[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35882-35891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15083]
[[Page 35881]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller Learning Communities Program; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 120 / Wednesday, June 23, 2010 /
Notices
[[Page 35882]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Smaller Learning Communities Program
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.215L.
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, definition and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces final priorities, requirements, definition, and selection
criteria under the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) program. The
Assistant Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, definition,
and selection criteria, in addition to other previously established
priorities, definitions and requirements, for a competition using
fiscal year (FY) 2009 funds and may use them in later years. We take
this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified
national need. We intend these final priorities, requirements,
definition, and selection criteria to enhance the effectiveness of SLC
projects in improving academic achievement and helping to prepare
students for postsecondary education and careers.
DATES: Effective Date: These final priorities, requirements,
definition, and selection criteria are effective July 23, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Hernandez-Marshall, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Room 3E308,
Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 205-1909 or by e-mail:
[email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The SLC program awards discretionary grants to
local educational agencies (LEAs) to support the restructuring of large
public high schools (i.e., schools with enrollments of 1,000 or more
students) into smaller units for the purpose of improving academic
achievement in large public high schools. These smaller units include
freshman academies, multi-grade academies organized around career
interests or other themes, ``houses'' in which small groups of students
remain together throughout high school, and autonomous schools-within-
a-school. These structural changes are typically complemented by other
personalization strategies, such as student advisories, family advocate
systems, and mentoring programs.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7249.
Applicable Program Regulations: (a) The Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79,
80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The notice of final priority,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria published in the
Federal Register on April 28, 2005 (70 FR 22233) (2005 SLC NFP). (c)
The notice of final priority, requirements, and selection criteria
published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2007 (72 FR 28426) (2007
SLC NFP).
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definition, and selection criteria (NPP) for this program in the
Federal Register on March 31, 2010 (75 FR 16082). That notice contained
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular
priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria.
This notice of final priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria contains several changes from the NPP. We fully
explain these changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section
that follows.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 12
parties submitted comments on the proposed definition and proposed
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria. We group major issues
according to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other
minor changes and suggested changes we are not authorized to make under
the applicable statutory authority.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
changes in the priorities, requirements, and selection criteria
follows.
Priorities
Priority 1--Common Planning Time for Teachers
Comment: Two commenters recommended that we restrict the priority
to common planning time that occurs during the regular school day.
These commenters contended that common planning time offered
immediately after the school day is less likely to result in
improvements in instruction and greater academic and personal support
for students than common planning time that occurs during the school
day. One of these commenters also argued that teachers do not
participate regularly in common planning time when it is offered after
school because they have other responsibilities, such as leading
extracurricular activities for students and caring for their families.
One of these commenters also stated that providing common planning time
during the school day is less costly than providing it after the school
day.
Discussion: We believe that providing teachers with regular and
ongoing opportunities for structured collaboration and planning can be
a valuable strategy for improving instruction and supports for
students, regardless of whether it is offered during or immediately
following the school day. We do agree with the commenters that, as a
practical matter, obtaining regular teacher participation in common
planning time that is held after school may be more challenging than
when it is held during the school day due to the real world constraints
on teachers' out-of-school time. However, we believe that some LEAs may
be able to overcome these challenges and implement strategies that
ensure that teachers are able to, and will, participate regularly in
common planning time that is held after school. For this reason, we
have revised the priority to require an applicant that proposes to meet
the priority by regularly scheduling common planning time immediately
following the school day to provide a description of how it will ensure
that the teachers who will be included are able to and will participate
regularly in the common planning time activities.
With respect to the one commenter's concern about the higher cost
of holding common planning periods after school, we believe that
applicants are in the best position to determine whether it would be
more cost-effective to provide for common planning time during--rather
than after the school day--and therefore decline to require that
planning time only be offered during the school day.
Changes: We have revised the priority to require an applicant that
proposes to meet it by regularly scheduling common planning time
immediately following the school day to provide a description of how it
will ensure that the teachers who will be included are able to and will
participate regularly in the common planning time activities scheduled
immediately following the school day.
Comment: Two commenters objected to including common planning time
for teachers of the same academic subjects as part of this priority.
Both commenters expressed concern that, by doing so, the Department
would be allowing SLC grant funds to be used to support existing,
regularly scheduled departmental meetings that would otherwise occur.
They argued that the priority should focus exclusively on
[[Page 35883]]
common planning time for teachers who share the same students in
common. One of the commenters expressed the view that, unlike meetings
among teachers who teach the same subjects, meetings among teachers who
share the same students are unlikely to occur without SLC grant funds
and are, therefore, more in need of financial support.
Discussion: This priority provides that the required common
planning time be used for specific activities (e.g., structured
examination of student work and outcome data; collaborative
professional development and coaching, including classroom observation;
identifying instructional and other interventions for struggling
students; and curriculum and assessment development) not just
generalized meetings. These activities, whether engaged in by groups of
teachers who teach the same subject or groups of teachers who share the
same group of students, are designed to enable grantees to develop
strategies to improve student outcomes. For example, among teachers who
share a common group of students, these strategies could support
promising practices that include, but are not limited to: The
development and implementation of personalized learning models, early
identification and coordinated responses to meet the needs of
struggling students, and opportunities for teachers to improve delivery
of rigorous core course instruction. Likewise, teachers who teach the
same subject could, for example, collaborate for the purposes of
developing a stronger articulation of middle-to-high-school and high-
school-to-postsecondary-student curricula and assessments. These are
just a few of many examples of how common planning time can be used
effectively to improve student outcomes by groups of teachers who teach
the same subject or groups of teachers who share the same group of
students.
We have designed this priority to apply to both teachers who share
the same students and teachers who teach the same academic subject
because we want to provide grantees with flexibility to develop the
best common planning activities for their schools.
Finally, we disagree that, without SLC funds, schools may be
unlikely to initiate the practice of regularly scheduled common
planning time among teachers who share the same students. Some current
grantees do not use grant funds for common planning time but have
managed to implement the practice to support purposeful collaboration.
That said, we do acknowledge that current financial constraints at high
schools across the country have made practitioners more cautious about
embarking on new initiatives. Therefore, high schools that are not
already engaged in these common planning activities may be reluctant to
begin doing so now without some additional funding. This is, in part,
why we are establishing substantially higher budget award amounts in
the Requirements section of the notice. The maximum, 60-month award
amount per school is $750,000 more than the maximum award amount
established in the 2007 SLC NFP.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we clarify whether a
project could meet this priority if it increased the amount of time for
common planning time, but decreased the amount of time for individual
planning and preparation available to teachers during the regular
school day. The commenter expressed concern that, without this
clarification, a project that shifted individual planning time for
teachers from the school day to after school could still meet the
priority if it also increased the amount of time for common planning
and collaboration.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the priority should be
clarified on this point. Teachers need individual planning time during
the school day to develop and prepare lessons, review and grade student
work and tests, and examine assessment and other student outcome data.
Providing teachers with time during the school day for individual
planning and preparation is just as important as providing
collaborative teacher time. We believe that both are essential to
ensuring that core curricula are rigorous and use high-quality
instruction and that learning environments are personalized based on
student need.
Some purposeful common planning time activities we described in the
NPP are complementary but quite distinct from the work that a teacher
undertakes during individual planning time. On the one hand, we believe
that purposeful common planning time activities increase the likelihood
that teachers will gain access to more curriculum resources, add to and
benefit from collective efforts to more efficiently identify and track
struggling students, create a coherent sequence of courses, and ensure
all students are receiving the supports they need to graduate ready for
postsecondary education and careers. On the other hand, individual
planning allows teachers the time to determine how the collective
knowledge and skills learned during collaborative planning can be
applied in their individual classrooms. We further believe that
relegating individual planning to after school would be detrimental
because, as noted elsewhere in this notice, during that period of the
day, educators face a number of time constraints that they do not face
during the school day. For this reason, we believe it is appropriate to
revise this priority to clarify that, to meet this priority, a project
must increase the amount of time regularly provided to teachers for
common planning and collaboration during the school day without
decreasing the amount of time provided to teachers for individual
planning and preparation during the school day.
Changes: We have added the words ``during the school day'' to the
end of the sentence describing the required common planning period and
the need for the increase in required common planning time so as not to
result in individual teacher planning time.
Priority 2--Persistently Low-Achieving Schools--Secondary Schools
(Revised and Redesignated as Priority 2--Projects in Which Fifty
Percent or More of the Included Schools Are Low-Achieving and Priority
3--Projects in Which at Least One, but Less than Fifty Percent, of the
Included Schools Are Low-Achieving)
Comment: Five commenters objected to the proposed priority for
persistently lowest-achieving schools, arguing that, while these
schools have extreme needs, many other high-poverty schools that may
not be designated as persistently lowest-achieving also need assistance
to improve student achievement and should be able to receive funding
under the SLC program. Two of these commenters also argued that
persistently lowest-achieving schools should not be given priority
under the SLC program because these schools will be given priority for
assistance under the School Improvement Grant (SIG) and Race to the Top
programs.
Discussion: In the NPP, we had proposed to give a priority to
projects that include one or more schools that have been identified by
a State as being ``persistently lowest-achieving,'' in accordance with
the definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools established for
the SIG program. We proposed this priority because we sought to target
SLC funds on the Nation's neediest schools and align the SLC program
with the Administration's efforts to finally break the long cycle of
educational failure--including the failure of previous reforms--in
these schools. This approach is consistent with the Department's long-
established
[[Page 35884]]
practice of targeting resources where there is the greatest need. That
said, we recognize the concerns raised by commenters that limiting this
priority to only persistently lowest-achieving schools may be too
restrictive because, as applied to this program, it may prevent many
schools that have critical needs from being included in an SLC project.
For this reason, we have revised the priority to include persistently
lowest-achieving schools as well as schools that fall within one of the
following categories:
(a) Title I schools that are in corrective action or restructuring
under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, as amended (ESEA).
(b) Schools that are eligible for, but do not receive Title I funds
provided that, if the schools received Title I funds, they would be in
corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA.
(c) Title I schools or schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive Title I funds that had a graduation rate, as defined in the
State's approved accountability plan for Part A of Title I of the ESEA,
that is less than 60 percent.
We believe that these changes to the criteria for schools to be
served by the SLC grant respond to commenters' concerns about the
proposed priority being too narrow, while at the same time retaining
the focus on serving the neediest schools, which include high-need
schools that may not qualify as persistently lowest-achieving schools.
We note that the substantive changes made to the proposed priority
align it more closely with the priority for persistently low-performing
schools that we used in the Investing in Innovation FY 2010 competition
(see Absolute Priority 4--Innovations that Turn Around Persistently
Low-Performing Schools in the notice inviting applications (75 FR
12072, 12073)).
In addition, for clarity and ease of administration, we have
determined that it would be helpful to convert this single priority
into two separate priorities that include the substantive categories
(a), (b), (c), and (d), but that apply to different types of
applications. Establishing two separate priorities will be clearer to
applicants than a single, two-part priority, reducing the likelihood
that they will make inadvertent errors in addressing the priorities in
their applications. For this reason, we have further revised the
priority proposed in the NPP by redesignating it as two priorities--
Priority 2 and Priority 3. As revised, new priority 2 applies to
applications in which 50 percent or more of the schools to be served by
the SLC grant are schools in categories (a), (b), (c), or (d) of the
priority. Priority 3, which has the same categories as new priority 2,
applies to applications in which at least one, but less 50 percent, of
the schools to be served by the SLC grant are in categories (a), (b),
(c), or (d) of the priority.
Finally, we have made additional changes, reflected in new
Priorities 2 and 3, to require that an applicant provide evidence that
any school or schools included in its application are in categories
(a), (b), (c), or (d). Specifically, we require an applicant to include
with its application a signed and dated certification from the
superintendent of the LEA in which the school is located. This
certification also must identify the specific category of the
priorities (i.e., the categories of schools described in paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), and (d) of the priorities) that applies to each school
included in the application. We are establishing this certification
requirement to expedite our review of an application to determine
whether it meets one of the two priorities. This is particularly
important for those applications that include a school that is in
categories (b), (c), or (d) because unlike the lists of schools
identified by States as being ``persistently lowest-achieving'' that
were submitted by States with their SIG applications, the Department
does not have ready access to the complete and current list of schools
that are in the remaining categories.
Changes: We have revised priority 2 to include (a) persistently
lowest-achieving schools as well as schools that fall within one of the
following categories: (b) Title I schools that are in corrective action
or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA; (c) schools that are
eligible for, but do not receive Title I funds provided that, if the
schools received Title I funds, they would be in corrective action or
restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA; and (d) Title I schools
and schools that are eligible for, but do not receive Title I funds
that have a graduation rate, as defined in the State's approved
accountability plan for Part A of Title I of the ESEA, that is less
than 60 percent. In addition, we have created a new priority, Priority
3, which is substantively the same as new Priority 2, but which applies
to a different set of applications. New Priority 2 is for applications
in which 50 percent or more of the schools to be served by the SLC
grant are schools are in categories (a), (b), (c), or (d). New Priority
3 is for applications in which at least one, but less 50 percent, of
the schools to be served by the SLC grant are schools in categories
(a), (b), (c), or (d). We clarified that the data used by an applicant
to identify schools that fall within one of the four categories be from
the current, or most recently completed, school year.
We also have added a provision to this priority to require
applicants to include evidence to support the assertion that the
proposed project's schools fit within one of these categories. This
evidence must consist of a signed and dated certification from the
superintendent of the LEA in which the school is located. This
certification must identify the specific category of the priority
(i.e., the categories of schools described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
and (d) of this priority) that applies to each school included in the
application.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the priority for
persistently lowest-achieving schools be designated as an invitational
priority when we invite applications for SLC funding.
Discussion: In the NPP, we indicated that we would designate the
proposed priorities as invitational, competitive preference, or
absolute in the notice inviting applications for any competition for
which we planned to use the priorities. For the competition using FY
2009 funds, we will designate Priority 2 and 3 as competitive
preference priorities. We do, however, retain the flexibility to
designate these priorities as competitive preference or absolute
priorities in future competitions.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that we restrict the priority
to persistently lowest-achieving schools that do not receive SIG
funding. One of these commenters noted that LEAs will be preparing
applications for SIG and SLC grants during the same general time
period. This commenter expressed concern that the SIG and SLC
applications developed by some LEAs may not be consistent and
complementary, making it extremely difficult for an LEA to implement
both projects if its two applications are selected for funding. The
commenter went on to argue that, even if an LEA's two applications are
consistent and complementary, there also may be significant
implementation problems if only one of these applications is selected
for funding.
Discussion: We acknowledge that there is a risk that LEAs may not
submit complementary applications for SIG and SLC funding and that
implementation problems also may ensue if both
[[Page 35885]]
applications are selected for funding. This issue is not limited to the
SIG and SLC programs; it occurs any time multiple Department programs
hold competitions for funding during the same time period. However, we
do not believe that there is any practical way that the Department can
address or prevent problems that may result when the application
periods for two or more Department grant programs occur simultaneously.
Changes: None.
Requirements
Requirement 1--Budget and Performance Periods
Comment: Two commenters expressed opposition to our proposed
requirement that would reduce the budget period for the initial grant
award from 36 to 24 months. The commenter argued that it was
unreasonable to expect a project to demonstrate substantial progress in
24 months. The commenter also expressed concern that it would be
difficult to hire a full-time project director because individuals
would be reluctant to assume this position if their employment was
guaranteed for only 24 months of receiving the award.
Discussion: As we explained in the NPP, we proposed reducing the
duration of the initial budget period because we believe it is
reasonable to expect an SLC grantee to demonstrate substantial progress
within 24 months. Grantees that require more than an initial 24 months
to show progress are likely experiencing significant management
problems and may not merit continued funding. We note as well that most
of the Department's discretionary grant programs have an initial budget
period of 12 months. Generally, grantees that receive funding under
these programs do not have difficulty demonstrating progress during the
first 12 months of the project period. They also do not experience
significant problems recruiting qualified individuals to serve as
project directors.
Changes: None.
Requirement 3--Performance Indicators
Comment: One commenter recommended that we require grantees to use
a cohort model for calculating the proposed graduation rate performance
indicator.
Discussion: Paragraph (b) of the proposed performance indicators
requires grantees to use a cohort model to calculate graduation rate.
In the NPP, we proposed to require that grantees use the same
definition of graduation rate that is used in the State's approved
accountability plan for part A of title I of the ESEA. On October 29,
2008, the Department published in the Federal Register final
regulations amending the Department's regulations implementing title I,
part A of the ESEA (see 34 CFR 200.19). Section 200.19 requires States
and LEAs to use a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate to
calculate the graduation rate they report on the annual report cards
required by section 1111(h) of ESEA. Under this regulatory provision,
States and LEAs are required to use this new definition of graduation
rate beginning with the 2010-11 school year. For this reason, we do not
believe any change to this performance indicator is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: In the NPP, we proposed to require applicants to
establish, for each school included in an application, annual
performance objectives for three performance indicators:
(1) The percentage of students who score at or above the proficient
level on the reading/language arts and mathematics assessments used by
the State to determine whether a school has made adequate yearly
progress under part A of Title I of the ESEA;
(2) The school's graduation rate, as defined in the State's
approved accountability plan for Part A of Title I of the ESEA; and
(3) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary
education, advanced training, or a registered apprenticeship program in
the semester following high school graduation.
We further proposed to require grantees to report annually data for
these indicators in the aggregate, as well as disaggregated by the
following subgroups:
(1) Major racial and ethnic groups;
(2) Students with disabilities;
(3) Students with limited English proficiency; and
(4) Economically disadvantaged students.
One commenter requested that we clarify whether applicants may set
different annual performance objectives for students in the aggregate
and for each of the student subgroups.
Discussion: The Performance Indicators requirement directs
applicants to establish a single, annual performance objective for each
school for each of the three performance indicators. It does not
require or permit grantees to set different performance objectives for
different groups of students for these three required performance
indicators. Instead, it requires grantees to report data on the extent
to which a school met its performance objectives in the aggregate, as
well as disaggregated by the four student subgroups.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that we clarify whether we were
proposing to require grantees to meet the annual performance objectives
they establish in the aggregate and for each subgroup for student
performance on reading/language arts and mathematics assessments, high
school graduation rates, and student enrollment in postsecondary
education in order to continue to receive funding.
Discussion: Nothing in the Performance Indicators requirement
requires grantees to meet or exceed any of their annual performance
objectives in order to continue to receive an SLC grant. However, a
grantee's success in meeting these performance objectives would be
considered as one of a number of factors we would review in determining
whether the grantee has made substantial progress toward accomplishing
the goals and objectives of the project and merits continued funding.
Other factors we would consider include, among others, a grantee's
success in meeting the project-specific goals and objectives it
establishes in its application, the extent to which it is implementing
its project according to the timeline it identified in its application,
and its fiscal management of the grant.
Changes: None.
Proposed Requirement 5--Evidence of Eligibility
Comment: None.
Discussion: In the NPP, we proposed to require applicants to
provide evidence in their applications that, during the current or the
most recently completed school year, each school included in their
applications is a large public high school (i.e., an entity that
includes grades 11 and 12 and has an enrollment of 1,000 or more
students in grades 9 and above (see Definitions in 2005 SLC NFP) and,
thus, is eligible to receive assistance under this program. We proposed
that this evidence would need to include a copy of either:
(a) The form or report that the LEA submits to the SEA to report
the school's student enrollment (or student membership, as it is
sometimes described) on or around October 1 of each year.
(b) A document provided by the SEA that identifies the school's
enrollment on or around October 1 of each year.
Upon further review, we believe it is necessary to simplify the
evidence of eligibility requirement to ensure that all prospective
applicants with eligible schools can provide evidence of their
[[Page 35886]]
eligibility. Because there is so much diversity in how SEAs define
student enrollment and when and the extent to which they collect and
report school-level enrollment data from LEAs, we are concerned that
some LEAs may have difficulty identifying a single document that meets
the requirements of either of the two options for providing evidence of
eligibility. We also are concerned that documents that may meet the
requirements we proposed in the NPP still may not include all of the
information we need to establish that a school is eligible to receive
assistance under this program. For example, a document issued by an SEA
may identify a school's enrollment on or around October 1, but it may
not also include information on whether or not the school includes
grades 11 and 12, another element of the school eligibility
requirement. For these reasons, we believe it is necessary and
appropriate to limit the evidence of school eligibility that must be
provided by each applicant to a signed and dated certification from the
superintendent of the LEA in which the school is located that the
school is a large public high school as that term is defined in the
2005 SLC NFP.
Changes: We have revised the Evidence of Eligibility requirement by
deleting the proposed types of evidence and replacing them with a
single requirement--for the applicant to include in its application a
certification from the superintendent of the LEA in which the school is
located that the school is a large public high school as that term is
defined in the 2005 SLC NFP.
Requirement 6--Evaluation
Comment: Three commenters expressed opposition to our proposed
elimination of the requirement established by the 2005 SLC NFP that
each applicant provide assurances that it will support an evaluation of
the project that will produce an annual report for each year of the
performance period. These commenters contended that high-quality,
formative evaluations can provide grantees with important data they
need for program improvement and to demonstrate substantial progress.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that a well-designed,
independent, and formative evaluation of an SLC project can provide the
project director and other LEA and school personnel with data that can
be useful in gauging the project's progress and identifying areas for
improvement. However, as we noted in the NPP, we carefully reviewed the
annual evaluation reports that have been submitted by grantees since FY
2006 and concluded that, generally, the evaluation requirement
established in the 2005 SLC NFP has not achieved its intended purpose.
For the most part, grantees have not chosen to commission evaluations
that provide them with useful implementation information or have not
used the information provided by these evaluations to improve their
management of their projects. Instead, it appears that many grantees
have commissioned evaluations chiefly to comply with our requirement.
Given the often considerable cost of these evaluations and their
apparent limited usefulness to grantees, we believe it would be prudent
to cease to require grantees to commission them. A grantee may still
choose to use grant funds to support a project evaluation under some
circumstances. The evaluation costs must be related clearly to the
goals of the project and be necessary for the proper and efficient
performance and administration of the grant. In addition, the costs
must be reasonable, allocable, and meet other requirements set out in
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we continue to require
grantees to support independent evaluations, but that we address the
concerns we described in the NPP about the quality and usefulness of
these evaluations by designing and overseeing the evaluations that
grantees support with grant funds.
Discussion: We agree generally with the commenter that independent
evaluations commissioned and managed by the Department are more likely
to provide useful information about project implementation,
particularly if the evaluations are rigorous and use, for example, an
experimental design. For this reason, in FY 2006, the Department
supported a two-year randomized controlled trial of two supplemental
literacy interventions that were implemented by SLC grantees in
freshman academies. We are currently exploring other opportunities to
support similar evaluations of practices, programs, or strategies
implemented by high schools included in SLC grants in future
competitions, but are unable to do so for this competition.
Changes: None.
Requirement 7--Grant Award Administration
Comment: One commenter recommended that we clarify that the
responsibilities of the project director of an SLC grant are not
limited to administrative functions, but that they also include
responsibility for managing and providing leadership for the
implementation of the practices, programs, and strategies the grantee
identified in its application. The commenter recommended that these
responsibilities include, for example, coordinating grant activities
with other structural and instructional reform efforts that a school or
LEA is implementing.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that, in addition to
performing other important management and administrative functions
related to the implementation of the grant, the project director of an
SLC grant also should have significant programmatic responsibilities,
as well as the authority to carry out these responsibilities.
Changes: We have revised this requirement to clarify that the
project director's responsibilities include managing and providing
leadership for the implementation of the practices, programs, and
strategies the grantee identified in its application.
Requirement 8--Use of Funds for Equipment
Comment: Two commenters asked us to clarify whether the maximum
amount of funds used for equipment--defined as 1 percent of the total
award--is the maximum amount that can be expended in a single year or
the maximum amount that can be expended across all five years of the
grant's project period.
Discussion: We agree that as originally drafted, the proposed
requirement did not clearly describe how a grantee may use funds to pay
the costs of equipment across its 60-month project period. We
appreciate that this may have become even less clear given the changes
we proposed to the lengths of SLC budget periods (Proposed Requirement
1--Budget and Performance Periods). For this reason, we have clarified
that, in any budget period, an applicant may use up to 1 percent of the
total amount awarded for that budget period on the costs of equipment.
Changes: We have revised this requirement to state that a grantee
may not use more than one percent of the grant award in any single
budget period during the project period for the acquisition of
equipment (as that term is defined in this notice). We have also added
language to clarify that the first budget period of the SLC project
period is 24 months in length and each of the three subsequent budget
periods are 12 months in length, for a total of four budget periods.
Comment: One commenter objected to limiting equipment costs,
arguing that
[[Page 35887]]
placing restrictions on these costs could negatively affect a project's
ability to attract administrative and staff support for the project.
The commenter stated that acquiring technology equipment, which
necessarily results in increases in costs, often serves as an incentive
for administrative and staff support for the SLC project.
Discussion: While equipment may be perceived as one solution to
providing staffs tangible benefits for their support and efforts, we
strongly believe that prioritizing funds for effective teacher
planning, professional development, student instructional services, and
the like, is more strongly correlated with improvements in student
academic performance than equipment. We intend these limits on the use
of funds to prompt SLC project leaders to approach these costs more
thoughtfully, and in a way that will ensure that such costs are clearly
aligned and consistent with the goals and objectives of their projects.
Ultimately, each project must be able to provide the rationale for why
its costs are appropriate, reasonable, and allowable under OMB's cost
principles.
Changes: None
Selection Criteria
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the selection
subcriterion under Quality of Project Services that evaluates the
extent to which the project fosters a personalized learning
environment. The commenter objected to the proposed use of the term
``multiple teachers and adults'' rather than the term ``core group of
teachers and other adults'' that is used in the definition of ``smaller
learning community'' established in the 2005 SLC NFP. The commenter
contended that the revised language weakens the significance of smaller
learning environments, such as freshman and career-based academies, as
well as advisories to provide personalized social and academic support
to all students.
Discussion: We agree that use of the phrase ``multiple teachers''
in paragraph (b)(1) of the Quality of Project Services selection
criterion is inconsistent with the definition of ``smaller learning
community'' in the 2005 SLC NFP. Upon further review, we believe that
the selection subcriterion should be revised to conform with this
definition by deleting the phrase ``multiple teachers'' in paragraph
(b)(1) of the Quality of Project Services selection criterion and using
instead the phrase ``core group of teachers.''
Changes: We have replaced the phrase ``multiple teachers'' with the
phrase ``a core group of teachers'' in paragraph (b)(1) of the Quality
of Project Services selection criterion.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about paragraph (b)(4) of
the Quality of Project Services selection criterion, under which the
Secretary evaluates the extent to which a project incorporates teacher
common planning time. The commenter objected to referring to common
planning and collaboration immediately following the school day; the
commenter cited multiple challenges to getting teachers to participate
in collaborative activities after school hours. Another commenter
strongly recommended that the Department require each applicant to
provide an assurance that, in implementing the new common planning time
requirement, it will not move teacher individual planning time from
during the school day to after school.
Discussion: For the same reasons we articulate earlier in this
preamble in connection with comments received on priority 1, we agree
that it is appropriate to remove the reference to ``after school'' from
this selection criterion, which also addresses required common planning
time. In addition, for the same reasons explained in the response to
comments on priority 1, we believe it is appropriate to clarify that--
in increasing the amount of time regularly provided to teachers for
common planning and collaboration during the school day--applicants
must not decrease the amount of time provided to teachers for
individual planning and preparation during the school day.
Changes: We have removed the words ``immediately following'' from
paragraph (b)(4) of the Quality of Project Services selection
criterion. In addition, we have added the words ``during the school
day'' at the end of the sentence on decreasing the amount of time
provided to teachers for individual planning and preparation.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about paragraph (b)(6) of
the Quality of Project Services selection criterion, under which the
Secretary evaluates the extent to which a proposed project will
increase student participation in Advanced Placement, International
Baccalaureate, or dual credit courses, such as dual enrollment or early
college programs. The commenter objected to the use of the phrase
``dual enrollment'' in the list of examples referenced in this
criterion. The commenter indicated that the distinction between the
terms ``dual credit'' and ``dual enrollment'' was not clear.
Discussion: We agree that the distinction between the terms ``dual
credit'' and ``dual enrollment'' is unclear. Because the ``Preparing
All Students to Succeed in Postsecondary Education and Careers''
priority we established in the 2007 SLC NFP uses only the term ``dual
credit,'' we have deleted the term ``dual enrollment'' from paragraph
(b)(6) of the Quality of Project Services.''
Changes: In paragraph (b)(6) of the Quality of Project Services
selection criterion, we have deleted the term ``dual enrollment
courses'' and the parenthetical that followed and replaced the phrase
with the term ``dual credit courses.''
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that paragraph
(b)(7) of the Quality of Project Services selection criterion, under
which the Secretary evaluates the extent to which a proposed project
will increase the percentage of students who enter postsecondary
education in the semester following graduation, did not explicitly
mention career awareness, guidance, and planning. Because these
activities should be an integral part of a high school's comprehensive
program to increase student enrollment in postsecondary education, we
have included explicit references to career awareness, guidance, and
planning in paragraph (b)(7).
Changes: We have revised paragraph (b)(7) to incorporate references
to career awareness, guidance, and planning activities.
Final Priorities
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following priorities for the Smaller Learning
Communities program. These priorities are in addition to the priority
established in the 2007 SLC NFP published in the Federal Register (see
72 FR 28429). We may apply these priorities in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Priority 1--Common Planning Time for Teachers
This priority supports projects that increase the amount of time
regularly provided to teachers who share the same students or teach the
same academic subject for common planning and collaboration during or
immediately following the school day without decreasing the amount of
time provided to teachers for individual planning and preparation
during the school day. To meet this priority, the common planning time
must be used for one or more of the following activities:
(1) Structured examination of student work and outcome data.
[[Page 35888]]
(2) Collaborative professional development and coaching, including
classroom observation.
(3) Identifying instructional and other interventions for
struggling students.
(4) Curriculum and assessment development.
An applicant that proposes to meet this priority by regularly
scheduling common planning time immediately following the school day
must provide a description of how it will ensure that the teachers who
will be included are able to and will participate regularly in the
common planning time activities.
Priority 2--Projects in Which Fifty Percent or More of the Included
Schools Are Low-Achieving
This priority supports projects in which 50 percent or more of the
schools to be served by the SLC grant are in any of the following
categories:
(a) Persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in the final
requirements for the School Improvement Grants program (see 74 FR
65618, 65652)).
(b) Title I schools that are in corrective action or restructuring
under section 1116 of the ESEA.
(c) Schools that are eligible for, but do not receive Title I funds
provided that, if the schools received Title I funds, they would be in
corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA.
(d) Title I schools and schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive Title I funds that have a graduation rate, as defined in the
State's approved accountability plan for Part A of Title I of the ESEA,
that is less than 60 percent.
To meet this priority, the applicant must provide evidence that its
proposed project includes a fifty percent or more of schools that are
from one of the categories (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this priority. This
evidence must be based upon data from the current school year or the
most recently completed school year and must consist of a signed and
dated certification from the superintendent of the LEA in which the
schools are located. This certification must identify the specific
category of the priority (i.e., the categories of schools described in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this priority) that applies to
each school included in the application.
Priority 3--Projects in Which at Least One, but Less Than Fifty
Percent, of the Included Schools Are Low-Achieving
This priority supports projects in which at least one, but less
than 50 percent, of the schools to be served by the SLC grant are in
any of the following categories:
(a) Persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in the final
requirements for the School Improvement Grants program (see 74 FR
65618, 65652)).
(b) Title I schools that are in corrective action or restructuring
under section 1116 of the ESEA.
(c) Schools that are eligible for, but do not receive Title I funds
provided that, if the schools received Title I funds, they would be in
corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA.
(d) Title I schools and schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive Title I funds that have a graduation rate, as defined in the
State's approved accountability plan for Part A of Title I of the ESEA,
that is less than 60 percent.
To meet this priority, the applicant must provide evidence that its
proposed project includes at least one, but less than 50 percent of
schools that are included in its application that are included in its
application are in one of the categories (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this
priority. This evidence must be based upon data from the current school
year or the most recently completed school year and must consist of a
signed and dated certification from the superintendent of the LEA in
which the school or schools are located. This certification must
identify the specific category of the priority (i.e., the categories of
schools described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this priority)
that applies to each school included in the application.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following requirements for the Smaller Learning
Communities program. We may apply these requirements in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Note: These requirements will be in addition to the application
requirements required under title V, part D, subpart 4, section
5441(b) of the ESEA, and the following requirements established in
the 2005 SLC NFP and the 2007 SLC NFP:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consortium Applications and Educational 2005 SLC NFP.
Service Agencies.
Student Placement...................... 2005 SLC NFP.
Including All Students................. 2005 SLC NFP.
Indirect Costs......................... 2007 SLC NFP.
Required Meetings Sponsored by the 2007 SLC NFP.
Department.
Previous Grantees...................... 2007 SLC NFP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement 1--Budget and Performance Periods: Grantees will be
awarded grants for a period up to 60 months, with the initial award to
provide funding for the first 24 months of the performance period.
Funding for the remainder of the performance period will be made
annually, contingent on the availability of funds and each grantee's
substantial progress toward accomplishing the goals and objectives of
the project as described in its approved application.
In its application, the applicant must provide detailed, yearly
budget information for the total grant period requested.
Requirement 2--Maximum Award Amounts and Number of Schools: An
eligible LEA may receive, on behalf of a single school, up to
$2,500,000 of SLC grant funds, depending upon student enrollment in the
school, for the entire 60-month project period.
The following chart provides the ranges of awards per high school
size:
SLC Award Ranges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student enrollment Award ranges per school
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000-2,000 Students............... $1,750,000-$2,000,000
2,001-3,000 Students............... 1,750,000-2,250,000
3,001 and Up....................... 1,750,000-2,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35889]]
An LEA may include up to five schools in a single application for a
SLC grant. Therefore, an LEA applying on behalf of a group of eligible
schools would be able to receive up to $12,500,000 for its SLC grant
for the entire 60 month project period.
Applications requesting more funds than the maximum amounts
specified for any school or for the total grant will not be read as
part of the regular application process. However, if, after the
Secretary selects applications to be funded, it appears that additional
funds remain available, the Secretary has the option of reviewing
applications that requested funds exceeding the maximum amounts
specified. Under this requirement, if the Secretary chooses to fund any
of the additional applications, selected applicants will be required to
work with the Department to revise their proposed budgets to fit within
the appropriate funding range.
Requirement 3--Performance Indicators: Each applicant must identify
in its application the following specific performance indicators as
well as the annual performance objectives to be used for each of these
indicators. Specifically, each applicant must use the following
performance indicators to measure the progress of each school included
in its application:
(a) The percentage of students who score at or above the proficient
level on the reading/language arts and mathematics assessments used by
the State to determine whether a school has made adequate yearly
progress under part A of title I of the ESEA, as well as these
percentages disaggregated by subject matter and the following
subgroups:
(1) Major racial and ethnic groups.
(2) Students with disabilities.
(3) Students with limited English proficiency.
(4) Economically disadvantaged students.
(b) The school's graduation rate, as defined in the State's
approved accountability plan for part A of title I of the ESEA, as well
as the graduation rates for the following subgroups:
(1) Major racial and ethnic groups.
(2) Students with disabilities.
(3) Students with limited English proficiency.
(4) Economically disadvantaged students.
(c) The percentage of all graduates who enroll in postsecondary
education in the semester following high school graduation, as well as
the percentage disaggregated by the following subgroups:
(1) Major racial and ethnic groups.
(2) Students with disabilities.
(3) Students with limited English proficiency.
(4) Economically disadvantaged students.
Each applicant must identify in its application its performance
objectives for each of these indicators for each year of the project
period and provide baseline data for the third indicator (postsecondary
enrollment). The Department will obtain baseline data for the first and
second performance indicators (student performance on reading/language
arts and mathematics assessments and the graduation rate) and data on
the extent to which each school included in a grant achieves its annual
performance objectives for each year of the project period from the
data that are now reported to the Department by SEAs using the EDEN
Submission System (ESS). Grantees are not required to provide these
data. However, each grantee must report to the Department annually on
the extent to which each school in its grant achieves its performance
objectives for the third indicator (postsecondary enrollment).
Finally, grantees must use administrative records maintained by
State, national, or regional entities that already collect data on
student enrollment in postsecondary education as the principal source
of data for this performance indicator. These administrative records
include, for example, data available through State longitudinal
databases or other sources. Grantees may supplement these records with
data collected through surveys administered to students or parents
after graduation.
Requirement 4--No School Report Cards: No applicant is required to
include in its application any report card for the schools included in
its application.
Requirement 5--Evidence of Eligibility: LEAs, including schools
funded by the Bureau of Indian Education and educational service
agencies, applying on behalf of large public high schools, are eligible
to apply for a grant. We will not accept applications from LEAs
applying on behalf of schools that are being constructed and do not
have an active student enrollment at the time of application. LEAs may
apply on behalf of no more than five schools. Along with its
application, each applicant must provide for each school included in
its application:
(a) The school's name, postal mailing address, and the 12-digit
identification number assigned to the school by the National Center for
Education Statistics.
(b) A signed and dated certification from the superintendent of the
LEA in which the school is located that, based upon data from the
current school year or the most recently completed school year, the
school is a large public high school as that term is defined in the
2005 SLC NFP.
Requirement 6--No Evaluation: No applicant is required to provide
assurances that it will support an evaluation of the project that will
produce an annual report for each year of the performance period.
Requirement 7--Grant Award Administration: Grantees must designate
a single project director who will be principally responsible for
managing and providing leadership for the implementation of the
practices, programs, and strategies the grantee identified in its
application and for communicating with the Department.
Each grantee must ensure that its designated project director--for
a grant that includes one school--be not less than 50 percent of a
full-time equivalent (FTE) position and that the time commitment of a
project director for a grant that includes more than one school be not
less than one FTE.
Requirement 8--Use of Funds for Equipment: A grantee may not use
more than one percent of the grant award in any single budget period
during the project period for the acquisition of equipment (as that
term is defined in this notice). The first budget period of the SLC
project period is 24 months in length and each of the three subsequent
budget periods are 12 months in length, for a total of four budget
periods.
Final Definition
In addition to the definitions in the authorizing statute, 34 CFR
77.1, and the 2005 SLC NFP, the following definition applies to this
program:
Equipment means an article of nonexpendable, tangible personal
property that has a useful life of more than one year and that has an
acquisition cost which equals or exceeds the lesser of the
capitalization level established by the governmental unit for financial
statement purposes, or $500. It includes, but is not limited to, office
equipment and furnishings, modular offices, telephone networks,
information technology equipment and systems, air conditioning
equipment, reproduction and printing equipment, and motor vehicles.
Final Selection Criteria
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following selection criteria for evaluating an
application under this program. We may apply one or more of these
criteria in any year in
[[Page 35890]]
which this program is in effect. These selection criteria replace the
selection criteria established for the SLC program in the 2005 SLC NFP
(see 70 FR 22237-22239) and the 2007 SLC NFP (see 72 FR 28430, 28431).
In the notice inviting applications or the application package or
both we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each
criterion.
(a) Quality of the Project Design. In determining the quality of
the design of the proposed project, we will consider the extent to
which--
(1) Teachers, school administrators, parents, and community
stakeholders support the proposed project and have been and will
continue to be involved in its development and implementation;
(2) The applicant has carried out sufficient planning and
preparatory activities to enable it to implement the proposed project
during the school year in which the grant award will be made;
(3) School administrators, teachers, and other school employees
will receive effective, ongoing technical assistance and professional
development in implementing structural and instructional reforms and
providing effective instruction; and
(4) The applicant demonstrates that the proposed project is aligned
with and advances a coordinated, district-wide strategy to improve
student academic achievement and preparation for postsecondary
education and careers without need for remediation.
(b) Quality of Project Services. In determining the quality of the
services to be provided by the proposed project, we will consider the
extent to which the proposed project is likely to be effective in--
(1) Creating an environment in which a core group of teachers and
other adults within the school know the needs, interests, and
aspirations of each student well, closely monitor each student's
progress, and provide the academic and other support each student needs
to succeed;
(2) Equipping all students with the reading/English language arts,
mathematics, and science knowledge and skills they need to succeed in
postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation;
(3) Helping students who enter high school with reading/English
language arts or mathematics skills that are significantly below grade-
level to ``catch up'' and attain, maintain and exceed proficiency by
providing supplemental instruction and supports to these students
during the ninth grade and, to the extent necessary, in later grades;
(4) Increasing the amount of time regularly provided to teachers
for common planning and collaboration during the school day, without
decreasing the amount of time provided to teachers for individual
planning and preparation during the school day;
(5) Ensuring, through technical assistance, professional
development, and other means, that teachers use opportunities for
common planning and collaboration effectively to improve instruction
and student academic achievement;
(6) Increasing the participation of students, particularly low-
income students, in Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or
dual credit courses that offer students the opportunity to earn
simultaneously both high school and college credit; and
(7) Increasing the percentage of students who enter postsecondary
education in the semester following high school graduation by
delivering comprehensive career guidance and academic advising to
students and their parents that includes assistance in selecting
courses and planning a program of study that will provide the academic
preparation needed to succeed in postsecondary education and careers,
early and ongoing career and college awareness and planning activities,
and help in identifying and applying for financial aid for
postsecondary education.
(c) Support for Implementation. In determining the adequacy of the
support the applicant will provide for implementation of the proposed
project, we will consider the extent to which--
(1) The management plan is likely to achieve the objectives of the
proposed project on time and within budget and includes clearly defined
responsibilities and detailed timelines and milestones for
accomplishing project tasks; and
(2) The project director and other key personnel are qualified and
have sufficient authority to carry out their responsibilities, and
their time commitments are appropriate and adequate to implement the
SLC project effectively.
(d) Need for the Project. In determining the need for the proposed
project, we will consider the extent to which the applicant has
identified specific gaps and weaknesses in the preparation of all
students for postsecondary education and careers without need for
remediation, the nature and magnitude of those gaps and weaknesses, and
the extent to which the proposed project will address those gaps and
weaknesses effectively.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, definition,
requirements, or selection criteria, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866: This notice has been reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this final regulatory
action.
The potential costs associated with this final regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this final regulatory action, we have determined
that the benefits of the final priorities, requirements, definition,
and selection criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this final regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits: Elsewhere in this notice we
discuss the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of the final priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: You can view this document, as
well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the
Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister. To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
this site.
[[Page 35891]]
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 17, 2010.
Thelma Mel[eacute]ndez de Santa Ana,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2010-15083 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P