use the information collected through
the evaluation to monitor progress of the funded project and to provide
accountability information both about success at the initial site and
about effective strategies for replication in other settings.
Applicants are encouraged to devote an appropriate level of resources
to project evaluation.
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 final priorities and one or more of
these final requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
[[Page 32449]]
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.
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 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.
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.
Dated: June 3, 2010.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2010-13775 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P