[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 117 (Friday, June 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34892-34910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14730]
[[Page 34891]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol M. White Physical Education Program; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 117 / Friday, June 18, 2010 /
Notices
[[Page 34892]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Carol M. White Physical Education Program; Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.215F
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
announces priorities, requirements, and definitions for the Carol M.
White Physical Education Program (PEP). The Assistant Deputy Secretary
may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, and definitions
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and later years. We take this
action to align PEP projects more closely with best practices and
research related to improving children's health and fitness, to improve
students' physical activity, and to improve students' ability to meet
their State physical education standards.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, and definitions
are effective July 19, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlette Huntley, U.S. Department of
Education, 550 12th Street, SW., Room 10071, PCP, Washington, DC,
20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 245-7871 or by e-mail:
[email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of PEP is to initiate, expand, and
improve physical education for students in grades K-12.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7261-7261f.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 299.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and
definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register on March 16, 2010 (75 FR
12522). That notice contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular priorities, requirements, and definitions.
There are several differences between the NPP and this notice of
final priorities, requirements, and definitions (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, 59
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements,
and definitions.
We discuss substantive issues under the title of the item to which
they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes, or suggested changes we are not authorized 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 or requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since
publication of the NPP follows.
Absolute Priority--Programs Designed To Create Quality Physical
Education Programs
Comment: One commenter suggested rewriting the absolute priority to
include improving physical education as an educational outcome.
Discussion: We consider an improvement in physical education to be
an educational outcome and do not see the need to include additional
outcomes. The absolute priority clearly requires applicants to propose
projects that address physical education. More specifically, the
absolute priority requires every applicant to develop, expand, or
improve its physical education program and address its State's physical
education standards. Additionally, an applicant must provide
instruction in healthy eating habits and implement at least one of the
other program elements as described in the program statute (see
sections 5501-5507 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, as amended; 20 U.S.C. 7261-7261f). These 2010 program
requirements will help applicants develop a strategic approach to
improving physical education and nutrition instruction by requiring an
assessment of local efforts to address identified deficiencies.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that encouraging students to
engage in moderate to vigorous exercise should be the primary focus of
PEP. Some commenters also suggested that increasing the proportion of
time in which students in physical education classes are active should
be a priority.
Discussion: We agree that moderate to vigorous physical activity by
students and increasing the proportion of time that students are active
in physical education classes are important outcomes for physical
education programs, but disagree with the commenters that these should
be the exclusive or primary focus of PEP. Instead, we believe that a
comprehensive approach, incorporating both high-quality physical
education and nutrition instruction strategies, offers the best
opportunity for students to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary
to help them understand the complementary relationship between physical
education and nutrition, and the role that both of these areas can play
in improving their health.
Further, we believe that the program requirements we are
establishing will promote the types of programs that will improve the
percentage of students who engage in moderate to vigorous physical
activity during physical education classes and throughout the day.
Through these requirements, we highlight the importance of initiatives
that move students from being sedentary, often because of a lack of
high-quality programming, to being more active, and towards a lifestyle
that includes moderate to vigorous physical activity in various
settings, including in physical education classes. The requirements
reflect an approach that looks not just at student-level improvements,
but at broad, systemic changes that will be sustained over time to
continually improve opportunities for students to engage in moderate to
vigorous physical activity. If grantees would like to assess the time
that students engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity, we
would encourage them to do so and have designed at least one of our
required performance measures to support this type of assessment. For
all of these reasons, we believe that improvements to physical
education programs under PEP will result in more active time for
students during physical education classes, resulting in improved
student outcomes, and that there is no need to focus explicitly on
moderate to vigorous physical activity and increased activity time in
physical education classes as part of the absolute priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that all six of the PEP elements
included in the program's authorizing statute be part of all quality
physical education programs.
Discussion: We agree that all six elements are important facets of
a comprehensive program, and applicants may propose to include all six
elements as part of their proposed project if desired. At this time,
however, we are not requiring applicants to include in their projects
all six of the PEP program elements, because we want to provide
flexibility for applicants to select approaches and activities that are
linked to the priority needs identified for their schools and
communities. We believe the absolute priority appropriately balances
the positive aspects of moving to a more comprehensive approach with
[[Page 34893]]
flexibility for applicants to design a project that effectively
addresses their particular needs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the competitive
preference priorities do not address the absolute priority.
Discussion: The competitive preference priorities are designed to
encourage applicants to develop proposals that will result in stronger
PEP projects within the context of the absolute priority.
We note that, in our judgment, the adoption of either, or both, of
the approaches identified as competitive preference priorities is
likely to produce superior results. Both competitive preference
priorities are likely to enhance long-term sustainability by
encouraging efforts to leverage community resources and to build
community investment in the program (partnership), and also efforts to
provide data to policymakers so that they can make informed decisions
about budget and programming in the future. An effective PEP project
could be implemented without a grantee engaging in either competitive
preference priority, which is why we opted not to require either or
both.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed a desire to increase
accountability in PEP, and suggested that adding the term
``assessment'' to each of the program elements in the absolute priority
would emphasize the need for assessment to be part of activities
implemented as part of a PEP grant.
Discussion: We agree that PEP would be strengthened by increasing
the emphasis on assessment, evaluation, and accountability, and have
already incorporated requirements in the final priorities,
requirements, and definitions to address this concern. For example, we
are ensuring accountability in the program by requiring the use of
assessment tools such as the Physical Education Curriculum Assessment,
the Health Education Curriculum Assessment, and the School Health
Index, all of which enhance program assessment. As a result, we do not
believe that it is necessary to make the change suggested by the
commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed a concern that requiring PEP
grantees to address the program element related to nutrition
instruction would weaken the focus on physical education and dilute
limited funding available to support activities designed to improve
physical education.
Discussion: We believe that a PEP project that incorporates both
high-quality physical education and nutrition instruction strategies
offers the best opportunity for students to acquire the information and
skills necessary to help them understand the complementary relationship
between physical education and nutrition, and understand the role that
physical activity and nutrition can play in improving and maintaining
their health.
Furthermore, the legislation authorizing PEP has always included
nutrition instruction as a program element and a significant number of
past PEP grantees have elected to incorporate nutrition instruction in
their projects. Generally, costs associated with including nutrition
instruction have represented a fairly modest proportion of project
funds, especially when compared to the costs of purchasing fitness
equipment.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters asked us to emphasize in the absolute
priority the use of evidence-based approaches or established best
practices in the field. For example, some commenters suggested that the
Department focus the priority on research-based curriculum design,
which is common in other subjects such as math, reading, and science,
and encourage use of similar strategies for physical education,
including alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; other
commenters stated that the Department should emphasize a variety of
evidence-based approaches for which information is readily available
via the Internet. Another commenter suggested that we fund only
programs that use evidence-based approaches.
Discussion: We agree that use of research-based programs and
established best practices strategies by PEP grantees would likely
improve program outcomes. However, there is a limited research base of
effective programs and strategies that would be applicable to the scope
of PEP and relevant to all communities and applicants, and
additionally, we want to encourage innovation in this area. We believe
that the program requirements that require implementation of the School
Health Index (SHI) assessment, as well as of the Physical Activity
Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) and the Health Education Curriculum
Analysis Tool (HECAT) curriculum assessments will help applicants
compare their current activities to established best practices in the
field.
We provide examples of a range of resources for evidence-based
practices in the application package, including some of those suggested
by one commenter. We encourage applicants to refer to those resources,
as well as other resources, to design an evidence-based program that
addresses the applicant's greatest needs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that we more clearly define what
we mean by the absolute priority elements concerning motor skills,
physical activity, and the development of positive social and
cooperative skills.
Discussion: We believe that the statutory language is sufficiently
clear; these are terms that are commonly understood in the field or may
be specifically defined in State standards. Accordingly, we do not
believe it is necessary to define them here.
Changes: None.
Competitive Preference Priority 1--Collection of Body Mass Index
Measurement
Comment: One commenter suggested that PEP grantees secure BMI
information from physicians' offices and that this approach would help
address some of the issues related to collection of BMI data, including
privacy concerns and the need to purchase equipment and provide
training on collecting BMI data.
Discussion: We believe that the approach suggested by the commenter
would introduce different data collection and reporting challenges. For
example, it is unlikely that all students have regular physicians that
maintain wellness and other records. Also, physicians might not have
collected BMI information and could not be compelled to furnish this
information if it is available. Grantees and physicians would also need
to be sure that requirements are satisfied concerning the non-
consensual sharing of any protected health-related information or
personally identifiable information from education records, such as the
requirements contained in Federal, State, and local laws, regulations,
and policies regarding student level data collection and privacy.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged the Department to exercise caution in
using measures such as BMI to measure progress for the program, and
indicated that the measures required under the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) included in requirement 9 are more
appropriate measures for short-term grant projects.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter. The competitive preference
priority concerning BMI is designed to provide important aggregate
information
[[Page 34894]]
about the health status of students generally, and should serve as a
surveillance tool for grantees that elect to implement the priority,
not as a measure of program performance. We believe that the
performance measures included as part of requirement 9 will complement
the collection of BMI data by providing a range of measures that will
permit grantees to assess improvements in several key areas, and
provide data that the Department can use to help assess the overall
effectiveness of PEP.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the need to have
appropriate supports in place for students and families when BMI data
are reported. For example, one commenter expressed concern that the
collection and reporting of BMI data to students and parents without
appropriate information could be associated with an increase in eating
disorders and urged the Department to provide technical assistance to
PEP grantees to help address this concern. Another commenter suggested
that grantees collecting BMI data have a system in place to refer
students with weight concerns to qualified health professionals for
additional assessment and intervention if that is needed.
Discussion: We agree that careful consideration should be given to
the complex policy and practice questions related to BMI data
collection, particularly if BMI information is to be shared with both
students and parents. The competitive preference priority requires that
grantees who choose to address the priority ensure that their plan
includes resources for safe and effective follow-up with trained
medical care providers when BMI data suggest that such follow-up
services are needed.
We plan to include in the application package a reference to
available resources to help applicants implement these kinds of
activities in the safest and most effective way possible, including the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Children's BMI Tool
for Schools; that information is available online at http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/bmi/. We will also offer technical
assistance to applicants and grantees to ensure that students' privacy
is protected and that procedures are carried out in a manner that is
confidential and sensitive to all students' privacy.
We note that recent research shows no increase in eating disorders
or disordered eating behaviors following an increased focus on obesity
prevention. Data from Arkansas, where schools have been collecting BMI
from students for several years, show no increase in eating
disorders.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Schwarz M. and Henderson K. Does obesity prevention cause
eating disorders? J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 2009,
48(8):784-786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that we use an additional or
alternative measure to BMI to assess population health status and the
impact of PEP, including measures collected by a commercial fitness
assessment tool, bioelectric impedance, skin fold tests, or measures
such as attendance and academic performance that may correlate with
fitness and health.
Discussion: BMI is relatively easy to measure, can be done quickly
and non-invasively, and provides a standard tool for measuring and
assessing student weight status across a site or between sites. We have
opted to use the CDC's BMI-for-age growth charts as our standard for
measurement and assessment because this approach represents the
recommended method of reporting size and growth patterns among children
in the United States. The CDC BMI-for-age growth charts provide a full
array of percentile levels, which allows for greater interpretation of
weight status in the population and among individuals. The CDC 2000
growth charts provide the best reference data available for the growth
of U.S. children. Additionally, using the same method for interpreting
BMI data collection will allow for data comparisons across PEP sites.
Applicants that opt to undertake BMI measurement and assessment as
part of their project should describe their plan to obtain student-
level data, consistent with the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Act Amendment (PPRA), which
may be done using commercial fitness testing products that applicants
may already have in use. The raw height and weight data collected using
this tool can be easily converted to correspond with the CDC BMI-for-
age growth charts, which must be used to be responsive to the
competitive preference priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about BMI measurement and
the lack of evidence that use of BMI measurements will lead to more
physical activity or improved physical education programs.
Discussion: The use of BMI assessment data under this competitive
priority is intended to create a mechanism to understand trends at the
population level, including in the context of the other required
measures of this program, in fitness, physical activity, and nutrition,
and how the combination of these measures can be used to improve
physical education programming and policy, and potentially help
students meet their State standards for physical education.
The use of BMI assessment data would inform program planners about
overall trends in the population's weight status, which may be used to
inform decisions about programming and policy at the program site and
in the broader community. BMI data are not intended to be used to
measure a project's success; projects might not even reasonably expect
to see major changes in BMI scores during the project period. Rather,
applicants that choose to address the competitive preference priority
for collecting and reporting BMI data should consider how BMI
information would be used in the context of the required measures for
PEP. We also encourage applicants who choose to address this priority
to use this opportunity to create or enhance sustainable systems that
can be used to make data-based decisions for continuous program
improvement.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that some States permit
the collection and use of BMI data, while other States might prohibit
or have restrictions on the collection and use of such data. One
commenter cited States that already require the use of BMI data,
potentially providing an advantage to applicants from those States.
Similarly, another commenter suggested that some States may prohibit
BMI assessment and that including BMI assessment as a competitive
preference priority would place applicants from those States at a
disadvantage. These commenters suggested that if BMI assessment is
included in the program, that applicants not receive any additional
points for electing to implement a plan to use such data.
Discussion: While applicants that are already collecting BMI data
may be able to implement the competitive preference priority more
quickly if their project is funded, they will not have any advantage
over other applicants because the priority requires only that
applicants demonstrate their commitment to addressing the elements of
the priority by including an assurance with their application. Grantees
will be able to use program funds to obtain equipment, training, and
other resources necessary to assist them in effectively implementing
this competitive preference priority, helping to level the playing
field for all applicants.
We do not believe that there are any States that prohibit BMI data
collection,
[[Page 34895]]
but we encourage applicants to understand and follow Federal, State,
and local laws, regulations, and policies regarding student-level data
collection and privacy.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the complexity involved with
BMI data collection could discourage smaller educational entities and
communities from applying for a grant.
Discussion: We understand that collecting and reporting BMI data
might pose challenges for applicants. If small school districts or
communities need additional assistance to implement the competitive
preference priority, they should include costs associated with
collecting and reporting BMI data in their proposed budget. Allowable
costs might include, for example, additional staff time to facilitate
collection and reporting, purchase of needed equipment, purchase of
technical assistance services, professional development costs, or
resources to develop and disseminate information to parents and the
community about BMI data.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received several comments expressing concern that BMI
data interpreted in isolation at the individual level might not provide
an accurate assessment of health status, particularly for athletes, or
at the program level to assess project goals.
Discussion: The intent of the BMI data collection is to provide a
population-level analysis of the weight status of the student
population, at the school, site, or district level. Although applicants
should consider whether and how individual assessments may be shared
with students and their families, the intent of this priority is
focused on population surveillance. BMI assessment is also not
necessarily intended to serve as an assessment of the program's short-
or long-term goals. Program planners should consider how they will use
the data to assess the impact of the program on the population's weight
patterns but we expect that the changes as a result of PEP
implementation may take longer than the project period. We have
measures to assess the project's goals, such as physical activity, that
are, in theory, directly affected by the activities that grantees will
implement.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department provide
specific instructions on how to collect BMI data. The commenters stated
that this information should be included on CDC's Web site.
Discussion: We agree that careful planning and training should be
undertaken for projects that elect to address the proposed competitive
preference priority concerning BMI assessment. As a result, we plan to
include in the application package a reference to examples of available
resources, including CDC's Children's BMI Tool for Schools, to help
implement these kinds of activities in the safest and most effective
way possible. This information is available on the CDC's Web site at:
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/bmi/ bmi/.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter questioned why parental permission would be
necessary to collect BMI data since overall fitness testing or other
assessments do not require parental permission.
Discussion: The competitive preference priority requires that
parents be given the opportunity to have their child opt out of the BMI
assessment after they have been informed of this choice. Applicants who
wish to address the competitive preference priority related to BMI
assessment are required to sign a Program-Specific Assurance that they
will include parents in the development and implementation of their
protocols to collect and report BMI data.
The final priorities, requirements, and definitions also reference
the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Grantees that
engage in BMI data collection could be subject to the U.S. Department
of Education's Protection of Human Subjects regulations found in 34 CFR
part 97 if the data are used in research funded by the Federal
Government or for any future research conducted by an institution that
has adopted the Federal policy for all research of that institution.
Grantees will need to review carefully the scope and design of
their project to determine if parental permission for collecting and
reporting BMI data is required by State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, if applicable. We will provide technical assistance to
grantees to help them make this determination.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter believed that by requiring the collection of
BMI data, grantees would be compelled to purchase a commercial fitness
assessment product.
Discussion: The use of a commercial product is not necessary to
collect BMI data. Grantees can effectively collect BMI data without a
specific fitness assessment product. In fact, many districts are
conducting population-based BMI assessments with fairly simple
equipment and spending more time and resources developing protocols and
engaging in professional development to ensure that the assessment is
done accurately and with sensitivity to students.
Grantees should design a program that is commensurate with their
identified needs and propose a budget that is commensurate with that
project design. Because BMI assessment is a competitive preference
priority, applicants can opt not to undertake that collection. If,
however, an applicant commits to undertaking BMI assessment, the
applicant should determine the most appropriate methods and tools for
undertaking this activity. While the grant does allow for costs
associated with needed equipment, technical assistance, and resource
products, the Department does not require, recommend, or endorse the
purchase or use of any particular commercial product for meeting this
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters requested that we change the competitive
preference priority to an invitational priority.
Discussion: We believe the collection of BMI data has value in
helping programs identify the percentage of students who might be
obese, overweight, normal weight, and underweight, thus allowing them
to better understand the needs of the population they serve. As such,
we have opted to give competitive preference to applicants that choose
to undertake this activity.
Changes: None.
Competitive Preference Priority 2--Partnerships Between Applicants and
Supporting Community Entities
Comment: Several commenters expressed a concern about the
requirement to include the ``head of local government,'' as a required
partner in order to satisfy the proposed competitive preference
priority concerning partnerships. Specifically, commenters doubted that
the head of local government would have time to play a meaningful role
in a PEP project and were also concerned about the difficulty of
securing support from the head of local government, particularly in
large urban areas. One commenter expressed concern that requiring
involvement of the head of local government would inject a political
element into the grant.
Discussion: Although we believe that the head of local government
can
[[Page 34896]]
provide a significant leadership role in community-wide efforts to
improve physical education, increase levels of physical activity, and
enhance knowledge about nutrition and healthy eating, we understand
that in some communities it may be difficult or even impossible to
secure support of the head of local government. We address this concern
by providing a broader definition of the term ``head of local
government'' in the final definitions.
Changes: We have revised the definition of ``head of local
government'' as follows: ``the head of, or an appropriate designee of,
the party responsible for the civic functioning of the county, city,
town, or municipality would be considered the head of local
government.''
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the competitive
preference priority for partnerships is far-reaching and detracts from
PEP's basic purpose of helping students meet State standards for
physical education. Commenters also expressed concern about the burden
associated with creating and maintaining the kinds of partnerships
envisioned in the competitive preference priority, and stated that work
on partnerships would dilute efforts to improve the quality of physical
education programs. In some instances, commenters stated that it might
also be difficult for community based organizations (CBOs) to establish
such partnerships and that the inability to do so might place them at a
competitive disadvantage.
Discussion: We believe that collaborative efforts between school
and community entities will greatly enhance the ability of grantees to
provide effective and comprehensive PEP programs that help students
live and learn lifelong healthy habits. We believe that both schools
and CBOs can contribute to partnerships that are designed specifically
to meet the needs of their student population. Best practices in the
field suggest that this type of community collaboration enhances the
project's effectiveness and possibility for being sustained past the
period of Federal assistance. Although all applicants who choose to
address this competitive preference priority would be required to
engage in additional work to create and maintain partnerships, we
believe that the important outcomes that could be gained by doing the
work outweigh the concerns about the potential burden imposed.
We have designed a competitive preference priority to allow CBOs to
identify community partners that would enhance their efforts and
connect their programs to other community initiatives. Although the
makeup of the partner groups will differ between LEAs and CBOs, we do
not believe that there is a significant difference between the priority
requirements for LEAs or CBOs or that the priority places CBOs at a
competitive disadvantage because both LEAs and CBOs are equally able to
create and maintain the partnerships required.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that partners provide significant
help in implementing and sustaining programs and policies and suggested
that we incorporate competitive preference priority 2 into the absolute
priority for the program.
Discussion: We agree that a coordinated, community-wide approach is
likely to be the most powerful model for establishing and sustaining
comprehensive efforts to provide physical education, nutrition
education, and other activities and programs.
However, we are concerned that some potential applicants for PEP
might not be able to secure each of the required partners. We believe
that inclusion of the competitive preference priority strikes an
appropriate balance between encouraging the use of this approach and
not creating a disadvantage for applicants that cannot secure each of
the required partners.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that applicants be permitted to
use the State public health entity rather than the local public health
entity to satisfy the competitive preference priority concerning
partnerships because responsibility for some issues related to PEP
might rest with State officials.
Discussion: The proposed definition of the term ``local public
health entity'' included in the NPP provided an exception for
applicants from Rhode Island and Hawaii because neither State has sub-
State public health units. While we believe that a local public health
entity is likely to be more involved in implementing a PEP project, we
have learned that some States that have local public health units may
not assign responsibility for issues related to nutrition, physical
education, or physical activity to those local units. Based on this new
information, we have revised the definition of the term ``local public
health entity'' to address this situation.
Changes: We have revised the definition of the term ``local public
health entity'' to permit applicants whose local public health entity
does not have responsibility for issues related to physical education,
nutrition, or physical activity to partner with the State public health
entity instead.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we revise the language
concerning partner contributions in item (2) of the competitive
preference priority by removing the word ``if''. Because partners are
signing the partnership agreement, the commenter stated that it is
reasonable to assume that they will be contributing to the partnership
in some way and that those contributions should be specified in the
agreement.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter's suggestion and have
revised the priority.
Changes: We have revised item (2) in the competitive preference
priority accordingly.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the time typically
allowed to complete the application would not be sufficient to create a
partnership as described in the competitive priority concerning
partnerships.
Discussion: The Department must obligate all FY 2010 PEP funds by
September 30, 2010 or those funds will revert to the U.S. Treasury. We
are providing as much time as possible for applicants to develop and
submit their applications under the FY 2010 PEP grant competition. All
applicants will be subject to the same deadline.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that public health entities be
allowed to function as the required partner representing an
organization supporting nutrition or healthy eating under competitive
preference priority 2.
Discussion: If the only entity in the community that can provide a
perspective on nutrition to the advisory committee is the public health
entity, we believe it would be an acceptable partner to satisfy the
competitive priority and, therefore, have revised the priority.
Changes: We have revised the language in the priority and added
public health entities to the definition of ``organizations supporting
nutrition and healthy eating.''
Requirement 1--Align Project Goals With Identified Needs Using the
School Health Index
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department promote
implementation of Coordinated School Health Programs in conjunction
with the use of the School Health Index (SHI) as included in this
requirement.
Discussion: We agree that a Coordinated School Health Program model
provides a strong framework and context in which physical education,
nutrition, and other important health
[[Page 34897]]
topics can be addressed by schools. Proposed requirement 4, which
concerns linkages with Federal, State, and local initiatives, is
designed to encourage applicants to consider how their proposed PEP
project could be implemented in ways that maximize coordination with
other health-related activities being implemented in schools and
communities, including with Coordinated School Health Program
initiatives. However, because eligible applicants for PEP include
entities that are not schools or school districts, it would not be
appropriate to require that all PEP projects implement a Coordinated
School Health Program.
We believe that requirement 1, with its focus on SHI only, is an
appropriate assessment tool because it can be used without requiring
the use of the Coordinated School Health Program framework for
programming and policy development.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department use the CDC's
SHI as part of a competitive preference priority rather than as part of
a program requirement so that applicants would be encouraged to conduct
an assessment for each application cycle.
Discussion: We agree that applicants should use the SHI assessment
tool to plan their proposed PEP project. For that reason, we drafted
this requirement to ensure that each applicant conducts the SHI
assessment at the time of application and that funded grantees
undertake the SHI at the end of their project period to assess their
progress. With this structure, use of the SHI assessment is required,
which we view as better than simply encouraging it.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested allowing applicants more
flexibility in choosing a needs assessment tool rather than requiring
that applicants use CDC's SHI. One commenter stated that any needs
assessment should include a review of the legal and policy context in
which the project would be implemented, and examine the incentives and
enforcement mechanisms that are in place to ensure that students are
receiving quality physical education.
Discussion: In part, we included this requirement in the NPP to
respond to language in the conference report accompanying the FY 2010
appropriations statute that includes funding for PEP. In addition to
Congressional interest in having PEP applicants complete the SHI, we
believe that completing the questions concerning physical activity and
nutrition required in Modules 1-4 of the SHI assessment tool will
assist applicants in designing a project that is closely aligned with
their needs and is consistent with best practices in the field.
The SHI is a relatively easy and straightforward tool, designed
specifically for a school to assess its current policies and practices
based on evidence and best practices. Findings from the SHI are also
tied to action plans, which should inform the project design. We do not
believe there is another tool that is easy to use, free, publicly
accessible, aligned with technical assistance opportunities, and
broadly applies scientifically-based principles to program and policy
in a national context. Moreover, by requiring LEA applicants to use a
single assessment tool, we will be better able to understand how
schools change over the course of their project.
As set forth in the text of the requirement, CBO applicants that
have not identified a school or LEA partner in their applications are
not required to use the SHI. However, they must use an alternative
needs assessment tool to assess the nutrition and physical activity
environment in the community for the children to be served by the
grant. There are no comparable tools for CBOs that embody all of the
desirable attributes of the SHI for the community-based setting. We
will include, in the application package, guidance to CBO applicants on
what CBO applicants might consider if they select an alternative
assessment tool to the SHI.
Finally, while not required, we encourage all applicants to assess
their policy and legal contexts if they determine it is appropriate and
they are able to do so. We believe that the SHI will assess the policy
context but because grantees cannot necessarily change the legal
context in which they would implement their projects, we do not believe
that we should require this type of assessment.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters offered suggestions about how CDC's
SHI assessment should be used in the PEP program. One commenter
recommended that the Department revise requirement 1 to make it clear
that applicants must complete Modules 1-4 of the SHI, while another
commenter recommended that we delete the requirement that applicants
complete Module 1 because not all of the questions in that module
relate to topics that are likely to be included in a PEP project. Other
commenters recommended expanding the requirement to include Module 8 of
the SHI (Family and Community Involvement) given the Department's
increased focus on creating school-community partnerships, as evidenced
by the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions in the NPP.
Discussion: Applicants are only required to complete the physical
activities and nutrition questions in Modules 1-4 of the SHI assessment
tool. Applicants are not required to complete any other questions in
those or other SHI modules. Applicants may choose to complete other
questions (in addition to those physical activity and nutrition
questions required) if they believe that doing so would be helpful in
designing their proposed PEP projects.
Changes: None.
Requirement 2--Nutrition- and Physical Activity-Related Policies
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about the ability of an
LEA or CBO to change or affect physical activity and nutrition policies
in their respective settings. One commenter stated that it will be
difficult for CBOs to change or affect policies because the scope of
the policies subject to review and revision under this requirement is
much broader than the scope of the policies that a CBO can adopt and
implement. Another commenter discussed the challenges in writing and
implementing specific policies in school districts, and stated that the
focus of the requirement should be on reviewing and updating policies
rather than developing new policies.
Discussion: Requirement 2, which addresses the nutrition- and
physical activity-related policies to be developed, updated, or
enhanced by grantees during the PEP grant, does not specify particular
policies that must be developed, reviewed, and potentially revised.
Rather, applicants must describe their current policy framework and the
process they plan to use to review, develop, implement, and monitor
policies. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that PEP
grantees carefully consider the role of policy development and
implementation in creating comprehensive PEP projects, and that they
commit to making policy changes that support improvements in the areas
of physical activity and nutrition during the project period of the PEP
grant. Policy changes are also likely key to institutionalizing and
sustaining progress made during a PEP project.
We believe that examining the policy framework in which projects
are implemented will help grantees identify needed policy changes that
can remove impediments to, or provide incentives
[[Page 34898]]
for, enhanced physical education or improved nutrition outcomes. We do
not expect grantees to address policies that are outside their
authorized mission or scope.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several comments expressed concern about the relationship
between proposed requirements 2 (nutrition-and physical activity-
related policies), 3 (linkage with local wellness policies), and 4
(linkages with Federal, State, and local initiatives). One commenter
proposed that the Department offer applicants the option of meeting
either requirement 2 or 3 stating that both requirements entail the
same sort of analysis and action. Another commenter suggested that we
combine the three requirements into a single requirement because the
foci of the three requirements are related.
Discussion: We acknowledge that requirements 2, 3, and 4 are
related, but we elected not to combine them because the three
requirements may apply differently depending on the applicant's
organization and the context in which it operates. We believe that
stating the three requirements separately enables us to address how
each requirement applies in different contexts. We believe that this
approach will help ensure that applicants understand the requirements
and will be able to respond to them appropriately in their
applications.
For example, requirement 3 concerns linkages with local wellness
policies. LEAs are typically the entities responsible for developing
and implementing local wellness polices. For this reason, the
requirement, as applied to LEAs, is straightforward. Given that we also
expect non-LEA applicants to apply for PEP grants, we have included
information in this requirement to address those applicants as well.
Under this requirement, CBOs whose PEP applications include a
partnership with LEAs must describe in their applications how the
project will enhance or support the intent of the local wellness
policies of participating LEAs, while CBOs not in partnerships with
LEAs do not have to satisfy this requirement.
Although we believe that the best approach to describing these
three program requirements is to present them separately, applicants
are encouraged to provide in their applications a comprehensive
discussion of their policy framework and of linkages with other
existing initiatives. Applicants need not repeat information that
responds to more than one of the requirements.
Changes: None.
Requirement 3--Linkage With Local Wellness Policies
Comment: Some commenters raised concerns that proposed requirement
3, which concerns the linkage with local wellness policies, will be
challenging for CBOs to meet and that time spent by staff in managing
activities related to the requirement would reduce an organization's
ability to provide direct services to students.
Discussion: As stated in this requirement, if an applicant or one
its partners does not participate in the school programs authorized by
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, it might not have a
local wellness policy and, therefore, might not be required to meet
this requirement or to adopt a local wellness policy. However, we
encourage all applicants to consider developing a local wellness policy
consistent with the policies required by the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004 in conjunction with their PEP projects. If
a CBO applicant has an LEA partner, it would be required to address
that LEA's local wellness policy.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department revise this
requirement concerning linkages to local wellness policies to
accommodate any changes that might result from reauthorization of the
Child Nutrition Act.
Discussion: In future years before using the priorities,
requirements, and definitions established in this NFP, we will
carefully review program requirements to determine if legislative
action or other changes require the Department to modify the
priorities, requirements, or definitions in this NFP under this
requirement.
Changes: None.
Requirement 4--Linkages With Federal, State, and Local Initiatives
Comment: Two commenters suggested that we include a reference to
the Recovery Act Community Putting Prevention to Work Community
Initiative (CPPW) grantees in the application package.
Discussion: We agree that adding such a reference could be helpful
to applicants. The link to the CPPW Web page (http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/recovery/community.htm), which includes a list of grant
recipients and additional information on the initiative, will be
provided in the application package. We believe that this program,
which includes in its goals a focus on improving physical activity and
nutrition habits of residents, has the potential to complement efforts
undertaken as part of the PEP program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that having programs align
with Coordinated School Health programs or CPPW grants, as required
under Requirement 4, would place a significant burden on applicants.
Discussion: We believe that applicants and PEP-funded projects must
complement, rather than duplicate, existing, ongoing, or new efforts
that promote physical activity and healthy eating, and help students
meet their State standards for physical education. CDC's Coordinated
School Health Program, USDA's Team Nutrition initiative, and HHS's CPPW
grantees are working on projects directly related to one or more
elements of PEP. Coordinating with these programs and initiatives will
allow PEP grantees to maximize their resources, reduce duplication,
provide more effective programming for their students, and increase
chances for a PEP project's sustainability.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested that we add State associations
for health, physical education, recreation, and dance to the list of
linkages to Federal, State, and local initiatives that could be made by
PEP grantees.
Discussion: This requirement specifically requires applicants that
are implementing CDC's Coordinated School Health Program, USDA's Team
Nutrition Initiative, or CPPW, to align its proposed PEP project
activities with these initiatives. Applicants that are implementing
other Federal, State, or local initiatives are required to sign a
Program-Specific Assurance that commits them to align their project
with such initiatives.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we add language to proposed
requirement 4 that would mandate that USDA's Team Nutrition
coordinators be involved in planning and implementing the PEP project
and that their involvement be verified by a signed assurance or other
documentation.
Discussion: We believe that it is important for PEP projects to
complement rather than duplicate existing or new efforts to promote
physical activity and healthy eating behaviors. For this reason,
requirement 4 requires applicants that receive funding under the USDA's
Team Nutrition initiative to describe how
[[Page 34899]]
their proposed PEP project supports the efforts of the USDA's Team
Nutrition initiative.
Although we agree that it is important for PEP-funded activities to
be coordinated with other related activities such as those supported by
Team Nutrition, we believe that the proposed requirement is sufficient
to address this issue without imposing an additional requirement for a
signed assurance from the Team Nutrition coordinator.
Changes: None.
Requirement 5--Updates to Physical Education and Nutrition Instruction
Curricula
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed
requirement related to updating physical education and nutrition
instruction curricula is not aligned with the absolute priority. The
commenter stated that completion of the PECAT and analysis of PECAT
results should guide applicants in choosing which of the absolute
priority elements related to physical education they should include in
their proposed PEP project.
Discussion: We believe that each of the proposed requirements in
the NPP (and adopted in this NFP) is closely linked to the components
of the absolute priority in this notice and that each requirement
supports the adoption of high-quality, evidence-based programming and
curricula. As part of a general planning framework for a PEP grant,
results from the PECAT and HECAT should be used as part of the needs
assessment process that each applicant will undertake to be optimally
responsive to the absolute priority or as part of a grantee's analysis
of available curricula during the project period. Undertaking the SHI
or another needs assessment leads an applicant to select elements of
the absolute priority to be included in their proposed project. If one
of the needs identified is a curricular need, the PECAT and HECAT are
intended to guide applicants or grantees to identify a curriculum that
fills that identified need. These tools, therefore, should help
applicants or grantees to be responsive to the absolute priority and
function as tools to help meet the absolute priority. The PECAT and
HECAT can be done as part of the application process or after the grant
is awarded, as appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about requiring the
use of the HECAT and PECAT tools. Two commenters stated that use of
these tools limits local flexibility and does not allow for alignment
with State standards. Others contended that these tools have limited
ability to assess cognitive components of physical education or that
the tools are limited to secondary level curricula. Finally, one
commenter expressed concerns that these tools do not assess
implementation of curricula.
Discussion: We believe that the PECAT and HECAT tools provide a
low-cost and rapid way to assess existing curricula and identify needed
enhancements in those curricula. These tools are designed to provide a
complete, consistent, and objective assessment of a site's needs and
resources and to provide feedback on curricula to best meet the
identified needs. According to CDC, the PECAT and HECAT are appropriate
for all grade levels and relate to national physical education and
health education standards. Our goal in requiring the use of these
tools is to help grantees make the best choices for curricula and, in
turn, equipment, before funds are spent unnecessarily on items that do
not meet the needs of the site. However, this requirement does not
prohibit applicants or grantees from also using additional analysis or
needs assessment tools if they so choose.
We agree that the PECAT and HECAT are not designed to assess
implementation of the curriculum or cognitive components of PE. For
this reason, applicants must undertake the SHI or another comparable
needs assessment tool to assess needs, which may include implementation
issues. In addition, grantees must undertake the SHI at the end of
their project period to assess their progress. The PECAT and HECAT
complement the SHI in that the PECAT and HECAT address written
curricula and the SHI addresses the implementation of those curricula.
The SHI is a self-assessment and planning tool that schools use to
assess their student health policies and programs and their school
health environments. We also note that, in addition to requiring the
use of these assessment and planning tools, we also are establishing
performance measures for this program that are designed to help assess
the effectiveness of the chosen program, including curricula, on
changing student outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about tying PEP-related
equipment purchases to the curricular components of the applicant's
physical education and nutrition program. The commenter stated that
there would not be sufficient opportunity during the grant to create an
action plan related to a newly developed or adopted curriculum to help
students meet their State standards for physical education.
Discussion: The intent of this requirement is to ensure that
grantees align equipment purchases using PEP-related funds to the PEP
elements and curricula applicable to their PEP projects, as identified
by the PECAT and HECAT. Grantees must tie equipment purchases to any
curricula that will be implemented as part of a PEP project. Without
this alignment, equipment purchased with PEP funds would not support
the effective implementation of physical education or health curricula.
For this reason, applicants must undertake the PECAT--either as part of
the application process or during the grant's project period--to assess
their needs and plan related equipment purchases accordingly. We do not
intend to prohibit a grantee from changing its plans for equipment
purchases during the project period so long as the grantee aligns the
equipment purchases with the PEP elements applicable to their projects
(identified in priority 1) and any applicable curricula, within the
scope of the funded project.
Changes: None.
Requirement 6--Equipment Purchases
Comment: One commenter suggested that it would be appropriate for
applicants to consider both the schools' and the community's physical
activity needs when selecting equipment for purchase so that equipment
purchased for schools could be used by community members under a
shared-use agreement.
Discussion: Grantees under this program may only purchase equipment
with PEP-related funds (either Federal funds or funds used to satisfy
the program's matching requirement) if the purchase is aligned with the
curricular components of the physical education and nutrition program.
We expect that applicants will describe in their application what
equipment they expect to purchase with PEP funds, and how the equipment
would address their curricular needs, including gaps and weaknesses in
their current programming for the students served by the grant, and the
specific curricular needs of the students to be served by the grant.
However, it is important to note that during the project period, the
equipment may be used only by students served by the grant in grades K-
12. Therefore, community members may not use the equipment during the
project period.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that it was
appropriate to clarify the first sentence in requirement
[[Page 34900]]
6. Specifically, we did not think the phrase ``purchases of equipment
with PEP funds and related to grant activities'' was sufficiently clear
for applicants.
Changes: We revised the first sentence of requirement 6 to state
that purchases of equipment with PEP funds or with funds used to meet
the program's matching requirement must be aligned with the curricular
components of the proposed physical education and nutrition program.
Requirement 7--Increasing Transparency and Accountability
Comment: One commenter suggested that we require reports generated
by a particular commercial fitness product to be sent home to parents
so that this additional information can be used by parents and
pediatricians to monitor growth and development.
Discussion: The Department does not endorse specific commercial
products. There are many mechanisms and reports that can provide
information to parents and, if they so choose, parents may share this
information with their child's pediatricians. We encourage applicants
to consider plans to share student-level information with parents.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether reporting
mechanisms required for grantees to increase transparency and
accountability include making available to the public reports of
students' progress towards meeting State physical education standards.
Discussion: The new PEP design seeks to increase accountability and
transparency by requiring grantees to report aggregate student data to
the public on program indicators required under GPRA, as published in
the performance measurement section of the notice inviting applications
(NIA), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, and
any unique project-level measures proposed in their applications.
Grantees may elect to establish measures specific to their project,
which may include student's progress towards meeting State standards
for physical education. Because of the diversity not only in grantee
sites, but also the quality of State physical education standards, it
is not practical for us to require grantees to report on this issue as
a performance measure for PEP. We have chosen performance measures that
best balance the potential data collection burden, which we believe is
low, with the value of providing grantees with practical and actionable
student-level data and obtaining comparable data that can be aggregated
across program sites, which we believe is high.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of this requirement, we determined
that the language in the final paragraph regarding the Program-Specific
Assurance might be confusing. Specifically, we determined that the
phrase ``including parents of students under 18 years old'' was not
necessary, might cause readers to be confused as to what was required,
and did not meaningfully add to the intent of the requirement.
Changes: We revised the first sentence in the last paragraph of
requirement 7 to clarify that applicants must commit to reporting
information to the public by signing a Program-Specific Assurance, and
deleting the phrase ``including parents of students under 18 years
old.''
Requirement 8--Participation in a National Evaluation
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about how much time would
be needed to collect data related to the national evaluation and PEP's
performance measures.
Discussion: Although we understand that the required performance
measures and data collection methodology may be challenging for some
grantees, they are similar to the measures and data collection
methodology that many grantees currently collect and implement.
Grantees are, and have always been, allowed to hire staff to assist in
the collection and analysis of their site-specific data related to
performance measurement. For the national evaluation, the Department
will work directly with a contractor, who will use existing data, to
the extent possible and minimize the data collection burden on
grantees.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested information about the national
evaluation of the PEP program.
Discussion: The scope of the national evaluation is still being
considered. If a grantee is selected to participate in the national
evaluation, more specific information about the study will be shared
prior to the initiation of the evaluation. We expect that the
evaluation will broadly examine the performance measures, which focus
on increases in the percentage of students meeting the recommended
levels of physical activity (at least 60 minutes every day), and
improvements in student fitness levels and nutritional intake. These
measures will likely be examined at the PEP program level to illustrate
the range of projects implemented and outcomes achieved by grantees
funded under this program.
Changes: None.
Requirement 9--Required Performance Measures and Data Collection
Methodology
Additional or Alternative Measures
Comment: One commenter suggested requiring applicants to gather
data on the four CDC physical activity recommendations in addition to
the GPRA measures already listed in requirement 9. These CDC measures
include assessments of the type and intensity of physical activity in
which students engage, such as whether or not a student has engaged in
moderate to vigorous physical activity, bone strengthening and muscle
strengthening for at least three days; as well as the student's
consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages; hours of sleep; and ``screen
time.''
Discussion: Although we agree that these CDC measures can be useful
for understanding a student's nutrition and physical activity habits,
we have found that grantees are best able to focus fully on a smaller
set of measures that most closely align with the desired goals and
objectives of their program. We expect that the three performance
measures that we have selected will serve as a proxy for the full range
of these CDC measures, as well as for longer-term outcomes, and will
provide the Department with the most useful assessment of whether a
program is making substantial progress from year to year. With that
said, we encourage grantees to adopt these CDC measures or other site-
specific measures to assess their performance during their project
period.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested expanding the required
performance measures to include components, such as a standard metric
that would assess the number of physical activity minutes offered to
students during a school year, by school and by program, as well as the
actual number of minutes that a student is engaged in physical
activity, which would be assessed by using direct observation or
pedometry. Another commenter suggested assessing the program's
effectiveness in improving children's ability to pursue different
physical activities, and the extent to which students embrace a healthy
lifestyle. Still another commenter recommended that we require grantees
to collect and report data on performance measures that are aligned
with the six PEP program elements
[[Page 34901]]
outlined in the absolute priority and State standards for physical
education.
Discussion: Under requirement 7 (Increasing Transparency and
Accountability), applicants may propose a variety of unique project-
level performance measures for their individual programs that would
best help them understand their program's progress towards their unique
goals and objectives and assess their students' performance. However,
we are requiring three performance measures that are aligned with the
desired program outcomes. Although we agree that one metric would be
optimal for cross-site comparability, PEP grantees represent a diverse
array of programs that would make a single specific metric difficult,
if not impossible, to implement. For example, some programs operate
only after school or in the summer, and others are school-based
physical education programs. Because of this diverse array of programs,
many grantees will not have the ability to increase the minutes of
physical activity offered to students. Also, grantees are not required
to undertake all six of the PEP program elements, and, as such, we
cannot hold all grantees accountable for elements that they will not
address as part of their funded project.
We are also interested in measuring changes in students' physical
activity habits throughout the day and in multiple settings, not just
in the activities funded under the PEP program. We believe that
measuring changes to students' overall activity level will not only
measure improvements in programming, but also changes in students'
behavior. As such, we prefer to assess student-level outcomes, such as
the minutes spent in physical activity, fitness levels, and
improvements in nutritional intake. These outcome measures are also the
logical outcomes of the adoption of healthier lifestyles, as we hope
that there will be increases in the percentage of students who practice
healthy habits. We also believe these outcomes will serve as a proxy
for a teacher's effectiveness in imparting lessons that students
understand and, in turn, apply to their daily lives, and are reflected
in healthier activity and nutritional choices.
Changes: None.
Comment: Due to a concern about program quality and the need to
ensure that programs are comprehensive and not just focused on
equipment purchases for physical activity, one commenter suggested that
grantees be required to demonstrate their progress during the period of
the grant using at least one indicator of change, such as the
development of a school- or district-level curriculum, or changes as
assessed by the PECAT and HECAT, or SHI.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that projects should be
comprehensive in nature, improve physical education, and enhance
physical activity opportunities for youth, as well as help students
develop lifelong healthy habits, rather than just support equipment
purchases. All grantees will be required to use the PECAT if they are
developing or purchasing a new curriculum for physical education or the
HECAT if they are developing or adopting a new curriculum for nutrition
education. All applicants will also be required to undertake the SHI or
a comparable local needs assessment, submit their scores as part of
their application, and create a program designed to address their
greatest needs in programming and policy. Although the SHI is designed
to help schools assess their policy and practice environments, it is
not designed as an evaluation tool and may not be used for this
purpose. Grantees will be required to undertake the SHI at the end of
their project to determine if they have made the changes that they had
desired (and to assess any unplanned consequences). The SHI should be
used only as a program management tool--not to assess accountability--
because a grantee's progress, as measured by the SHI, may or may not
reflect the results of the grantee's project. Similarly, the PECAT and
HECAT are tools designed to help schools and CBOs assess curricula and
choose improvement areas based on their needs, rather than as tools to
evaluate a project's progress. Not all grantees will need to develop or
adopt new curricula; for example, some grantees may have recently
adopted a new curriculum while others may be part of a larger
organization that has control over the curriculum used.
We encourage grantees to track their progress towards implementing
changes identified through these tools, or the adoption of any
curriculum; grantees are welcome to include these process measures as
part of their own performance goals and objectives. We believe that the
required performance measures will appropriately assess the desired
student-level outcomes related to changing curriculum, practice, and
policy.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department add two new
measures to this requirement. These new measures would assess students'
progress towards meeting State standards on competency and proficiency
in motor skills and movement forms and physical activity-related
knowledge, as measured by the National Association of Sport and
Physical Education's (NASPE) assessment tools. The commenter noted that
NASPE's elementary school assessment tools are currently complete and
tools for secondary schools will be complete in fall, 2010.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to assess students'
progress towards meeting State standards on competency and proficiency
in motor skills and movement forms and physical activity-related
knowledge. Grantees may adopt metrics that assess students' competency
and proficiency in motor skills and movement forms and students'
physical activity related knowledge, but we do not believe it is
appropriate to require them to do so. We continue to believe that the
measures proposed in requirement 9 will appropriately assess the
student-level outcomes that we seek to change through PEP, as they are
designed to measure changes in student's knowledge, skills, and
abilities related to physical activity and movement, as well as changes
in their adoption of lifelong healthy habits.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the validity of the
3-day physical activity recall (3DPAR) for middle school students
required in measure 1, and proposed piloting a 1-day measure with a
small group of grantees to determine feasibility, reliability, and
validity.
Discussion: The 3DPAR is a validated self-report instrument
designed to capture habitual physical activity of adolescents. The
instrument can be completed during a single 30 minute session, making
it ideal for school-based data collection. Particularly when combined
with pedometer data, the 3DPAR provides a reasonably good estimate of
the type and intensity of students' physical activity. It is important
to gather three days of physical activity data through self-report to
help identify not only the amount, but also the type, of physical
activity. The 3DPAR is not meant to be used on three separate
occasions; rather, students are asked to report their physical activity
one time and to report about their physical activity from the past
three days. The use of the 3DPAR in combination with the pedometer is
designed to capture small changes in behavior because the pedometer
measures activity continuously and we can determine time and intensity
through pedometers.
[[Page 34902]]
We require that students in grades 5-12 complete the 3DPAR because
it has been used successfully with middle school and high school
students. Several recent studies have used the 3DPAR with this
population, combined with an objective measure of physical activity
such as data gathered via pedometer use.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ward DS, Dowda M, Trost SG, Felton GM, Dishman RK, and Pate
RR. Physical activity correlates in adolescent girls who differ by
weight status. Obesity. Jan 2006;14(1):97-105
\3\ Dowda M, Pate RR, Felton GM, Saunders R,et al. Physical
activities and sedentary pursuits in African American and Caucasian
girls. Res Q Exerc Sport. Dec 2004;75(4):352-360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With grantees using a uniform data collection and assessment
methodology, we will be able to aggregate data to provide information
that informs our national evaluation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the 3DPAR methodology is too
cumbersome to implement and recommended that the Department require the
use of a pen and paper or computer-based seven-day recall survey
instrument based on the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS)
survey.
Discussion: Although a seven-day physical activity recall
instrument is an option for grantees, we believe that the resources
involved in implementing and completing a seven-day survey outweigh the
relative benefits. Additionally, a seven-day recall instrument would
not be appropriate for younger children, who have a harder time
recalling the seven prior days. The YRBSS survey instrument has
historically been used with high-school students and, although some
States collect YRBS data from middle school students, we are uncertain
about the validity and reliability of YRBS data collected at grade
levels lower than middle school.
We recognize that some applicants and grantees will not have
experience in implementing the 3DPAR. We intend to provide grantees
with technical assistance to ensure relatively uniform data collection
and to help students and staff understand what type of physical
activity to include in the data collection.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the validity of
the pedometer data required to be collected under measure 1. The first
concern was about accurately reporting data because the data would be
self-reported and could be reported inaccurately either inadvertently
or deliberately by the teacher or the student. The second concern
focused on the collection of pedometer data, which the commenter stated
could be inflated by, for example, the student shaking the pedometer.
Discussion: The use of pedometers to assess students' physical
activity during the day is well-validated and recommended by many
physical activity researchers. Multiple studies conducted over the last
decade have examined noncompliance, and the overwhelming finding is
that the use of pedometers does not present data collection or
aggregation challenges that compromise the validity and reliability of
student-level self-reported data. A nationally-representative study of
over 11,000 Canadian students used pedometers as its data collection
methodology and did not find data collection methodology challenges
with pedometers. This population-based study and other studies relied
on self-report data and found this method to be acceptable and to
produce valid and reliable data.
We will provide technical assistance to grantees to help them
introduce pedometers during physical education lessons, including
explaining how pedometers work, allowing students to explore moving
with pedometers, teaching students how pedometers should be worn and
taken care of, and how to record the data from the pedometers. Physical
education teachers' prompts and reminders to students about wearing the
pedometers during the data collection period are also important in
helping students accurately collect their activity data.
Although self-reported data may be a challenge because of the
potential for students to report socially desirable responses, self-
report is still the most widely used method for assessing physical
activity among all age groups. Combining the use of pedometers with a
3DPAR provides researchers, physical education teachers, and program
coordinators with a good idea of young people's physical activity
levels from a subjective (self-report 3DPAR) and objective (pedometer)
method. This combination of strategies provides information regarding
how much activity (through both pedometers and 3DPAR), as well as what
types of activity (3DPAR) students are engaged in.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that we allow grantees to collect
data from a sample of students rather than collect pedometer data from
all participants.
Discussion: Depending on the size of the project and the number of
students served, grantees may use a sampling methodology and framework
instead of assessing their whole target population. We have developed a
sampling methodology that will be shared with grantees and, if the
grantee decides to use sampling, we will provide technical assistance
in setting up the sample and ensuring that the methodology is
implemented correctly.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that pedometers are not
able to appropriately and adequately reflect physical activity for
specific populations, such as young children, or specific activities,
such as riding a recumbent bike, and requested information on
``approved'' pedometers to be used in these instances.
Discussion: Pedometers have been shown to be a cost-effective,
noninvasive, valid, and reliable method of collecting information on
students' activity levels while engaging in a variety of activities.
Research shows that pedometers are reliable and valid for use with
children, even children as young as kindergarten age and for
adolescents because they measure the physical activity of youth in
steps accurately on a consistent basis. Researchers in Canada
implemented a nationwide study using pedometers with 5-19-year-olds,
and were able to obtain reliable data from this age group.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Craig, C.L., Cameron, C., Griffiths, J.M. and C. Tudor-
Locke. Descriptive epidemiology of youth pedometer-determined
physical activity: CANPLAY. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.
2010; in press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, for all ages, it is possible to use pedometers to
determine moderate to vigorous physical activity. For example, one
study showed that approximately 120 steps per minute equates to
moderate activity.5 6 Another study showed that the number
of steps taken per day was a significant predictor of activity time.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Moderate physical activity'' is defined as a level of
exercise that makes one sweat and breathe hard. During moderate
activity, one can talk but not sing, and includes activities such as
walking briskly, ballroom dancing, doubles tennis, or gardening.
``Vigorous physical activity,'' is defined as a level of activity
during which one can only talk with a pause between words, and
includes activities such as singles tennis, jumping rope, or speed
walking, jogging, or running.
\6\ Graser, S.V., R.P. Pangrazi, and W.J. Vincent. Steps it up:
Activity intensity using pedometers. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation, and Dance. 2009; 80(1): 22-24.
\7\ Beighle and Pangrazi. Measuring Children's Activity Levels:
The Association between Step-Counts and Activity Time. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health. 2006; 1: 221-229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many different kinds of pedometers made by a variety of
manufacturers and, to the extent practicable, we will provide guidance
in the application package on
[[Page 34903]]
specifications that may enhance the validity and reliability of
pedometers for this population and provide an accurate overall
depiction of physical activity across a student's
day.8 9 10 11 12 13 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Eston, RG, Rowlands, AV, Ingledew, DK. Validity of heart
rate, pedometry, and accelerometry for predicting the energy cost of
children's activities. J Appl Physiol. 1998;84(1):362-371.
\9\ Kilanowski, CK, Consalvi, AR, Epstein, LH. Validation of an
electronic pedometer for measurement of physical activity in
children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1999;11:63-68.
\10\ Louie, L., Eston, R.G., Rowlands, A.V., Tong, K.K.,
Ingledew, D.K., & Fu, F.H. (1999). Validity of heart rate,
pedometry, and accelerometry for estimating the energy cost of
activity in Hong Kong Chinese boys. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 11, 229-239.
\11\ Rowlands, AV, Eston, RG, Ingledew, DK. Measurement of
physical activity in children with particular reference to the use
of heart rate and pedometry. Sports Med. 1997;24(4):258-272.
\12\ Beets, M, Patton, MM, Edwards, S. The accuracy of pedometer
steps and time during walking in children. Med Sci Sport Exer.
2005;37(3):513-520.
\13\ Schneider, PL, Crouter, SE, Lukajic, O, Bassett, DR.
Accuracy and reliability of 10 pedometers for measuring steps over
400-m walk. Med Sci Sport Exer. 2003;35:1779-1784.
\14\ Basset, DR, et al. Accuracy of five electronic pedometers
for measuring distance walked. Med Sci Sport Exer. 1996, 28(8) 1071-
1077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the burden
associated with collecting, reporting, and analyzing pedometer data;
commenters stated that additional staff would be needed to facilitate
the collection of these data. Two commenters suggested that some of the
proposed GPRA measures for the program would be better collected by the
national evaluator to mitigate burden to the local grant sites.
Discussion: Under PEP, applicants may propose to hire staff,
including a project manager, program coordinator, or evaluator to
support, within reason, activities commensurate with the scope of work
and activities of the program. This would include efforts related to
data collection and analysis. PEP does not allow applicants to propose
a staffing plan that would supplant existing staffing requirements, but
the program does allow for funding to supplement the existing program
to carry out the tasks delineated in the project or evaluation design.
We believe that these data are best collected by the grantee because
they are able to structure their data collection appropriate to their
particular site.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received some comments regarding the potential
complexity of collecting pedometer data during out-of-school hours as
well as the related burden on parents, students, and grantees that lack
an appropriate project management structure.
Discussion: We acknowledge that the responsibility of collecting
pedometer data during out-of-school hours will result in some
additional burden on students and their families. We carefully
considered issues of burden in developing the requirements for the
program, and believe that the value of obtaining comprehensive
information about changes in levels of student physical activity served
by PEP grants outweighs the relatively limited burden on students and
families.
Moreover, grantees can implement strategies to limit this burden
for parents and students. For example, grantees could provide
orientation sessions to both students and parents to introduce
pedometer use to them and provide instruction on using the pedometer,
how a pedometer should be worn and taken care of, as well as on how
students should record the data from the pedometers. We will provide
additional technical assistance to grantees on these and other
strategies to enhance the validity and reliability of the data
collected.
Finally, under PEP, grantees may propose to hire a project manager
or program coordinator, as well as evaluation support, within reason
and commensurate with their project's scope of work. PEP does not allow
grantees to supplant existing staff requirements, but will allow
funding to supplement an existing program to carry out new tasks
delineated in the project, including the project evaluation.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received several comments concerning the durability of
pedometers. These commenters expressed concern that requiring the use
of pedometers would result in grantees wasting funds by purchasing
replacement pedometers when they are lost, stolen, or broken.
Discussion: Like other types of equipment, pedometers can be lost,
stolen, or broken. However, there are straps that are available to
connect the pedometer to a belt loop or waistband to minimize loss.
Student training in correct pedometer use and care before data
collection begins may also help to minimize breakage. As an objective
measure of physical activity, the pedometer is one of the most
moderately priced options and one that requires minimal training to
use. Pedometer use is also much less time and labor intensive than
other objective measures of physical activity.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received several comments recommending that other tools
be used instead of, or in addition to, pedometers to measure activity
levels. Suggestions included using downloadable heart rate monitors,
accelerometers, or a type of watch to appropriately measure physical
activity levels. These commenters stated that such tools would be more
accurate and effective than pedometers for recording and evaluating
information about physical activity.
Discussion: Applicants are welcome to propose using other
measurement tools in addition to pedometers. We have elected to use
pedometers to measure physical activity under performance measure 1
because they are an accurate, feasible, and unobtrusive measure of
physical activity, particularly in physical education. They can be put
on quickly, and measure many types of activity, including walking,
jogging, running, tennis, dancing, aerobics, and roller skating.
Pedometers record physical activity of all intensities, and provide
immediate concrete feedback to students. Some pedometers also measure
the number of steps and activity time; this then allows the calculation
of steps per minute, which can then be associated with intensity.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Graser, S.V., R.P. Pangrazi, and W.J. Vincent, Step it up:
Activity intensity using pedometers. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation, and Dance, 2009. 80(1): 22-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research also shows that pedometers can be used in large
population-based assessments of physical activity, which implies that
they are practical in a range of settings with different populations.
Pedometers also tend to be more affordable and require little or no
additional investments in complementary pieces of technology such as
computers or handheld devices to upload the data.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters shared a concern about the use of the
20-meter shuttle run as a performance measure. Specifically, some
commenters expressed concern that grantees would be required to
purchase a particular commercial fitness-assessment package to meet the
requirement. Other commenters sought clarification about whether we
intend for the 20-meter shuttle run to be implemented as a criterion-
or norm-referenced test.
Discussion: The 20-meter shuttle run is a test that has been widely
used in schools across the U.S. as part of physical education classes.
It is not necessary for grantees to purchase a commercial package to
collect and report data on this performance measure. The shuttle run
provides a measure of students' cardio-respiratory fitness, due to its
predictive validity and
[[Page 34904]]
correlation with maximal oxygen uptake, which indicates one's
cardiovascular or aerobic capacity. The test measures aerobic capacity
by having the student run back and forth over 20-meters at increasing
rates of speed over specific periods of time.
We intend for grantees to implement the 20-meter shuttle run as a
criterion-referenced test, rather than as a norm-referenced test, such
as the 20-meter shuttle run test that is used as part of the
President's Fitness Challenge. While grantees are not required to
purchase any commercial package to meet this requirement, grantees may
choose to use the 20-meter shuttle run test from a commercial package
to satisfy the 20-meter shuttle run test requirement.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department permit,
rather than require, grantees to use the 20-meter shuttle run for
purposes of performance measure 2. One commenter recommended that the
Department allow grantees to use the 1-mile walk/run as an alternative
assessment to the 20-meter shuttle run.
Discussion: Research demonstrates that the 20-meter shuttle run is
a better measure of cardio-respiratory fitness than the 1 mile walk/
run.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern as to the size and safety
of some school's facilities for conducting the 20-meter shuttle run
assessment.
Discussion: We recognize that many LEAs and CBOs face challenges in
maintaining adequate facilities to implement physical education
activities, but the space requirements necessary to implement the 20-
meter shuttle run in a safe manner are minimal (e.g., a volleyball
court is approximately 20 meters in length). If the area is not wide
enough for all students to complete the run simultaneously, the test
can be completed in shifts, with half the class running at a time. This
is not ideal, but it is an acceptable alternative if space is limited.
Also, the shuttle run can be conducted outdoors if needed.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested adding descriptive and clarifying
language related to the second GPRA measure, including describing the
shuttle run as a criterion-referenced health-related fitness testing
protocol and identifying the measure as an assessment of student
health-related fitness levels.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter. The 20-meter shuttle run
is a criterion-referenced health-related fitness testing protocol used
to assess student health-related fitness levels. Therefore, we have
changed the language in the requirement accordingly.
Changes: We have changed the language in the requirement to refer
to the criterion-referenced health-related fitness testing protocol
when describing the shuttle run and referring to the GPRA measure as an
assessment of student health-related fitness levels.
Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables
Comment: Some commenters objected to the proposed performance
measure concerning daily consumption of fruits and vegetables, based on
their opposition to the requirement contained in the absolute priority
that nutrition education be required as part of each PEP-funded
program. One commenter stated that fruit and vegetable consumption is
not an outcome of effective physical education.
Discussion: After a careful review of comments received about the
proposed absolute priority, we have elected to retain the requirement
that projects include a component addressing healthy eating habits and
good nutrition because we believe that a PEP project that incorporates
both high-quality physical education and nutrition instruction
strategies offers the best opportunity for students to acquire the
information and skills necessary to help them understand the
complementary relationship between physical education and nutrition,
and the role that both can play in improving their health. We believe
that the measure related to daily consumption of fruits and vegetables
is an important measure that will provide data about project
effectiveness.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended methods for collecting
information on elementary and middle school students' nutritional
intake. Suggestions included using a new nutrition survey, adapting
nutrition-related questions from the YRBS, and administering a seven-
day nutrition recall assessment, the Healthy Eating Index, or the
USDA's MyPyramid nutrition tools. Two commenters suggested that the
performance measures be revised to give grantees flexibility to select,
depending on their local needs, the method to collect this information
(such as through the use of site-, region-, or State-specific
instruments).
Discussion: We appreciate the variety of recommendations provided
by these commenters and carefully considered all the different tools
suggested. We are not aware of any available tools that are free and
publicly accessible, that would provide valid and reliable data for
elementary and middle school students, and that are not associated with
commercial products or curriculum, which the Department is prohibited
from endorsing. Because we are unable to identify an appropriate data
collection tool, we are not requiring a specific measurement tool for
programs serving students in elementary or middle school. Instead, we
will provide guidance to applicants on factors they should consider in
selecting an appropriate assessment tool to collect data on the
percentage of elementary and middle school students who consumed fruit
two or more times per day and vegetables three or more times per day.
Changes: We have revised this requirement to clarify that we will
not require programs serving elementary and middle school students to
use a specific measurement tool, and that they may select an
appropriate assessment tool for their population.
General Issues Related to Performance Measures
Comment: One commenter encouraged us to consider requiring all
grantees to aggregate the data they collect on the required performance
measures at the school level, as opposed to the district level, to
increase and enhance accountability for school teachers and school
personnel.
Discussion: All participating schools or other grant sites will be
responsible for collecting data on the students served and aggregating
those data. Grantees must provide to the Department (as part of their
required annual and final reports) data that are aggregated across all
students served in the grant. To minimize burden, we do not require
that grantees provide data to the Department for required performance
measures at the school building or classroom levels. While not
required, grantees are welcome to use data collected at the school
building and classroom levels to assess project progress.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters questioned the need for counting out-of-
school physical activity, stating that there has been little evidence
of the relationship between school-based programs and a student's out-
of-school physical activity.
Discussion: Because of the diversity of PEP programs, not all
programs will be school-based or implemented during school hours. Some
programs will occur during the after-school hours, on the weekend, or
during the summer. Other programs may be primarily school-based
[[Page 34905]]
or combine in-school programming with programs and initiatives during
out-of-school hours, sometimes in partnership with community groups.
Our intent is to fund programs that begin to create systemic changes in
students' environments, as well as changes in students' overall habits
and behavior throughout the day.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the requirement to collect
data four times during the project period in addition to baseline data
would be challenging and cumbersome. Some commenters stated that it
would be difficult for grantees to begin data collection at the start
of the grant period when initial implementation and professional
development would be occurring.
Discussion: Although we recognize that taking time from service
delivery to collect data may pose challenges for some grantees, we have
used this data collection strategy and methodology for several years
with several cohorts of PEP grantees. Generally, we have found that
grantees have not been challenged by multiple data collections or the
additional baseline data collection during the first year of the grant
before program implementation begins. This data collection methodology
allows us to standardize the way that data are collected and ensure
that grantees are collecting enough data to evaluate program quality
and student progress. The frequency of the data collection reduces
potential confounds related to changes in student population or
expected seasonal differences. The collection of baseline data before
and follow-up data after the project is implemented provides data for
grantees to assess the effectiveness of their individual PEP projects.
If grantees are unable to collect baseline data at the time of their
application, they may do so before large-scale implementation of their
projects at the beginning of the project period.
Changes: None.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters recommended that some of the terms used in
the NPP be defined. Commenters suggested defining the terms ``physical
education,'' ``quality physical education,'' ``physical activity,'' and
``physical fitness'' to improve clarity.
Discussion: We agree that providing more information about these
terms as they are used in the context of the PEP competition could be
helpful to applicants. We will include this information in the
application package for the program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that some school districts
do not have the expertise to prepare an application for a PEP grant
based on the requirements proposed in the NPP, and suggested that LEAs
be allowed to join together to prepare and submit an application for a
PEP grant.
Discussion: Under the Department's existing general administrative
regulations (34 CFR 75.127), applicants eligible to receive a PEP grant
(LEAs or CBOs) may elect to submit an application on behalf of a
consortium. All members of a consortium applying for a PEP grant must
be either LEAs or CBOs. One eligible entity within the consortium must
submit the application on behalf of the consortium and serve as the
program's administrative and fiscal agent. We encourage applicants
applying as a consortium to establish a partnership agreement or a
memorandum of understanding to delineate roles, responsibilities, and
expectations.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed
priorities and requirements for PEP will entail outside-the-classroom
responsibilities for physical education teachers and that these
responsibilities might, in turn, reduce the effectiveness of those
teachers in the classroom.
Discussion: We understand that physical education teachers already
have significant responsibilities, and that activities related to
implementing a PEP project are likely to increase those
responsibilities. However, we do not expect that physical education
teachers will be responsible for all aspects of implementing a funded
PEP project. Applicants are free to request funding for project
personnel, consistent with the scope of their proposed projects.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended increasing the focus on
``shared-use'' or ``joint-use'' agreements so as to enhance and
encourage the use of school and community recreation facilities and
community linkages.
Discussion: We generally agree that shared-use or joint-use
agreements have the potential to expand options for increasing the
opportunities for physical activity in a community. However, we believe
that requirement 2, which requires a review of the broad policy context
in which projects will operate, is preferable to imposing a requirement
for all applicants to enact a particular policy, such as shared-use or
joint-use agreements.
Additionally, we note that PEP funds must be used to provide
services to students from kindergarten through the twelfth grade; other
individuals are not permitted to use the equipment purchased with PEP
grant funds during the grant period.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we encourage teachers to
utilize recreational facilities in the community as a way to increase
links between schools and communities and to help students and their
families become more aware of opportunities for physical activity in
their communities.
Discussion: We agree that collaborative efforts between schools and
communities are likely to produce the kind of benefits identified by
the commenter. We believe that the competitive preference priority for
partnerships will encourage coordinated, collaborative approaches that
include strategies such as use of community recreational facilities by
teachers and students.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters encouraged the Department to make awards to
communities with populations that are at risk for obesity and obesity-
related health problems or to sites that experience other significant
barriers to promoting physical activity for youth.
Discussion: We agree that the needs of an applicant's target
population should be considered in selecting grantees. As indicated in
the NIA, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
applications will be judged by peer reviewers against selection
criteria that include documentation of the need for the proposed
project.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the page limit for a
PEP application is insufficient to address all of the required
priorities.
Discussion: The NPP did not propose a page limit for applications
submitted under the PEP competition. We note that the NIA provides a
recommended length for the project narrative section of the
application, but applicants are not bound by that recommendation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested the Department award only one-year
grants so that more schools might receive funding in a year.
Discussion: At the inception of PEP, we made only one-year grants
under the program. Based on our experience in monitoring the
implementation of early PEP projects and reviewing final reports for
those early grants, we concluded that those projects consisted largely
of
[[Page 34906]]
purchasing equipment that could be used to assist students in meeting
State standards for physical education. Many funded projects lacked a
comprehensive approach. Beginning in fiscal year 2004, we expanded the
program to permit applicants to propose longer-term projects that are
more comprehensive and incorporate strategies such as curriculum
development (or revision), modification of policies, and professional
development strategies. Many program applicants have incorporated some
of these strategies in subsequent years. Based on this experience, we
believe that continuing to support multi-year projects will provide the
best opportunity for schools and communities to make meaningful and
sustainable changes in their physical and nutrition education
activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the number of
proposed priorities and requirements, and the time commitment that
would be required to implement the priorities and requirements,
including obtaining needed assurances.
Discussion: We acknowledge that meeting the priorities and
requirements will require PEP grantees to invest additional time in
implementing their PEP projects. However, we believe that the absolute
priority and requirements are necessary to encourage the development of
comprehensive PEP projects that provide opportunities for schools and
communities to make a significant contribution to improving the health
status of the students they serve and to build systems and programs
that are sustainable. Applicants are not required to address or
implement the activities in the competitive preference priorities.
In the past, PEP projects have too often consisted primarily of
large expenditures for equipment without convincing evidence that those
project expenditures were coordinated with other related activities in
the community, or were based on a careful assessment of gaps and needs.
We have balanced the impact on grantees of additional requirements
against the potential for creating a cohort of comprehensive and
focused PEP projects, and believe that the additional investment of
time and effort is justified.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that grantees need to be able to use
PEP grant funds to support a staff position so that the grant
requirements can be met.
Discussion: PEP grantees have always been able to request funding
for a project director or project coordinator position, and many
grantees have done so. In that regard, applicants should ensure that
their budget requests for proposed projects are closely aligned with
the activities and strategies in their application, including funding
for a project director or project coordinator, if such a position is
needed.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested we include a focus on
infrastructure development and sustainability in PEP.
Discussion: We agree that infrastructure development and
sustainability are important elements of a quality physical education
program. Many of the elements of this program address both
infrastructure development and sustainability, particularly those
activities centered on updating nutrition and physical activity related
policies; building linkages with Federal, State, and local initiatives;
and updating physical education and nutrition curricula. In addition,
applicants that opt to establish partnerships may strengthen their
infrastructure and sustainability capabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested that we modify certain language
used throughout the NPP. Specifically, these commenters stated that all
references to the term ``physical activity'' should be changed to
``physical education.'' The commenters also recommended that whenever
the terms ``nutrition'' and ``physical education'' or ``physical
activity'' appear, that ``physical education'' be placed first because
the program's primary purpose is to improve physical education.
Discussion: There are differences between the terms ``physical
education'' and ``physical activity'', and we believe that we have used
each term to specifically reference either education or activity
consistent with the context of the priorities, requirements, and
definitions. We acknowledge that the intent of the program is to
increase the percentage of students who meet their State standards for
physical education; however, the program is also intended to help
students adopt lifelong healthy habits, as evidenced by an increase in
physical activity and better nutrition.
In this context, placing the terms ``physical education'' or
``physical activity'' before references to ``nutrition'' would be an
artificial distinction that undercuts the concept of more coordinated,
comprehensive PEP projects.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities: This priority is: Absolute Priority.
Under this priority, an applicant is required to develop, expand,
or improve its physical education program and address its State's
physical education standards by undertaking the following activities:
(1) Instruction in healthy eating habits and good nutrition and (2)
physical fitness activities that must include at least one of the
following: (a) Fitness education and assessment to help students
understand, improve, or maintain their physical well-being; (b)
instruction in a variety of motor skills and physical activities
designed to enhance the physical, mental, and social or emotional
development of every student; (c) development of, and instruction in,
cognitive concepts about motor skills and physical fitness that support
a lifelong healthy lifestyle; (d) opportunities to develop positive
social and cooperative skills through physical activity participation;
or (e) opportunities for professional development for teachers of
physical education to stay abreast of the latest research, issues, and
trends in the field of physical education.
Competitive Preference Priority 1--Collection of Body Mass Index (BMI)
Measurement
We will give a competitive preference priority to applicants that
agree to implement aggregate BMI data collection, and use it as part of
a comprehensive assessment of health and fitness for the purposes of
monitoring the weight status of their student population across time.
Applicants are required to sign a Program-Specific Assurance that will
commit them to:
(a) Use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) BMI-
for-age growth charts to interpret BMI results (http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts);
(b) Create a plan to develop and implement a protocol that will
include parents in the development of their BMI assessment and data
collection policies, including a mechanism to allow parents to provide
feedback on the policy. Applicants are required to detail the following
required components in their aggregate BMI data collection protocol:
The proposed method for measuring BMI, who will perform the BMI
assessment (i.e., staff members trained to obtain accurate and reliable
height and weight measurements), the frequency of reporting, the
planned equipment to be used, methods for calculating the planned
sampling frame (if the applicant would use sampling), the policies used
to ensure student privacy during measurement, how the data will be
secured to protect student confidentiality, who will have access to
[[Page 34907]]
the data, how long the data will be kept, and what will happen to the
data after that time. Applicants that intend to inform parents of their
student's weight status must include plans for notifying parents of
that status, and must include their plan for ensuring that resources
are available for safe and effective follow-up with trained medical
care providers;
(c) Create a plan to notify parents of the BMI assessment and to
allow parents to opt out of the BMI assessment and reasonable
notification of their choice to opt out. Unless the BMI assessment is
permitted or required by State law, LEA applicants are required to
detail their policies for providing reasonable notice of the adoption
or continued use of such policies directly to the parents of the
students enrolled in the LEA's schools served by the agency. At a
minimum, the LEA must provide such notice at least annually, at the
beginning of the school year and within a reasonable period of time
after any substantive change in such policies, pursuant to the
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, 20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)(2)(A); and
(d) De-identify the student information (such as by removing the
student's name and any identifying information from the record and
assigning a record code), aggregate the BMI data at the school or
district level, and make the aggregate data publicly available and
easily accessible to the public annually. Applicants must describe
their plan for the level of reporting they plan to use, depending on
the size of the population, such as at the district level or the school
level. Applicants must also detail in their application their plan for
how these data will be used in coordination with other required data
for the program, such as fitness, physical activity, and nutritional
intake measures, and how the combination of these measures will be used
to improve physical education programming and policy.
On June 18, 1991, 17 Federal Departments and Agencies, including
the Department of Education, adopted a common set of regulations known
as the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects or ``Common
Rule.'' See 34 CFR part 97. Applicants that engage in BMI data
collection may be subject to the Department's Protection of Human
Subjects regulations if the data are used in research funded by the
Federal government or for any future research conducted by an
institution that has adopted the Federal policy for all research of
that institution. The regulations define research as ``a systematic
investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation,
designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.
Activities that meet this definition constitute research for purposes
of this policy, whether or not they are conducted or supported under a
program which is considered research for other purposes. For example,
some demonstration and service programs may include research
activities.'' 34 CFR 97.102(d). Information on Human Subjects
requirements is found at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/humansub.html.
Applications that do not provide a Program-Specific Assurance
signed by an Authorized Representative committing the applicant to
completing previously listed tasks (a) through (d) during their project
period are not eligible for additional points under competitive
preference priority 1.
In implementing this priority, we encourage applicants to consult
with their partners to determine if and how any of the partners could
contribute to the data collection, reporting, or potential referral
processes.
Competitive Preference Priority 2-- Partnerships Between Applicants and
Supporting Community Entities
We will give a competitive preference priority to an applicant that
includes in its application an agreement that details the participation
of required partners, as defined in this notice. The agreement must
include a description of: (1) Each partner's roles and responsibilities
in the project; (2) how each partner will contribute to the project,
including any contribution to the local match; (3) an assurance that
the application was developed after timely and meaningful consultation
between the required parties, as defined in this notice; and (4) a
commitment to work together to reach the desired goals and outcomes of
the project. The partner agreement must be signed by the Authorized
Representative of each of the required partners and by other partners
as appropriate.
For an LEA applicant, this partnership agreement must include: (1)
The LEA; (2) at least one CBO; (3) a local public health entity, as
defined in this notice; (4) the LEA's food service or child nutrition
director; and (5) the head of the local government, as defined in this
notice.
For a CBO applicant, the partnership agreement must include: (1)
The CBO; (2) a local public health entity, as defined in this notice;
(3) a local organization supporting nutrition or healthy eating, as
defined in this notice; (4) the head of the local government, as
defined in this notice; and (5) the LEA from which the largest number
of students expected to participate in the CBO's project attend. If the
CBO applicant is a school, such as a parochial or other private school,
the applicant must describe its school as part of the partnership
agreement but is not required to provide an additional signature from
an LEA or another school. A CBO applicant that is a school and serves
its own population of students is required to include another CBO as
part of its partnership and include the head of that CBO as a signatory
on the partnership agreement.
Although partnerships with other parties are required for this
priority, the eligible applicant must retain the administrative and
fiscal control of the project.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
establishes the following requirements for this program. We may apply
one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is
in effect.
Requirement 1--Align Project Goals With Identified Needs Using the
School Health Index
Applicants must complete the physical activity and nutrition
questions in Modules 1-4 of the CDC's SHI self-assessment tool and
develop project goals and plans that address the identified needs.
Modules 1-4 are School Health and Safety Policies and
[[Page 34908]]
Environment, Health Education, Physical Activity and Other Physical
Activity Programs, and Nutrition Services. LEA applicants must use the
SHI self-assessment to develop a School Health Improvement Plan focused
on improving these issues, and design an initiative that addresses
their identified gaps and weaknesses. Applicants must include their
Overall Score Card for the questions answered in Modules 1-4 in their
application, and correlate their School Health Improvement Plan to
their project design. Grantees must also complete the same modules of
the SHI at the end of the project period and submit the Overall Score
Card from the second assessment in their final reports to demonstrate
SHI completion and program improvement as a result of PEP funding.
If a CBO applicant (unless the CBO is a school) is in a partner
agreement with an LEA or school, it must collaborate with its partner
or partners to complete Modules 1-4 of the SHI.
Alternatively, if the CBO has not identified a school or LEA
partner, the CBO is not required to do Modules 1-4 of the SHI but must
use an alternative needs assessment tool to assess the nutrition and
physical activity environment in the community for children. CBO
applicants are required to include their overall findings from the
community needs assessment and correlate their findings with their
project design. Grantees will be required to complete the same needs
assessment at the end of their project and submit their findings in
their final reports to demonstrate the completion of the assessment and
program involvement as a result of PEP funding.
Requirement 2--Nutrition- and Physical Activity-Related Policies
Grantees must develop, update, or enhance physical activity
policies and food- and nutrition-related policies that promote healthy
eating and physical activity throughout students' everyday lives, as
part of their PEP projects. Applicants must describe in their
application their current policy framework, areas of focus, and the
planned process for policy development, implementation, review, and
monitoring. Grantees will be required to detail at the end of their
project period in their final reports the physical activity and
nutrition policies selected and how the policies improved through the
course of the project.
Applicants must sign a Program-Specific Assurance that commits them
to developing, updating, or enhancing these policies during the project
period. Applicants that do not submit such a Program-Specific Assurance
signed by the applicant's Authorized Representative are ineligible for
the competition.
Requirement 3--Linkage With Local Wellness Policies
Applicants that are participating in a program authorized by the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition
and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004must describe in their applications
their school district's established local wellness policy and how the
proposed PEP project will align with, support, complement, and enhance
the implementation of the applicant's local wellness policy. The LEA's
local wellness policy should address all requirements in the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966.
CBO applicants must describe in their applications how their
proposed projects would enhance or support the intent of the local
wellness policies of their LEA partner(s), if they are working in a
partnership group.
If an applicant or a member of its partnership group does not
participate in the school lunch program authorized by the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004, it will not necessarily have a local
wellness policy and, thus, is not required to meet this requirement or
adopt a local wellness policy. However, we encourage those applicants
to develop and adopt a local wellness policy, consistent with the
provisions in the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the
Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 in conjunction with
its PEP project.
Applicants must sign a Program-Specific Assurance that commits them
to align their PEP project with the district's Local Wellness Policy,
if applicable. Applicants to whom this requirement applies that do not
submit a Program-Specific Assurance signed by the applicant's
Authorized Representative are ineligible for the competition.
Requirement 4--Linkages With Federal, State, and Local Initiatives
If an applicant is implementing the CDC's Coordinated School Health
program, it must coordinate project activities with that initiative and
describe in its application how the proposed PEP project would be
coordinated and integrated with the program.
If an applicant receives funding under the USDA's Team Nutrition
initiative (Team Nutrition Training Grants), the applicant must
describe in its application how the proposed PEP project supports the
efforts of this initiative.
An applicant for a PEP project in a community that receives a grant
under the Recovery Act Communities Putting Prevention to Work--
Community Initiative must agree to coordinate its PEP project efforts
with those under the Recovery Act Communities Putting Prevention to
Work--Community Initiative.
Applicants and PEP-funded projects must complement, rather than
duplicate, existing, ongoing or new efforts whose goals and objectives
are to promote physical activity and healthy eating or help students
meet their State standards for physical education.
Applicants must sign a Program-Specific Assurance that commits them
to align their PEP project with the Coordinated School Health program,
Team Nutrition Training Grant, Recovery Act Communities Putting
Prevention to Work--Community Initiative, or any other similar Federal,
State, or local initiatives. Applicants that do not submit a Program-
Specific Assurance signed by the applicant's Authorized Representative
are ineligible for the competition.
Requirement 5--Updates to Physical Education and Nutrition Instruction
Curricula
Applicants that plan to use grant-related funds, including Federal
and non-Federal matching funds, to create, update, or enhance their
physical education or nutrition education curricula are required to use
the Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) and submit
their overall PECAT scorecard, and the curriculum improvement plan from
PECAT. Also, those applicants that plan to use grant-related funds,
including Federal and non-Federal matching funds to create, update, or
enhance their nutrition instruction in health education must complete
the healthy eating module of the Health Education Curriculum Analysis
Tool (HECAT). Applicants must use the curriculum improvement plan from
the HECAT to identify curricular changes to be addressed during the
funding period. Applicants must also describe how the HECAT assessment
would be used to guide nutrition instruction curricular changes. If an
applicant is not proposing to use grant-related funds for physical
education or nutrition instruction curricula, it would not need to use
these tools.
[[Page 34909]]
Requirement 6--Equipment Purchases
Purchases of equipment with PEP funds or with funds used to meet
the program's matching requirement must be aligned with the curricular
components of the proposed physical education and nutrition program.
Applicants must commit to aligning the students' use of the equipment
with PEP elements applicable to their projects, identified in the
absolute priority in this notice, and any applicable curricula by
signing a Program-Specific Assurance. Applicants that do not submit a
Program-Specific Assurance signed by the applicant's Authorized
Representative are ineligible for the competition.
Requirement 7--Increasing Transparency and Accountability
Grantees must create or use existing reporting mechanisms to
provide information on students' progress, in the aggregate, on the key
program indicators, as described in this notice and required under the
Government Performance and Results Act, as well as on any unique
project-level measures proposed in the application. Grantees that are
educational agencies or institutions are subject to applicable Federal,
State, and local privacy provisions, including the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act--a law that generally prohibits the non-
consensual disclosure of personally identifiable information in a
student's education record. All grantees must comply with applicable
Federal, State, and local privacy provisions. The aggregate-level
information should be easily accessible by the public, such as posted
on the grantee's or a partner's Web site. Applicants must describe in
their application the planned method for reporting.
Applicants must commit to reporting information to the public by
signing a Program-Specific Assurance. Applicants that do not submit a
Program-Specific Assurance signed by the applicant's Authorized
Representative are ineligible for the competition.
Requirement 8--Participation in a National Evaluation
Applicants must provide documentation of their commitment to
participate in the Department's national evaluation. An LEA applicant
must include a letter from the research office or research board
approving its participation in the evaluation (if approval is needed),
and a letter from the Authorized Representative agreeing to participate
in the evaluation.
Requirement 9--Required Performance Measures and Data Collection
Methodology
Grantees must collect and report data on three GPRA measures using
uniform data collection methods. Measure one assesses student physical
activity levels: The percentage of students served by the grant who
engage in 60 minutes of daily physical activity. Grantees are required
to use pedometers for students in grades K-12 and an additional 3-Day
Physical Activity Recall (3DPAR) instrument to collect data on students
in grades 5-12.
Measure two focuses on student health-related fitness levels: The
percentage of students served by the grant who achieve age-appropriate
cardiovascular fitness levels. Grantees are required to use the 20-
meter shuttle run, a criterion-referenced health-related fitness
testing protocol, to assess cardiovascular fitness in middle and high
school students.
Measure three focuses on student nutrition: The percentage of
students served by the grant who consume fruit two or more times per
day and vegetables three or more times per day. Programs serving high
school students are required to use the nutrition-related questions
from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey to determine the number of students
who meet these goals. Programs serving elementary and middle school
students are not required to use a specific measurement tool, and may
select an appropriate assessment tool for their population.
For each measure, grantees are required to collect and aggregate
data from four discrete data collection periods throughout each year.
During the first year, grantees have an additional data collection
period prior to program implementation to collect baseline data.
Final Definitions
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
applies the following definitions for this program.
We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which
this program is in effect.
Head of local government means the head of, or an appropriate
designee of, the party responsible for the civic functioning of the
county, city, town, or municipality would be considered the head of
local government. This includes, but is not limited to, the mayor, city
manager, or county executive.
Local public health entity means an administrative or service unit
of local or State government concerned with health and carrying some
responsibility for the health of a jurisdiction smaller than the State
(except for Rhode Island and Hawaii, because these States' health
departments operate on behalf of local public health and have no sub-
State unit). The definition applies to the State health department or
the State public health entity in the event that the local public
health entity does not govern health and nutrition issues for the local
area.
Organization supporting nutrition or healthy eating means a local
public or private non-profit school, health-related professional
organization, local public health entity, or local business that has
demonstrated interest and efforts in promoting student health or
nutrition. This term includes, but is not limited to LEAs (particularly
an LEA's school food or child nutrition director), grocery stores,
supermarkets, restaurants, corner stores, farmers' markets, farms,
other private businesses, hospitals, institutions of higher education,
Cooperative Extension Service and 4H Clubs, and community gardening
organizations, when such entities have demonstrated a clear intent to
promote student health and nutrition or have made tangible efforts to
do so. This definition does not include representatives from trade
associations or representatives from any organization representing any
producers or marketers of food or beverage product(s).
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities and
requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Executive Order 12866: This notice has been reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this final regulatory
action.
The potential costs associated with this final regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this final regulatory action, we have determined
that the benefits of the final priorities and requirements 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.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
We fully discussed the costs and benefits of this regulatory action
in the
[[Page 34910]]
notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. After
review, we determined that, although grantees may anticipate costs in
developing infrastructure partnerships, supporting integrated,
comprehensive programming and policies, and building data and
accountability systems and processes, the benefits of the priorities,
requirements, and definitions justify the costs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this proposed regulatory action will affect are
small LEAs or nonprofit organizations applying for and receiving funds
under this program. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on
applicants by the priorities, requirements, and definitions would be
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and
that the benefits of implementing these proposals would outweigh any
costs incurred by applicants.
Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the
priorities, requirements, and definitions would impose no burden on
small entities in general. Eligible applicants will determine whether
to apply for funds, and have the opportunity to weigh the requirements
for preparing applications, and any associated costs, against the
likelihood of receiving funding and the requirements for implementing
projects under the program. Eligible applicants most likely would apply
only if they determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of
preparing an application. The likely benefits include the potential
receipt of a grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an
entity through its development of an application, such as the use of
that application to spur improvement in physical education planning
without additional Federal funding.
The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards defines as
``small entities'' for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total
annual revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled
by small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts), with a population of less than 50,000. The Urban
Institute's National Center for Charitable Statistics reported that of
203,635 nonprofit organizations that had an educational mission and
reported revenue to the IRS by July 2009, 200,342 (or about 98 percent)
had revenues of less than $5 million. In addition, there are 12,484
LEAs in the country that meet the definition of small entity. However,
given program history, the Secretary believes that only a small number
of these entities would be interested in applying for funds under this
program, thus reducing the likelihood that this final regulatory action
would have a significant economic impact on small entities.
Further, the action may help small entities determine whether they
have the interest, need, or capacity to implement activities under the
program and, thus, prevent small entities that do not have such an
interest, need, and capacity from absorbing the burden of applying.
This regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact
on small entities once they receive a grant because they would be able
to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this
program and with any funds they might obtain from external parties to
fulfill the matching requirements of the program.
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.
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 14, 2010.
Kevin Jennings,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
[FR Doc. 2010-14730 Filed 6-15-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P