[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 31, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16082-16088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7255]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes priorities, requirements, a definition, and selection criteria
under the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) program. The Assistant
Secretary will use these priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria, in addition to any other previously established
priorities 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 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: We must receive your comments on or before April 30, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed priorities,
requirements, definition, and selection criteria to Angela Hernandez-
Marshall, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ,
Room 3E308, Washington, DC 20202-6200.
If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the
following address: [email protected]. You must include
the term ``SLC Proposed Requirements'' in the subject line of your
electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Hernandez-Marshall. 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 (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definition,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed
priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in room 3E308, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The 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
[[Page 16083]]
34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The
final priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2005 (70 FR 22233) (the
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) (the 2007 SLC NFP).
Background: Creating a more personalized learning experience for
students has been a prominent part of high school improvement efforts
in recent years. Several evaluations have found, generally, that the
implementation of SLCs and complementary personalization strategies can
reduce disruptive behavior, create a more orderly environment for
learning, and increase student attendance and graduation rates (Lee and
Smith 1995; Wasley et al., 2000; McMullan, Sipe, and Wolf, 1994; Quint,
2006; National Research Council, 2004). Dropout Prevention: A Practice
Guide, published in 2008 by the Institute of Education Sciences' What
Works Clearinghouse, recommended that schools implement SLCs and other
personalization strategies as part of a comprehensive approach to
reducing the dropout rate (Institute of Education Sciences, 2008).
However, evaluation data have not shown that these structural
changes and personalization strategies, by themselves, improve student
academic achievement and readiness for postsecondary education and
careers. Student learning gains have been seen only in those schools
that also have made considerable changes in curriculum and instruction
(Bernstein, et al., 2005; Kahne, Sporte, et al., 2006; Quint, 2006;
Rhodes, Smerdon, 2005). Similarly, some large comprehensive high
schools that have not implemented SLCs have significantly increased
student achievement in reading or mathematics and narrowed achievement
gaps by implementing more rigorous courses, providing extra support to
struggling students, and systematically using data to improve
instruction (ACT, Inc. and the Education Trust, 2005; Billig, Jaime, et
al., 2005; National Center for Educational Accountability, 2005;
Robinson, et al., 2005).
For these reasons, we are proposing priorities and selection
criteria that are specifically intended to promote the close
integration of SLC implementation with systematic efforts to improve
curriculum and instruction. We also propose certain other requirements
and a definition to clarify statutory provisions, improve the
management of grant activities, facilitate the review of applications,
and promote the equitable distribution of limited SLC grant funds.
Note: As used in this notice, the terms smaller learning
community and large high school have the meanings assigned to them
in the 2005 SLC NFP.
Proposed Priorities: This notice contains two proposed priorities.
These proposed priorities would be in addition to the priority
established in the 2007 SLC NFP (Preparing All Students to Succeed in
Postsecondary Education and Careers).
Proposed Priority 1: Common Planning Time for Teachers
Background: Providing teachers with regular and ongoing
opportunities for structured collaboration and planning during or
immediately following the school day is considered by many researchers
and practitioners to be key to improving instruction and ensuring that
students receive the academic and personal supports they need to
achieve at high levels. For example, this practice is common among many
high-performing schools, including, particularly, those with high
concentrations of economically disadvantaged or low-achieving students
(Mass Insight Education and Research Institute, 2007; Odden, 2007;
Dyke, 2008; Herman, et al., 2008; Education Resource Strategies, 2009;
Perlman and Redding, 2009; Strozier, 2009). In these high-performing
schools, common planning time is used for a variety of activities,
including the analysis of student work and outcome data, collaborative
professional development and instructional coaching, and developing or
coordinating the implementation of curricula and assessments. By
providing teachers with regular and ongoing opportunities for
collaboration, these schools also promote a strong sense of shared
responsibility among teachers for improving student academic
achievement (Louis and Marks, 1998; Symonds, 2004; Mass Insight
Education and Research Institute, 2007; Silva, 2009).
For these reasons, we propose a priority to allow grantees to use
SLC funds to pay the necessary personnel and other costs associated
with increasing common planning time for teachers. Under the proposed
priority, applicants could, for example, propose to use grant funds to
hire additional teachers, pay substitute teachers, or extend the school
day in order to provide teachers with more time for common planning and
collaboration.
Under the proposed priority, we would not require that grantees
increase common planning time for all teachers within a school.
Instead, grantees could choose to focus on a single grade level, such
as ninth grade, or on particular content areas.
We believe that this proposed priority will help enhance the
effectiveness of SLC projects in improving academic achievement and the
preparation of students for postsecondary education and careers by
ensuring that students receive the academic and personal supports they
need to achieve.
Proposed Priority 1--Common Planning Time for Teachers
This proposed priority would support 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. 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.
(2) Collaborative professional development and coaching, including
classroom observation.
(3) Identifying instructional and other interventions for
struggling students.
(4) Curriculum and assessment development.
Proposed Priority 2: Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools--Secondary
Schools
Background: The Secretary has established a goal of turning around,
over the next five years, the 5,000 lowest-achieving schools nationwide
as part of a comprehensive strategy for dramatically reducing the drop-
out rate, improving high school graduation rates, and increasing the
number of students who graduate prepared for success in college and the
workplace.
The SLC program can be an important source of funding to support
turnaround efforts in a State's persistently lowest-achieving high
schools. For this reason, we propose to establish a priority for SLC
projects that include one or more schools that have been identified by
a State as a persistently lowest-achieving school.
Proposed Priority 2--Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools--Secondary
Schools
This proposed priority would support SLC projects that include one
or more schools that have been identified by a
[[Page 16084]]
State as a persistently lowest-achieving school.
For the purpose of this priority, the term ``persistently lowest-
achieving school'' is defined as it is under the Department's State
Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (see 74 FR 58436, 58487), School
Improvement Grants (see 74 FR 65618, 65652), and Race to the Top Fund
(see 74 FR 59836, 59840).
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 either
(1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the competitive 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 invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirements: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education proposes the following requirements for this
program. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Note: These proposed requirements would 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 Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Requirement 1--Budget and Performance Periods
Background: In the 2007 SLC NFP, we established a requirement
pursuant to which SLC grant funds were awarded in two increments over a
60-month performance period: An initial award for the first 36 months
of the performance period and a continuation award for the remaining 24
months of the performance period. Through this Proposed Budget and
Performance Periods requirement, we would reduce the duration of the
initial award from 36 to 24 months and make continuation awards
annually thereafter. We propose this change because making the initial
award for a period of 24 months would give grantees until the end of
the second school year after the award is made (i.e., the 2011-12
school year) to implement all or most of the components of their
projects and demonstrate substantial progress. As we do not expect to
make new awards until after the start of the 2010-2011 school year, we
recognize that grantees likely will need more than 12 months to
implement their projects fully and demonstrate substantial progress.
Further, we propose the change to 24 months, based on our belief that,
an SLC grantee that requires more than an initial 24 months to show
progress is likely experiencing significant management problems and may
not merit continued funding. For similar reasons, we are proposing to
make continuation awards annually after this initial 24 month budget
period. SLC grantees should be able to demonstrate each year that they
are continuing to make substantial progress in implementing their
projects. In addition, making continuation awards on an annual basis
will better ensure that SLC grantees do not receive more funds than
they are able to expend to implement their projects. For a variety of
reasons, some SLC grantees have been unable to expend all of the funds
they requested at the time they submitted their applications. As a
result, a number of SLC grantees have returned significant amounts of
funds to the United States Treasury when their grants have ended.
Proposed Budget and Performance Periods: Grantees will be awarded
implementation 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.
Proposed Requirement 2--Maximum Award Amounts and Number of Schools
Background: In order to ensure that applicants have sufficient
funding for the personnel expenditures likely needed to meet the
requirements of Proposed Priority 1--Common Planning Time for Teachers
(i.e., increasing the amount of time that teachers are provided
regularly for common planning and collaboration), we are proposing to
increase the maximum, 60-month award amounts per school by $750,000.
Based on our informal consultations with LEA and school officials in
different parts of the country, we believe that this additional
$750,000 should be sufficient to support a significant increase in
common planning time for teachers in at least one grade level of the
school.
In addition, we are proposing to reduce the number of schools that
an LEA may apply on behalf of in a single application from eight to
five because, in the past, many grantees have experienced great
difficulties managing and overseeing project activities at more than
five schools. In such cases, implementation progress has been slow and
uneven and several grantees decided to remove one or more schools from
their grants.
Finally, through this requirement, we are proposing that
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. In previous SLC competitions, some
applicants requested more funds than the amount that we indicated would
be available for a grant. These applications included activities that
could only be implemented if the applicants received a funding amount
that exceeded the maximum amount specified by the Department. This
strategy put at a competitive disadvantage other applicants that
requested funds within the Department's specified funding range and
proposed a less extensive set of activities. For this reason, we
propose to review only those applications that request an amount that
does not exceed the maximum amounts specified for the grants.
Proposed Maximum Award Amounts and Number of Schools: An eligible
LEA may receive, on behalf of a single
[[Page 16085]]
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 Grant 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
Proposed Requirement 3--Performance Indicators
Background: While creating SLCs can appeal to teachers, students,
and parents for many reasons, their fundamental purpose is to improve
academic achievement and student success after high school. Therefore,
it is important that assistance provided under the SLC program support
and enhance the efforts of LEAs and schools to improve student academic
achievement and preparation for and enrollment in postsecondary
education.
In order to ensure that SLC projects ultimately achieve these
important outcomes, we must ensure that each funded SLC project
measures its progress in improving student academic achievement and
related outcomes. For this reason, we propose to continue to measure
the progress of grantees using two indicators: (1) Student performance
on reading/language arts and mathematics assessments and (2) high
school graduation rates (these two indicators are reflected in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Performance Indicators included in the
2007 SLC NFP). These are the same indicators used by States to measure
the progress of LEAs and high schools under Part A of Title I of the
ESEA. We propose that performance objectives for these indicators equal
or exceed the annual measurable objectives established by the State in
its approved accountability plan for Part A of Title I of the ESEA.
Because school-level data for these indicators are now available to the
Department through using the EDEN Submission System (ESS), it is
unnecessary for the Department to continue to collect them directly
from grantees.
We also propose to continue measuring the extent to which the
graduates of each school included in an SLC grant enter postsecondary
education in the semester following high school graduation. Because
enrolling in postsecondary education is a nearly universal aspiration
among high school students and their parents, we believe that this
measurement continues to be useful and we believe that grantees should
be held accountable for helping them achieve this goal. We propose that
performance objectives for this indicator exceed the baseline level of
performance and give particular emphasis to narrowing any gaps between
students in general and economically disadvantaged students, students
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English proficiency. Because data for this
indicator are not reported by SEAs through ESS (an electronic system
that facilitates the efficient and timely transmission of data from
SEAs to the Department), we propose to continue to require grantees to
provide these data on an annual basis. We further propose to require
grantees to use administrative records that document student enrollment
in postsecondary education as the principal source of data for this
indicator because these data are likely to be more accurate and less
costly to obtain than information gathered through student and parent
surveys. Because these administrative records may not provide data on
all of a school's graduates (e.g., in the case of most State
longitudinal databases, students who enroll in postsecondary education
in another State), we propose to permit grantees to supplement the data
obtained from administrative records with information gathered through
surveys that are administered after high school graduation.
Proposed 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; and
(4) Economically disadvantaged students; and
(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.
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 proposed indicator (postsecondary enrollment).
[[Page 16086]]
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.
Proposed Requirement 4--School Report Cards
Background: In the 2005 SLC NFP, we established a requirement for
the SLC program pursuant to which applicants were required to include
school report cards with their applications to verify the accuracy of
the student achievement they reported. This requirement created a
significant paperwork burden for many applicants because, in some
States and LEAs, school report cards are expansive, extending over 10
to 20 pages. With school-level student achievement data now available
to the Department through ESS, it is no longer necessary to require
applicants to provide school report cards to verify the accuracy of the
student achievement data they report in their applications.
Proposed School Report Cards Requirement: No applicant is required
to include in its application any report card for the schools included
in its application.
Proposed Requirement 5--Evidence of Eligibility
Background: We propose to require each applicant to provide, along
with its application, the name of, and other identifying information
about, each school included in its application and evidence of each
such school's enrollment during the current or most recently completed
school year. This information is necessary so that the Department can
verify that each of the schools in the applicant's application meets
the program's eligibility requirements. We propose to require that
evidence of enrollment consist of information reported by the LEA to
the SEA or produced by the SEA so that there is no ambiguity for
applicants about the evidence that they must submit to establish school
eligibility.
Proposed Evidence of Eligibility Requirement: 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 the school by the National Center for
Education Statistics; and
(b) Evidence that, during the current school year or the most
recently completed school year, the school 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.
To meet this requirement, the enrollment figures provided in the
evidence must be based upon data from the current school year or the
most recently completed school year. In addition, this evidence must
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.
Proposed Requirement 6--Evaluation
Background: In the 2005 SLC NFP, we established requirements that
each SLC grantee support an independent, formative evaluation of its
project that reported its findings to the grantee (i.e., its LEA) on
not less than an annual basis. Each grantee was required to provide
each annual evaluation report to the Department at the same time it
reported annually on its progress in implementing its project. The
purpose of this requirement was to provide the project director and
other LEA and school personnel information that would be useful in
gauging the project's progress and identifying areas for improvement.
The Department also provided grantees with technical assistance
materials to help them secure qualified evaluators and evaluations that
would produce information to more effectively manage their projects.
After carefully reviewing the annual evaluation reports that have been
submitted by grantees since FY 2006, we have concluded that, generally,
this requirement 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, many grantees have commissioned evaluations
chiefly to comply with our requirement. Given the often considerable
cost of these evaluations and their 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 if the evaluation is related clearly to the goals of
the project and necessary for the proper and efficient performance and
administration of the grant award.
Proposed Evaluation Requirement: We propose to eliminate 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.
Proposed Requirement 7--Grant Award Administration
Background: The responsibilities of a project director for an SLC
grant include coordinating grant activities to ensure that they are
carried out on time and within budget, overseeing the fiscal management
of the project, and fulfilling performance reporting and other
requirements established by the Department. We propose to establish a
minimum time commitment for this position to ensure that the project
director has sufficient time to carry out these responsibilities. In
our experience, many of the grants in which the time commitment of the
project director was less than the minimum we are proposing have
experienced significant implementation delays. In some cases, these
grant recipients were unable to implement key elements of their
approved applications. We note that under our proposal, applicants
could continue to include the salary and other costs of the project
director in their proposed budgets.
Proposed Grant Award Administration: Grantees must designate a
single project director who will be principally responsible for
overseeing the implementation of the proposed project and communicating
with the Department.
Each grantee must ensure that its designated project director--for
a grant that includes one school--be not less than fifty percent of a
full-time equivalent (FTE) position and that the time commitment of a
project director
[[Page 16087]]
for a grant that includes more than one school be not less than one
FTE.
Proposed Requirement 8--Use of Funds for Equipment
Background: While we recognize that equipment can be an effective
tool for enhancing instruction and improving student achievement and is
essential to carrying out a variety of administrative activities,
numerous other sources of funds are available to LEAs and schools to
acquire equipment. We, therefore, propose to limit the use of SLC grant
funds for the purchase or use of equipment in order to focus grant
funds on the personnel, technical assistance, professional development
and other costs related to implementing significant structural and
instructional reforms that will improve student academic achievement
and preparation for postsecondary education.
Proposed Use of Funds for Equipment Requirement: For each budget
period of the grant award, a grantee may not use more than one percent
of the total grant award for the acquisition of equipment (as that term
is defined in this notice).
Proposed Definition:
Background: We are proposing to define the term equipment because
we propose to limit the use of SLC grant funds for the purchase of
equipment elsewhere in this notice. Under Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian
Tribal Governments, an item is considered to be ``equipment'' if, among
other things, it is nonexpendable, tangible personal property having a
useful life of more than one year and has an acquisition cost which
equals or exceeds the lesser of the capitalization level established by
the governmental unit for financial statement purposes, or $5,000. We
are proposing to reduce the acquisition cost threshold to the lesser of
the capitalization level established by the governmental unit for
financial statement purposes or $500 in order to include laptop and
desktop computers, printers, and other office and classroom equipment
that some SLC grantees have sought to purchase with grant funds.
Proposed Definition:
In addition to the definitions set out in the authorizing statute,
34 CFR 77.1, and the 2005 SLC NFP, we propose that the following
definition also apply 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.
Proposed Selection Criteria:
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes the following selection criteria for evaluating an application
under this program. We may apply one or more of these criteria in any
year in which this program is in effect. These proposed selection
criteria are intended to replace the selection criteria established for
the SLC program in the 2005 SLC NFP and the 2007 SLC NFP.
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 multiple 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 or immediately following
the school day, without decreasing the amount of time provided to
teachers for individual planning and preparation;
(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 (such as dual enrollment or early college programs)
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 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, early and ongoing 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
[[Page 16088]]
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.
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definition, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definition,
and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude
us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definition, and selection criteria, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866: This notice has been reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this proposed regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this proposed regulatory action, we have determined
that the benefits of the proposed priorities, requirements, definition,
and selection criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this 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 proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria under the background sections to the Priorities,
Requirements, Definition, and Selection Criteria.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
Certain sections of the proposed priorities, requirements,
definition, and selection criteria for the SLC grant program contain
changes to information collection requirements already approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 1810-
0676 (1890-0001). We will be publishing a separate notice in the
Federal Register requesting comments on these changes.
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 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: March 26, 2010.
Thelma Mel[eacute]ndez de Santa Ana,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2010-7255 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P