FR Doc E7-4228
[Federal Register: March 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 10502-10507]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08mr07-58]
Download: 
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Smaller Learning Communities Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priority, requirements, and selection
criteria for fiscal year (FY) 2006 and subsequent years' funds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Deputy Secretary of Education proposes a priority,
requirements, and selection criteria under the Smaller Learning
Communities (SLC) program. The Deputy Secretary will use the priority,
requirements, and selection criteria, in
[[Page 10503]]
addition to any other previously established priorities and
requirements, for a competition using fiscal year (FY) 2006 funds and
may use them in later years. We take this action to focus Federal
financial assistance on an identified national need. We intend the
priority, requirements, and selection criteria to enhance the
effectiveness of SLC projects in improving academic achievement and the
preparation of students for postsecondary education and careers.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed priority,
requirements, and selection criteria to Gregory Dennis, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., FB-6, room 3W243, Washington,
DC 20202-6200. If you prefer to send your comments through the
Internet, use the following address: smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov.
You must include the term ``SLC Proposed Requirements'' in the
subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Dennis. Telephone: (202) 205-
3784 or via Internet: smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priority,
requirements, and selection criteria. To ensure that your comments have
maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority,
requirements, and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly
the specific proposed priority, requirement, 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
priority, requirements, and selection criteria. Please let us know of
any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about the proposed priority, requirements, and selection
criteria at the U.S. Department of Education, FB6, room 3W243, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202 between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for the proposed priority, requirements, and
selection criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this
type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
General
The SLC program is authorized under Title V, Part D, Subpart 4 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) (20 U.S.C.
7249), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. It awards
discretionary grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support
the restructuring of large public high schools with enrollments of
1,000 or more students into smaller units. SLC structures 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. As used in this notice, the terms
smaller learning community, large high school, and BIA school have the
meanings assigned to them in the notice of final priority,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NFP) for this
program, published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2005 (70 FR
22233).
Creating a more personalized learning experience for students has
been a prominent part of high school improvement efforts in recent
years, supported not only by the SLC program but also by States and
private foundations. Several recently completed evaluations of SLCs
have highlighted the strengths and limitations of these efforts. They
have found, generally, that the implementation of SLCs and
complementary personalization strategies can increase student
attendance, reduce disruptive behavior, and create a more orderly
environment for learning. However, these structural changes and
personalization strategies, by themselves, do not appear to 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).
This evidence suggests that SLCs are most likely to be successful
in raising academic achievement and improving other student outcomes if
their implementation is integrated closely with improvements in
curriculum and instruction. As some reform advocates have argued
persuasively, the focus of these efforts should be on achieving what
most students and their parents now consider to be the core mission of
the American high school: preparing all students to succeed in
postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation
(Roderick, 2006).
Earning a bachelor's degree or higher is now the goal of an
overwhelming majority of high school students, regardless of their
race, gender, ethnicity, or family income. The percentage of high
school sophomores who say they expect to earn a bachelor's degree or
higher has nearly doubled over the last two decades, from 41 percent in
1980 to nearly 79 percent in 2002, with the largest increases occurring
among American Indian and Alaskan Native, Hispanic, and low-income
students. Another 11 percent of 2002 sophomores said they expected to
earn an associate's degree or postsecondary certificate (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2006).
Yet too many young people do not receive the academic preparation,
guidance, and support they need to achieve these ambitious aspirations.
Many students lack a clear understanding of the academic requirements
for entrance to
[[Page 10504]]
postsecondary education, how to apply for postsecondary education, or
options for financial aid (Horn and Chen, 2003; Horn and Nunez, 2000;
and Kirst and Venezia, 2004). Most importantly, considerable numbers of
young people are graduating from high school without the academic
foundation needed to succeed in postsecondary education. According to
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), more than one-
third of all high school seniors, and the majority of minority and low-
income seniors, scored ``below basic'' in mathematics in 2000. Just 17
percent scored proficient or higher. Similarly, on the NAEP reading
assessment in 2002, only about one-third of 12th graders demonstrated
proficient or advanced reading skills, while the reading skills of one-
quarter of high school seniors were ``below basic.'' Fewer than 22
percent of the high school graduates who took the ACT college-entrance
examination in 2004 demonstrated readiness to do college-level work in
core subjects such as mathematics, English, and science (ACT, Inc.,
2005). Consequently, a significant number of students begin their
postsecondary education by enrolling in one or more remedial reading,
writing, or mathematics courses (NCES, 2004).
Students who plan to enter the workforce immediately after high
school, rather than pursue postsecondary education, also need a strong
academic foundation. An emerging body of research indicates that the
knowledge and skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education are
comparable to those that employers expect from their entry-level
workers (Achieve, Inc., 2004, 2005; ACT, Inc., 2006). Moreover, most
students who decide initially that they do not want a postsecondary
education and enter the workforce immediately after high school change
their minds and decide within 18 months of high school graduation to
pursue postsecondary education (Haimson, Deke, 2003).
For these reasons, we are proposing a priority and selection
criteria that are intended to promote the integration of SLC
implementation with efforts to improve the preparation of all students
for postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation.
We also propose other requirements to clarify statutory provisions,
facilitate the review of applications, and promote the equitable
distribution of limited SLC grant funds.
Discussion of Priority, Requirements, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priority, requirements, and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the
final priority, requirements, and selection criteria after considering
responses to this notice and other information available to the
Department. This notice does not preclude us from using 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 this priority, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting applications we
designate the priority as absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational.
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 how well or 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
competitive 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
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other
applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Priority
Preparing All Students To Succeed in Postsecondary Education and
Careers
This proposed priority supports projects that create or expand SLCs
that are part of a comprehensive effort to prepare all students to
succeed in postsecondary education and careers without need for
remediation.
In order to meet this priority an applicant must demonstrate that,
using SLC grant funds or other resources, it will:
(1) Provide intensive interventions to assist students who enter
high school with reading/language arts or mathematics skills that are
significantly below grade level to ``catch up'' quickly and attain
proficiency by the end of 10th grade;
(2) Enroll students in a coherent sequence of rigorous English
language arts, mathematics, and science courses that will equip them
with the skills and content knowledge needed to succeed in
postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation;
(3) Provide tutoring and other academic supports to help students
succeed in rigorous academic courses;
(4) Deliver comprehensive guidance and academic advising to
students and their parents that include 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;
and
(5) Increase opportunities for students to earn postsecondary
credit through Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate
courses, or dual credit programs.
Application Requirements
Proposed Application Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following application requirements for
this SLC competition. These proposed requirements are in addition to
the content that all SLC grant applicants must include in their
applications as required by the program statute under Title V, Part D,
Subpart 4, Section 5441(b) of the ESEA, and the application
requirements we established in the NFP for this program, published in
the Federal Register on April 28, 2005 (70 FR 22233) in the following
areas: Eligibility; School Report Cards; Consortium Applications and
Educational Service Agencies; Student Placement; Including All
Students; and Evaluation. LEAs, including BIA schools and educational
service agencies, applying on behalf of large public high schools, are
eligible to apply for a grant. A discussion of each proposed
application requirement follows.
1. Types of Grants
We propose awarding implementation grants to applicants to support
the creation or expansion of an SLC or SLCs within each targeted high
school during the school year in which funds are first awarded. We do
not propose funding any planning grants this year.
Grants will be awarded for a period up to 60 months. We propose to
require that applicants provide detailed, yearly budget information for
the total grant period requested. At the time of the initial award, the
Department will
[[Page 10505]]
provide funds for the first 36 months of the performance period.
Funding for the remaining 24 months will be 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.
Rationale
Since the inception of the SLC program in 2000, the Department has
awarded planning grants to more than 350 LEAs. Now, resources, planning
tools, and research on SLCs and high school improvement strategies are
much more prevalent and accessible for schools and LEAs than was the
case at the outset of the SLC program. Therefore, the Department does
not see a need to fund planning grants and, instead, intends to focus
the SLC program on the actual implementation of projects to create or
expand SLCs.
2. Budget Information for Determination of Award
We propose that LEAs may receive, on behalf of a single school, up
to $1,750,000, depending upon student enrollment in the school, during
the 60-month project period. To ensure that sufficient funds are
available to support awards to LEAs of all sizes, and not only the
largest LEAs, we propose, as we have in previous years, to limit to 10
the number of schools that an LEA may include in a single application
for a grant. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible schools
thus could receive up to $17,500,000 per grant.
The following chart provides the ranges of awards per high school
size that we are proposing:
SLC Grant Award Ranges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student enrollment Award ranges per school
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000-2,000 Students........................... $1,000,000-$1,250,000
2,001-3,000 Students........................... 1,000,000-1,500,000
3,001 and Up................................... 1,000,000-1,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual size of awards would be based on a number of factors,
including the scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the proposed
project, and the range of awards indicated in the application.
Applications that request more funds than the maximum amounts
specified for any school or for the total grant would 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 may choose to read those
additional applications that requested funds exceeding the maximum
amounts specified. If the Secretary chooses to fund any of those
additional applications, applicants would be required to work with the
Department to revise their proposed budgets to fit within the
appropriate funding range.
Rationale
In previous SLC competitions, some applicants have requested more
funds than the amount that we indicated would be available for a grant.
Their applications included activities that could only be implemented
if the applicants received a funding amount that exceeded the maximum
amount specified in the notice. This strategy put at a competitive
disadvantage other applicants that requested funds within the specified
funding range and outlined a less extensive set of activities. For this
reason, we propose to read initially only those applications that
request an amount that does not exceed the maximum amounts specified
for the grants.
3. Indirect Costs
We propose to require eligible applicants who propose to use SLC
grant funds for indirect costs to include, as part of their
applications, a copy of their approved indirect cost agreement.
Rationale
The Department needs a copy of the approved indirect cost agreement
to verify the accuracy of the amount of indirect costs for which an
applicant is seeking to use SLC funds.
4. Performance Indicators
We propose to require applicants to identify in their application
specific performance indicators and annual performance objectives for
each of these indicators. Specifically, we propose to require
applicants to use the following performance indicators to measure the
progress of each school:
(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, as well as these
percentages disaggregated by subject matter and the following
subgroups:
(A) Major racial and ethnic groups;
(B) Students with disabilities;
(C) Students with limited English proficiency; and
(D) Economically disadvantaged students.
(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 in the semester following high school graduation.
Applicants would be required to include in their applications
baseline data for each of these indicators and identify performance
objectives for each year of the project period. We further propose to
require recipients of grant funds to report annually on the extent to
which each school achieves its performance objectives for each
indicator during the preceding school year. We propose to require
grantees to include in these reports comparable data, if available, for
the preceding three school years so that trends in performance will be
more apparent.
Rationale
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. Assistance provided
under the SLC program should also support and enhance the efforts of
LEAs and schools to fulfill the ambitious goals of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001.
For these reasons, it is important that projects measure their
progress in improving student academic achievement and related
outcomes. Two of the indicators we propose to use, student performance
on reading/language arts and mathematics assessments and the graduation
rate, 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. Performance
objectives for these indicators should 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.
Enrolling in postsecondary education is now a nearly universal
aspiration among high school students and their parents. The third
indicator we are proposing, entrance into postsecondary education in
the semester following high school graduation, would measure the
success of LEAs and schools in helping students achieve this goal.
Performance objectives for this indicator should 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
[[Page 10506]]
students with limited English proficiency.
5. Required Meetings Sponsored by the Department
Applicants must set aside adequate funds within their proposed
budget to send their project director to a two-day project directors'
meeting in Washington, DC, in years one and two of the grant, and to
send a team of five key staff members to attend a two-day regional
institute in year one of the grant. The Department will host these
meetings.
Rationale
Convening all project directors at an initial meeting enables
Department staff to provide introductory information on grants
administration and Department regulations, and other topics of interest
to new grantees. The second project directors' meeting is intended to
provide project directors an opportunity to take stock of their
implementation progress and to share with their peers what they have
learned, their success, and any challenges encountered in the first
year of implementation. Project directors will have an opportunity to
ask questions of one another and consult with technical assistance
providers at this second meeting. Regional institutes in year one will
provide grantee teams with technical assistance that will be useful in
implementing their projects.
Previous Grantees
We propose to allow an LEA to apply only on behalf of a school or
schools that will not receive funds through an SLC implementation grant
that has a performance period that extends beyond the current fiscal
year (September 30, 2007).
Rationale
Schools included in implementation grants that will be active after
September 30, 2007 do not need additional assistance. Since the
Department has received more applications for SLC grants than it has
been able to fund in recent years, we believe that targeting new awards
to LEAs that will assist high schools that are not included in grants
that will be active after September 30, 2007 would be equitable and
make the best use of limited program funds.
Selection Criteria
Proposed Selection Criteria
We propose that the following selection criteria be used to
evaluate applications for new grants under this program. We may apply
these selection criteria to any SLC competition in the future.
Need for the Project
In determining the need for the proposed project, we will consider
the magnitude of the need for the services that will be provided and
the activities that will be carried out by the proposed project.
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 support in
implementing structural and instructional reforms;
(4) The applicant will offer all students a coherent sequence of
rigorous English language arts, mathematics, and science courses that
will provide students with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed
in postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation;
and
(5) The proposed project is part of a districtwide strategy for
high school redesign and strengthens the district's capacity to develop
and implement smaller learning communities and improve student academic
achievement as part of that strategy.
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 ``catch up'' quickly and attain proficiency by the end of the
10th grade;
(4) Providing teachers with the professional development, coaching,
regular opportunities for collaboration with peers, and other supports
needed to implement a rigorous curriculum and provide high-quality
instruction;
(5) Increasing the participation of students, particularly low-
income students, in Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or
dual credit courses; and
(6) Increasing the percentage of students who enter postsecondary
education in the semester following high school graduation.
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;
(2) The project director and other key personnel are qualified to
carry out their responsibilities, and their time commitments are
appropriate and adequate to implement the SLC project effectively;
(3) The applicant will support the proposed project with funds
provided under other Federal or State programs and local cash or in-
kind resources; and
(4) The requested grant amount and the project costs are sufficient
to attain project goals and reasonable in relation to the objectives
and design of the project.
Quality of the SLC Project Evaluation
In determining the quality of the proposed project evaluation to be
conducted by an independent, third-party evaluator, we consider the
extent to which--
(1) The evaluation will provide timely, regular, and useful
feedback to the LEA and the participating schools on the success and
progress of implementation, and identify areas for needed improvement;
and
(2) The independent evaluator is qualified to conduct the
evaluation.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priority, requirements, and selection
criteria 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.
[[Page 10507]]
The potential costs associated with this notice of proposed
priority, requirements, and selection criteria 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 notice of proposed priority, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we have determined that the
benefits of the proposed priority, requirements, and selection criteria
justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Elsewhere in this notice we discuss the potential costs and
benefits of the proposed priority, requirements, and selection criteria
under the following heading: Discussion of Priority, Requirements, and
Selection Criteria.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
Certain sections of the proposed priority, requirements, 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.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html
.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.215L, Smaller
Learning Communities Program.)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7249.
Dated: March 2, 2007.
Raymond Simon,
Deputy Secretary of Education Delegated the Authority to Perform the
Functions of the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education.
[FR Doc. E7-4228 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P