FR Doc 05-1477
[Federal Register: January 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 3910-3918]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27ja05-34]
Download: 
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Smaller Learning Communities Program
AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education
proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
for a special competition under the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC)
program. The Assistant Secretary may use these priorities,
requirements, definitions and selection criteria for a special
competition using a portion of fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds and also in
future years. The priorities, requirements, definitions and selection
criteria proposed in this notice will not be used for all FY SLC 2004
competitions. Projects funded using these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would create and/or expand SLC
activities as well as participate in a national research evaluation of
supplemental reading programs. Another SLC competition will be
conducted later this year, awarding additional FY 2004 funds, for
projects that do not require participation in the national research
evaluation. Requirements, priorities, definitions, and selection
criteria for that competition will be proposed in a notice in the
Federal Register at a later date.
We propose these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria to focus federal financial assistance on an
identified national need for scientifically based data on supplemental
reading programs for adolescents.
[[Page 3911]]
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before February 28, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to Matthew
Fitzpatrick, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 11120, Potomac Center
Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7120. If you prefer to send your comments
through the Internet, use the following address:
matthew.fitzpatrick@ed.gov.
You must include the term ``SLC Public Comment'' in the subject
line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Fitzpatrick. Telephone: (202)
245-7809.
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 these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. To
ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice
of final priorities, requirements, definitions, 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 these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, 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 these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria at the U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Vocational and Adult Education, room 11122, 550 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, 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 these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, 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.
Background
Improving adolescent literacy is one of the major challenges facing
high schools today. High school students must have strong literacy
skills in order to acquire the knowledge and skills in English/language
arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and other courses that they
need in order to prepare for further learning, for careers, and for
active participation in our democracy. Too many young people are now
entering high school without these essential skills. At a time when
they will soon enter high school, one-quarter of all eighth-grade
students and more than 40 percent of those in urban schools scored
below the basic level on the National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP) in 2003. According to one estimate, at least one-third of
entering ninth graders are at least two years behind grade level in
their reading skills (Balfanz, et al., 2002). Many of these young
people become discouraged and drop out before they reach the twelfth
grade. Large numbers of those who do persist through their senior year
leave high school nearly as unprepared for the future as when they
entered it. Twenty-eight percent of twelfth-grade public school
students scored below the basic level on the NAEP 2002 reading
assessment. These students face a bleak future in an economy and
society that demands more than ever before, higher levels of reading,
writing, and oral communication skills.
Recognizing the importance of improving the literacy skills of
America's children and youth, President Bush established, as key
priorities, the implementation of scientifically based approaches to
reading in the early grades and the development of new knowledge about
how best to help adolescents read well.
One ongoing initiative, the Adolescent Literacy Research Network,
created by the Department's Office of Vocational and Adult Education
(OVAE) and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS) in collaboration with the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (NICHD), supports six, five-year experimental
research projects. These projects are examining cognitive, perceptual,
behavioral, and other mechanisms that influence the development of
reading and writing abilities during adolescence, as well as the extent
to which interventions may narrow or close literacy gaps for
adolescents.
While these and other long-term, scientifically based research
studies promise to provide a stronger foundation for designing more
effective literacy interventions for adolescents, a number of
noteworthy supplemental reading programs for adolescents are already
available and have attracted great attention from high school leaders
concerned about the literacy skills of their freshman students. High
schools that have created freshman academy SLCs to ease the transition
of ninth-grade students to high school are among those most interested
in addressing the needs of ninth graders who have reading skills that
are significantly below grade level. Unfortunately, however, there is
little or no scientifically based evidence that schools can consult to
inform their decision-making regarding the selection and implementation
of these reading programs.
In addition to this ongoing research initiative, to help fill this
knowledge gap, the Department is now seeking to partner with local
educational agencies (LEAs) in a national research evaluation that will
examine the effectiveness of two supplemental reading programs that
will be implemented within freshman academy SLCs. Section 5441(c)(2)(B)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA), authorizes SLC funds to be
used to ``research, develop, and implement * * * strategies for
effective and innovative changes in curriculum and instruction, geared
to challenging State academic content standards and State student
academic achievement standards.'' The Department proposes in this
notice to provide a new opportunity for interested LEAs that are
implementing freshman academy SLCs to partner with us to evaluate the
effectiveness of two promising supplemental reading programs for ninth-
grade students whose reading skills are two to four years below grade
level.
The Department's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has awarded
a contract to MDRC and the American Institutes of Research (AIR) to
conduct
[[Page 3912]]
this supplemental reading program evaluation. AIR has solicited
proposals from vendors of classroom-based supplemental reading programs
that wish to participate in this initiative. The supplemental reading
programs must be suitable for implementation within freshman academies,
must be research-based, and must address all aspects of reading, from
basic alphabetic skills to higher-level comprehension and writing. The
programs must also consider issues of how to motivate adolescents to
read. MDRC and AIR will convene an independent, expert panel to
evaluate the programs submitted for consideration, assessing,
particularly, the extent to which a program incorporates the features
judged by experts in the field to be indicative of a high-quality
adolescent reading program and the extent to which there is research-
based evidence of the program's effectiveness. Based on the expert
panel's recommendations, MDRC and AIR will select the two most
promising programs for evaluation through this initiative. These
programs will be identified and described in detail in the final notice
inviting applications for this competition.
Interested LEAs that are selected to participate in this initiative
will implement the supplemental reading programs during the 2005-06 and
2006-07 school years in high schools that have established freshman
academy SLCs. Each high school will implement one of the two programs,
serving first-time ninth-grade students whose reading skills are two to
four years below grade level. Working with MDRC, the contractor
selected to conduct the evaluation, each high school will select by
lottery approximately 50 students from a pool of a minimum of 125
eligible students to participate in the supplemental reading program;
the remaining students will be assigned to an elective course, study
hall, or other activity in which they would otherwise participate. The
evaluators will work with each LEA and high school to assess the
effectiveness of the supplemental reading program. After the completion
of the 2006-07 school year, participating high schools will have gained
valuable data about the effectiveness of these supplemental reading
programs in their schools. These data will help them to decide whether
to expand the supplemental reading program to include all eligible
students, or to select and implement another supplemental reading
program.
The Department proposes to award 60-month grants using the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed
in this notice. In addition to supporting the other broader SLC
activities at each participating high school, each grant will fully
fund the costs of implementing the supplemental reading program,
technical assistance from the program vendor, and the cost of
participating in the evaluation.
The evaluation will provide researchers, policy-makers, school
administrators, teachers, and parents throughout the United States
important information about these supplemental reading programs and
adolescent literacy development, and answer three important questions:
(1) Do specific supplemental literacy interventions supporting
personalized and intensive instruction for striving ninth-grade readers
significantly improve reading proficiency?
(2) What are the effects of supplemental reading programs on in-
school outcomes such as attendance and course-taking behavior, and on
longer-term outcomes such as student performance on State assessments
in the tenth or eleventh grade?
(3) Which students benefit most from participation in the
interventions?
LEAs and participating high schools would benefit in a number of
ways from partnering with the Department in this initiative. They would
make an important contribution to improving our now-limited knowledge
of how we can help most effectively at-risk young people who enter high
school with limited literacy skills. They would receive grant funds to
support the implementation of a promising supplemental reading program
and high-quality professional development for the teachers who will
provide instruction. After the second year of the grant, once the
research evaluation has been completed, participating schools would be
free to expand the program to include all eligible students or
implement a new program, if they choose. Finally, they would receive
funds to support a broader SLC project that expands or creates new SLC
structures and strategies in participating high schools. Those funds
would be available for use throughout the 60-month grant period.
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions
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, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting applications we
designate each 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)).
Priorities
Proposed Priorities
Proposed Priority 1--Participation in a National Research Evaluation
That Assesses the Effectiveness of Supplemental Reading Programs in
Freshman Academies
To be eligible for consideration under this priority, an applicant
must:
(1) Apply on behalf of two or four large high schools that are
currently implementing freshman academies;
(2) Provide documentation of the LEA's and schools' willingness to
participate in a large-scale, national evaluation that uses
scientifically based research methods. Each LEA must include in its
application a letter from its research office or research board
agreeing to meet the requirements of the research design, if such
approval is needed according to local policies. If such approval is not
required, each LEA must include in its application a letter from its
superintendent and the principals of the high schools named in the
application, agreeing to meet the requirements of the research design;
(3) Agree to implement two designated supplemental reading programs
for striving ninth-grade readers, one in each school, in two or four
eligible high schools, adhering strictly to the design of the reading
program, with the understanding that the supplemental reading program
will be one of two programs announced in the notice of final priorities
and will be
[[Page 3913]]
chosen for the school by the contractor selected to conduct the
evaluation;
(4) Agree to assign one language arts teacher in each participating
high school--to participate in professional development necessary to
implement the supplemental reading program (which may include travel to
an off-site location); to teach the selected supplemental reading
program to participating students for a minimum of 225 minutes per week
for each week of the 2005-2006 and 2006-07 school years; and to
complete any surveys and administer any student assessments required by
the evaluation contractor;
(5) Assist the contractor in obtaining parental consent for
students to participate in assessments and other data collections;
(6) Agree to provide, prior to the start of school years 2005-06
and 2006-07, for each participating high school, a list of at least 125
striving ninth-grade readers who are eligible to participate in the
research study; work with the contractor to assign by lottery 50 of
those students in each participating high school to the supplemental
reading program and assign the remaining students to other activities
that they would otherwise participate in, such as a study hall,
electives, or other activity that does not involve supplemental reading
instruction; provide students selected for the supplemental reading
program with a minimum of 225 minutes per week of instruction in the
supplemental reading program for each week of the school year; and
allow enough flexibility in the schedules of all eligible students so
that students who are not initially selected by lottery to participate
in the supplemental reading program may be reassigned, at random, to
the program if students who were initially selected for the program
transfer to another school, drop out, or otherwise discontinue their
participation in supplemental reading instruction during the school
year.
Rationale: The terms and conditions of this proposed priority are
required to implement the scientifically based research design of the
research evaluation. The supplemental reading programs, for example,
cannot be fairly and effectively evaluated if they are not implemented
consistently across sites by well-trained instructors. Similarly, the
evaluation design requires eligible students to be assigned randomly to
participate in the designated supplemental reading programs so that the
evaluation will provide clear and definitive information about the
effectiveness of these programs. The design also requires that pairs of
high schools implement the two supplemental reading programs so that
the two programs can be evaluated under similar conditions. Though the
characteristics of high schools within a single LEA may differ, they
would each operate within the same policy context and under a similar
set of circumstances and are likely to more closely resemble each other
than high schools in other LEAs or states.
Proposed Priority 2--Number of Schools
The Secretary proposes a priority for applications from LEAs
applying on behalf of four high schools that are implementing freshman
academies and that commit to participate in the research study.
Rationale: For the purposes of the research evaluation, the
Department will accept applications from LEAs applying on behalf of
either four schools or two schools that are implementing freshman
academies. Ideally, the LEAs studied in this research evaluation will
be uniform in terms of the number of schools participating.
Furthermore, maintaining the integrity of the random assignment process
is more challenging with a larger number of districts. While the
Department would like many districts to have the opportunity to
participate, we must balance the potential benefits of more districts
receiving the grants with the objective of conducting a rigorous study
that will yield conclusive results about the effectiveness of the two
supplemental reading programs that will be evaluated.
The Department, therefore, would prefer that all LEAs participating
in this research evaluation implement the supplemental reading program
in four high schools. However, in the interest of securing a suitable
number of strong applications, the Department may implement proposed
priority 2 as an invitational or competitive preference priority, in
which case the Department will accept applications from LEAs applying
on behalf of four or two high schools.
Requirements
Proposed Application Requirements
The Assistant Secretary proposes the following application
requirements for this SLC competition. These proposed requirements are
in addition to the content that all Smaller Learning Communities 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.
Eligibility
We propose that, to be considered for funding, an applicant must be
an LEA (including schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
educational service agencies) that applies on behalf of two or four
large public high schools that have implemented at least one freshman
academy SLC by no later than the 2004-2005 school year.
Accordingly, LEAs must identify in their applications the names of
the two or four large high schools proposed to participate in the
research evaluation and the number of students enrolled in each school,
disaggregated by grade level. We will not accept applications from LEAs
on behalf of one, three, or more than four schools. We require that
each school include grades 11 and 12 and have an enrollment of 1,000 or
more students in grades 9 through 12.
Enrollment figures must be based upon data from the current school
year or data from the most recently completed school year. 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.
The LEA also must provide an assurance that the schools identified
in their application: (1) Are implementing at least one freshman
academy SLC during the 2004-05 school year; (2) will continue to
implement at least one freshman academy SLC during the 2005-06 and
2006-07 school years; and (3) did not implement a classroom-based
supplemental reading program for striving ninth-grade readers during
the 2004-05 school year. For each school identified in the application,
LEAs also must provide evidence that a minimum of 150 striving ninth-
grade readers (as defined elsewhere in this notice) were enrolled at
the school during each of the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years. We will
accept applications from LEAs whether or not they are applying on
behalf of schools that have previously received funding under the
Federal SLC program. Eligible schools would be those currently
implementing freshman academy SLCs, though the freshman academies need
not have been funded through a prior Federal SLC grant.
Rationale: The Department needs enrollment information to determine
if each of the two or four schools identified in an application meets
the proposed definition of a large high school and to ensure that an
LEA is applying on behalf of a correct number of schools. Schools under
construction do not have actual enrollment data to be used to determine
eligibility and, therefore, may not apply. In addition, the research
evaluation design requires that (i) LEAs implement the
[[Page 3914]]
supplemental reading programs in sets of two or four high schools; (ii)
the supplemental reading programs are implemented within established
freshman academy SLCs in high schools that have not implemented a
classroom-based supplemental reading program or classes for striving
ninth-grade readers; and (iii) each school has a minimum of 125
striving ninth-grade readers. While we recognize that no LEA can be
certain of the skills and academic needs of the students who will enter
a particular high school during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years,
we believe that high schools whose two most recent freshman classes
included at least 150 striving ninth-grade readers are more likely than
other high schools to have the required minimum of 125 eligible
students during the next two school years.
School Report Cards
We propose to require that LEAs provide, for each of the schools
included in the application, the most recent ``report card'' produced
by the State or the LEA to inform the public about the characteristics
of the school and its students, including information about student
academic achievement and other student outcomes. These ``report cards''
must include, at a minimum, the information that LEAs are required to
report for each school under section 1111(h)(2)(B)(ii) of the ESEA: (1)
Whether the school has been identified for school improvement; and (2)
information that shows how the academic assessments and other
indicators of adequate yearly progress compare to students in the LEA
and the State, as well as performance of the school's students on the
statewide assessment as a whole.
Rationale: The Department needs the ``report cards'' to verify the
accuracy of the information the LEA provides in its application about
student academic achievement and other student outcomes at each school.
Consortium Applications and Governing Authority
In an effort to encourage systemic, LEA-level reform efforts, we
propose permitting an individual LEA to submit only one application on
behalf of multiple schools. Accordingly, the LEA would be required to
specify in its application which high schools it intends to fund.
In addition, we propose to require that an LEA applying for a grant
under this competition apply only on behalf of a high school or high
schools for which it has governing authority, unless the LEA is an
educational service agency applying in the manner described in the
section in this notice entitled Educational Service Agencies. An LEA,
however, may form a consortium with another LEA with which it shares a
geographical border and submit a joint application for funds. In such
an instance, the consortium must apply on behalf of either two or four
high schools, and follow the procedures for group applications
described in 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 in the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). For example, an LEA that
wishes to apply for a grant but only has one eligible high school may
partner with a neighboring LEA, if the neighboring LEA has another
eligible high school.
Rationale: These requirements are designed to ensure that each LEA
that receives assistance under this program will manage and coordinate
school-level planning and implementation activities as part of a
single, coherent, LEA-wide reform strategy. These requirements will
help LEAs make the most effective and efficient use of SLC resources
and assist them in aligning SLC activities with other LEA-level
initiatives, including the implementation of activities carried out
under other programs funded by the ESEA and the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Technical Education Act. In addition, a high school
would have considerable difficulty implementing or expanding an SLC
program without the active participation of its parent LEA.
Educational Service Agencies
We propose to permit an educational service agency to apply on
behalf of eligible high schools only if the educational service agency
includes in its application evidence that the entity that has governing
authority over the eligible high school supports the application.
Rationale: Educational service agencies, which are included in the
statutory definition of LEA, typically do not have governing authority
over high schools they service. Generally, the administrative control
or direction of a high school is invested in a public board of
education or another public authority other than an educational service
agency. We recognize that not all entities that have administrative
control or direction of eligible high schools have the capacity to
apply for and administer an SLC grant. Educational service agencies
provide resources and expertise to assist districts and schools in
performing functions that they otherwise could not, by themselves,
perform efficiently or at all. Moreover, they are organized for the
explicit purpose of providing education-related services to entities
with governing authority over schools and their students.
Budget Information for Determination of Award
We propose that LEAs may receive up to $1,000,000 during the 60-
month project period. This is an increase from the maximum range of
awards ($550,000 to $770,000) that we established in the previous SLC
program competitions, plus an additional $230,000 to cover additional
expenses related to participation in the research evaluation.
In its budget calculations, each school would reserve $150,000 for
implementation of the supplemental reading program during the 2005-06
school year and $80,000 for the implementation of the program during
the 2006-07 school year. These funds will support the salary and
benefits of one full-time equivalent teacher who will be responsible
for providing the supplemental reading program instruction and
performing administrative functions related to the conduct of the
research evaluation, professional development and technical assistance
provided by the program developer, and the purchase of curriculum and
the technology necessary to deliver instruction. The remaining $770,000
will be available to support other activities related to the creation
or expansion of smaller learning communities in the school. For one
application, LEAs could receive up to $4,000,000. Grants would be
designed to support participation in the research evaluation over the
first two years of the project period, and a broader SLC project,
including such activities as extensive redesign and improvement
efforts, professional development, or direct student services, over
five years.
Applicants would be required to provide detailed, yearly budget
information for the total grant period requested. Understanding the
unique complexities of implementing a program that affects a school's
organization, physical design, curriculum, instruction, and preparation
of teachers, we anticipate awarding the entire amount at the time of
initial awards.
The actual size of awards would be based on a number of factors.
These factors include the scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the
proposed program, and the range of awards indicated in the application
notice.
Rationale: Requiring applicants to provide detailed, yearly budget
information for the total grant period requested is necessary for us to
determine appropriate grant amounts
[[Page 3915]]
based on the needs of the LEA and high schools.
Student Placement
We propose that applicants must include a description of how
students will be selected or placed in the broader SLC project such
that students will not be placed according to ability or any other
measure, but will be placed at random or by student/parent choice and
not pursuant to testing or other judgments.
Rationale: The Department needs this information to ensure that
each funded project complies with the requirements of the statute
regarding random assignment or student/parent choice for SLC placement
of students. Section 5441(b)(13) of the ESEA requires applicants for
SLC grants to describe the method of placing students in the SLC or
SLCs, such that students are not placed according to ability or any
other measure, but are placed at random or by student/parent choice and
not pursuant to testing or other judgments. For instance, projects that
place students in any SLC on the basis of their prior academic
achievement or performance on an academic assessment are not eligible
for assistance under this program. Note that the supplemental reading
programs are not SLCs. Enrollment in a supplemental reading program
would be contingent on student performance, but enrollment in broader
SLCs funded through this program may not be based on ability.
Performance Indicators for the Broader SLC Project
We propose to require applicants to identify in their application
specific performance indicators and annual performance objectives for
these indicators and one core indicator. 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 the proficient and
advanced levels on the mathematics assessments used by the State to
measure adequate yearly progress under part A of title I of the ESEA,
as well as these percentages disaggregated by 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) At least two other appropriate indicators the LEA would
identify, such as rates of average daily attendance, year-to-year
retention, achievement and gains in English proficiency of limited
English proficient students; incidence of school violence, drug and
alcohol use, and disciplinary actions; or the percentage of students
completing advanced placement courses or passing advanced placement
tests.
Applicants must identify annual performance objectives for each
indicator in their application.
Rationale: The fundamental purpose of SLCs is to improve the
academic achievement of students and prepare them to participate
successfully in postsecondary education or advanced training, the
workforce, our democracy, and our communities. It is important,
therefore, that projects measure their progress in improving student
academic achievement and other related outcomes.
Evaluation of Broader SLC Projects
We propose to require each applicant to provide an assurance that
it will support an evaluation of its broader SLC project that provides
information to the project director and school personnel and that will
be useful in gauging the project's progress and in identifying areas
for improvement. We propose that each evaluation include an annual
report for each of the five years of the project period and a final
report that would be completed at the end of the fifth year. We would
require grantees to submit each of these reports to the Department. We
propose to require that the evaluation be conducted by an independent
third party evaluator selected by the LEA whose role in the project is
limited to conducting the evaluation.
Rationale: Implementing or expanding an SLC project is difficult
and complex work that administrators, teachers, and other school
personnel must carry out at the same time that they are carrying out
other demanding, day-to-day responsibilities. An evaluation that
provides regular feedback on the progress of implementation and its
impact can help the project director and school personnel identify
their successes and how they may need to revise their strategies to
accomplish their goals. To be most useful, the evaluation should be
objective and be carried out by an independent third party who has no
other role in the implementation of the project.
Participation in the Research Evaluation
We propose to require each applicant to provide an assurance that
it and each participating high school will take several actions to
assist in implementing the research evaluation, including:
(1) The LEA must implement the supplemental reading program(s)
adhering strictly to the design of the program(s), including purchasing
all necessary instructional materials, technology, professional
development, and student materials in sufficient time for the
program(s) to be implemented at the start of the 2005-06 and 2006-07
school years.
(2) The LEA or the participating high school(s) must use a lottery
to assign randomly 50 of the expected 125 or more students determined
to be eligible to participate in the supplemental reading class and the
remainder to serve as non-participants.
(3) The LEA must provide a language arts teacher for each
participating high school who would receive professional development in
the supplemental reading program (three days during Summer 2005 and two
follow-up days during each of the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years)
and would teach the supplemental reading program to the participating
students for a minimum of 225 minutes per week for each week of the
2005-2006 and 2006-07 school years. This teacher would complete four
surveys (at the beginning and end of the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school
years) to provide information on his or her preparation, professional
development, and experiences.
(4) The LEA must administer, in conjunction with the contractor
selected to conduct the evaluation, a diagnostic group assessment of
reading skills at the beginning and the end of the ninth-grade year to
assess whether or not those students participating and not
participating in the supplemental reading program have made gains in
reading skills. This reading assessment might also need to be
administered again at the end of the tenth-grade year.
(5) The LEA must provide transcripts and State assessment data for
the entire pool of eligible students for the 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08,
and 2008-09 school years, in a manner and to the extent consistent with
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g;
34 CFR part 99).
(6) The LEA must designate a project coordinator who would
participate in the professional development and serve as a resource and
coordinator for teachers involved in the research study. This project
coordinator would also work with the LEA's technology office (if
necessary) and the curriculum developers to organize the purchase of
computer equipment and software needed to implement the supplemental
reading program. The project coordinator would not also be the
[[Page 3916]]
language arts teacher responsible for teaching the supplemental
literacy program.
(7) The LEA and participating high schools must allow enough
flexibility in developing the participating students' daily schedules
to accommodate the supplemental literacy instruction, which might be
scheduled as the typical 45-minute language arts period or as a larger
block of 90 minutes for literacy instruction and practice.
(8) The LEA and participating high schools must allow the
evaluation team to observe both the classrooms implementing the
supplemental literacy program and other English or language arts
classrooms in the school.
Rationale: The administration of a complex national research
evaluation requires careful planning on the part of each LEA, high
school, evaluator, and project director involved. It is essential that
all schools participating in the study adhere to the research design to
ensure that data collected from the project will be valid.
The use of a lottery to determine the participation of eligible
students maintains the integrity of the comparison group. Each school's
participation will require the efforts of a language arts teacher
trained and dedicated to the faithful implementation of the research
design. The language arts teacher will be responsible for working with
the contractor selected to conduct the evaluation and administering
group assessments of participating students. In a manner consistent
with FERPA, the evaluator must have access to student transcripts and
assessment data in order to gauge the effectiveness of the supplemental
reading program.
High-Risk Status and Other Enforcement Mechanisms
Because the requirements listed in this notice are material
requirements, we propose that failure to comply with any requirement or
with any elements of the grantee's application would subject the
grantee to administrative action, including but not limited to
designation as a ``high-risk'' grantee, the imposition of special
conditions, or termination of the grant. Circumstances that might cause
the Department to take such action include, but are not limited to: The
grantee's failure to implement the designated supplemental reading
programs in a manner that adheres strictly to the design of the
program; the grantee's failure to purchase all necessary instructional
materials, technology, professional development, and student materials
in sufficient time for the programs to be implemented at the start of
the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years; and the grantee's failure to
adhere to any requirements or protocols established by the evaluator.
Rationale: Part of the Department's role in administering grant
funds under the SLC program is to ensure that those taxpayer funds are
used in a manner that is consistent with the aims of the grant program.
To help ensure proper use of taxpayer funds, the Department reserves
the right to use the enforcement actions listed above if a grantee
fails to meet the requirements established by this notice and the law
authorizing the SLC program.
Definitions
Proposed Definitions
In addition to the definitions set out in the authorizing statute
and 34 CFR 77.1, we propose that the following definitions also apply
to this special competition. We may apply these definitions in any year
in which we run an SLC supplemental reading program competition.
Broader SLC Project means an SLC project at the site of the high
school aside from and in addition to that high school's implementation
of a supplemental reading program and participation in the research
evaluation.
Freshman Academy means a form of SLC structure that groups ninth-
grade students into an environment in which a core group of teachers
and other adults within the school know the needs, interests, and
aspirations of each ninth-grade student well, closely monitor each
student's progress, and provide the academic and other support each
student needs to transition to high school and succeed. Student
enrollment in (or exclusion from) a freshman academy is not based on
ability, testing, or measures other than ninth-grade status and
student/parent choice or random assignment. A freshman academy differs
from a simple grouping of ninth-graders in that it incorporates
programs or strategies designed to ease the transition for students
from the eighth grade to the high school. A freshman academy may
include ninth-grade students exclusively or it may be part of an SLC,
sometimes called a ``house,'' which groups together a small number of
ninth- through twelfth-grade students for instruction by the same core
group of academic teachers. The freshman academy refers only to the
ninth-grade students in the house.
Large High School means an entity that includes grades 11 and 12
and has an enrollment of 1,000 or more students in grades 9 and above.
Research evaluation means the study of the effectiveness of
supplemental reading programs that are implemented within freshman
academies and that is being sponsored by the Department of Education
and is described elsewhere in this notice.
Smaller Learning Community (or SLC) means 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.
Striving Ninth-Grade Readers means those students who are enrolled
in the ninth grade for the first time and who read English at a level
that is two to four grades below their current grade level, as
determined by an eighth-grade standardized test of reading. The term
includes those students with limited English proficiency who are
enrolled in ninth grade for the first time, who read English at a level
that is two to four grades below their current grade level, and who
took the State's eighth-grade standardized reading or language arts
assessment with minimal accommodations (defined as having the test
directions read to them orally, having access during the test to a
dictionary, and/or being able to take the test without a time limit).
The term does not include students with learning disabilities who have
been designated to receive special education services in reading.
Selection Criteria
Proposed Selection Criteria
We propose that the following selection criteria be used to
evaluate applications for new grants under this special competition. We
may apply these criteria in any year in which we conduct an SLC
supplemental reading program competition.
Need for Participation in the Supplemental Reading Program
In determining the need for participation in the supplemental
reading program, we will consider the extent to which the applicant
will--
(1) Involve schools that have the greatest need for assistance as
indicated by such factors as: Student achievement scores in English or
language arts; student achievement scores in other core curriculum
areas; enrollment; attendance and dropout rates; incidents of violence,
drug and alcohol use, and disciplinary actions; percentage of students
who have limited English proficiency, come from low-income families, or
are otherwise
[[Page 3917]]
disadvantaged; or other need factors as identified by the applicant;
(2) Address the needs it has identified in accordance with
paragraph (1) through participation in the supplemental reading program
activities; and
(3) Employ strategies and carry out activities in its
implementation of broader SLC activities that address the needs it has
identified in accordance with paragraph (1).
Foundation for Implementation of the Supplemental Reading Program
In determining the foundation for implementation of the
supplemental reading program, we will consider the extent to which--
(1) Administrators, teachers, and other school staff within each
school support the school's proposed involvement in the supplemental
reading program and have been and will continue to be involved in its
planning, development, and implementation, including, particularly,
those teachers who will be directly affected by the proposed project;
(2) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders support the
proposed implementation of the supplemental reading program and have
been and will continue to be involved in its planning, development and
implementation;
(3) The proposed implementation of the supplemental reading program
is consistent with, and will advance, State and local initiatives to
increase student achievement and narrow gaps in achievement between all
students and students who are economically disadvantaged, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, or students
with limited English proficiency;
(4) The applicant demonstrates that it has carried out sufficient
planning and preparatory activities, outreach, and consultation with
teachers, administrators and other stakeholders to enable it to
participate effectively in the supplemental reading program at the
beginning of the 2005-6 school year; and
(5) The applicant articulates a plan for using information gathered
from the evaluation of the supplemental reading program to inform
decision and policymaking at the LEA and school levels.
Quality of the Project Design for the Broader SLC Project
In determining the quality of the project design for the broader
SLC project we will consider the extent to which--
(1) The applicant demonstrates a foundation for implementing the
broader SLC project, creating or expanding SLC structures or strategies
in the school environment, including demonstrating:
(A) That it has the support and involvement of administrators,
teachers, and other school staff;
(B) That it has the support of parents, students, and other
community stakeholders;
(C) The degree to which the proposed broader SLC project is
consistent with, and will advance, State and local initiatives to
increase student achievement and narrow gaps in achievement; and
(D) The degree to which the applicant has carried out sufficient
planning and preparatory activities to enable it to implement the
proposed broader SLC project at the beginning of the 2005-6 school
year.
(2) The applicant will implement or expand strategies, new
organizational structures, or other changes in practice that are likely
to create 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; and
(3) The applicant will provide high-quality professional
development throughout the project period that advances the
understanding of teachers, administrators, and other school staff of
effective, research-based instructional strategies for improving the
academic achievement of students, including, particularly, students
with academic skills that are significantly below grade level; and
provide the knowledge and skills they need to participate effectively
in the development, expansion, or implementation of a smaller learning
community.
Quality of the Management Plan
In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed
project, we consider the following factors--
(1) The adequacy of the proposed management plan to allow the
participating schools to implement effectively the research evaluation
and broader SLC project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities and detailed timelines and milestones for
accomplishing project tasks;
(2) The extent to which time commitments of the project director
and other key personnel, including the teachers who will be responsible
for providing instruction in the supplemental reading program, are
appropriate and adequate to implement effectively the supplemental
reading program and broader SLC project;
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director, the program coordinator, the teachers who will
be responsible for providing instruction in the supplemental reading
program, and other key personnel who will be responsible for
implementing the broader SLC project; and
(4) The adequacy of resources, including the extent to which the
budget is adequate, the extent to which the budget provides sufficient
funds for the implementation of the supplemental reading program, and
the extent to which costs are directly related to the objectives and
design of the research evaluation and broader SLC activities.
Quality of the Broader SLC Project Evaluation
In determining the quality of the broader SLC project evaluation to
be conducted on the applicant's behalf by an independent, third party
evaluator, we consider the following factors--
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed broader SLC project;
(2) The extent to which the evaluation will collect and annually
report accurate, valid, and reliable data for each of the required
performance indicators, including student achievement data that are
disaggregated for economically disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English proficiency;
(3) The extent to which the evaluation will collect additional
qualitative and quantitative data that will be useful in assessing the
success and progress of implementation, including, at a minimum,
accurate, valid, and reliable data for the additional performance
indicators identified by the applicant in the application;
(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
timely and regular feedback to the LEA and the school on the success
and progress of implementation and will identify areas for needed
improvement; and
(5) The qualifications and relevant training and experience of the
independent evaluator.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection
[[Page 3918]]
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.
The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, 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 priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we have determined that the
benefits of the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 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.
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: January 21, 2005.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 05-1477 Filed 1-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P