FR Doc 04-2126
[Federal Register: February 2, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 4999-5003]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02fe04-63]
[[Page 4999]]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Technology Centers Program; Proposed Requirements,
Priorities, and Selection Criteria; Notice
[[Page 5000]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RIN 1830-ZA05
Community Technology Centers Program; Proposed Requirements,
Priorities, and Selection Criteria
AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult
Education proposes requirements, priorities, and selection criteria
under the Community Technology Centers (CTC) Program. These proposed
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria clarify the funding
ranges and matching requirements for this program. The proposed
priorities and selection criteria are intended to strengthen the
quality of applications and provide greater understanding of the
Department's intent regarding the direction of this program. The
Assistant Secretary may use these requirements, priorities, and
selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2004 and later
years.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 3, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed requirements,
priorities, and selection criteria to Karen Holliday, U.S. Department
of Education, OVAE, MES room 5520, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20202-7100. If you prefer to send your comments through
the Internet, use the following address: karen.holliday@ed.gov.
You must include the phrase ``CTC Comments'' in the subject line of your
electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Holliday, Telephone (202) 358-
3339.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) 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
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria. To ensure that your
comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final
requirements, priorities and selection criteria, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific requirement, priority, 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
requirements, priorities, 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 requirements, priorities, and selection
criteria at 330 C Street, SW., room 5520, 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 requirements, priorities, 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
The purpose of the CTC Program is to assist eligible applicants to
create or expand community technology centers that provide
disadvantaged residents of economically distressed urban and rural
communities with access to information technology and related training.
Eligible applicants are community-based organizations (including faith-
based organizations), State and local educational agencies (LEAs)
(including charter schools that are LEAs), institutions of higher
education, and other entities, such as foundations, libraries, museums,
public and private nonprofit organizations, and for-profit businesses,
or consortia thereof. To be eligible, an applicant must also have the
capacity to significantly expand access to computers and related
services for disadvantaged residents of economically distressed urban
and rural communities who would otherwise be denied such access.
The CTC program competitions the Department conducted in FY 2003
gave absolute priority to applicants seeking to improve the academic
achievement of low-achieving high school students while continuing to
provide a community technology center for all members of their
community. Grant recipients were required to meet this priority as they
developed and implemented their plans to create or expand community
technology centers for increasing access to information technology and
related training for disadvantaged residents of distressed urban or
rural communities, and to evaluate the effectiveness of their projects.
Specifically, we permitted grantees to use funds to provide services
and activities that use technology to improve academic achievement,
such as academic enrichment activities for children and youth, career
development, adult education, and English language instruction for
individuals with limited English proficiency. Other authorized
activities included, among other things, support for personnel,
equipment, networking capabilities, and other infrastructure costs. We
did not permit grantees to use funds for construction, food, stipends,
childcare, or security personnel.
The Department held two competitions with FY 2003 funds. The first
competition used 75 percent of available funds and made grants to the
highest-ranking applicants that met the absolute priorities specified
for the competition. The second competition used 25 percent of
available funds for the highest-ranking novice applicants that met
similar absolute priorities.
For FY 2004, the Department proposes requirements, priorities, and
selection criteria similar to those established in FY 2003. Yet we are
clarifying some of the requirements, priorities, and selection criteria
to refine the application process under the CTC program, while
continuing to support and create local technology programs that are
among the strongest in the nation.
Discussion of Proposed Requirements, Priorities, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final requirements, priorities, and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the
final requirements, priorities, and selection criteria after
considering responses to this notice and other information available to
the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or
funding additional requirements, priorities, or selection criteria,
subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
[[Page 5001]]
Targeted Applicants
We held two competitions with FY 2003 funds for the CTC program.
The first competition used 75 percent of available funds and made
grants to the highest-ranking applicants that met the absolute
priorities, and the second competition used 25 percent of available
funds for the highest-ranking novice applicants that met similar
absolute priorities.
For FY 2004, we are proposing that one combined competition be
conducted for both general and novice applicants, using the same
priorities and selection criteria. The Department will rank and fund
the two groups separately. At least seventy-five percent of the funds
will be set aside for general applicants and up to twenty-five percent
will be set aside for novice applicants.
Rationale
The Department supports the idea that novice applicants be given
special consideration when applying for discretionary grant funds. Last
year, we pursued that strategy by setting aside 25 percent of program
funds for novice applications. We hope that continuing this practice
will yield a similar result this year.
Range of Awards
The Department proposes to establish $250,000 as the minimum award
and $500,000 as the maximum award for FY 2004, and proposes that no
grant application will be considered for funding if it requests an
award amount outside the funding range of $250,000 to $500,000.
Rationale
In our work with CTC program grantees since 1999, we have acquired
information to support the idea that programs must be of at least a
moderate funding amount in order to significantly impact increased
access to technology at the local level. The Department believes that
the minimum award threshold, coupled with the applicant's mandatory
match, ensures the applicant's ability to be effective. The maximum
threshold is necessary to ensure that the Department is able to fund a
significant number of grantees, and to promote access to technology in
a number of geographic areas.
Matching Funds Requirement
Pursuant to Section 5512(c) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB), Federal funds may not be used to pay for more than
50 percent of total CTC project costs.
The statute requires that to receive a grant award under the CTC
competition, each applicant must furnish from non-Federal sources at
least 50 percent of its total project costs. Applicants may satisfy
this requirement in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including
services. Accordingly, we are proposing to clarify this requirement as
follows: each applicant must provide a dollar-for-dollar match of the
amount requested from the Federal Government. An example of an
allowable match would be a situation in which an applicant requested
$250,000 in Federal funds (the mandatory minimum request). In that
situation, the applicant would be requested to furnish at least
$250,000 from non-Federal funds in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated,
resulting in a total project cost of $500,000.
Rationale
Clarification of the matching requirement is necessary to eliminate
the possibility of any confusion among applicants.
Discussion of Proposed Priorities
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities, we
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Priorities
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 priority a competitive or absolute
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
We propose to establish the following priorities for the CTC
general competition:
Proposed Priority 1
We propose a priority for projects that include a partnership with
a community-based organization and a local educational agency (or
school, which may be a charter school). To meet the priority, an
applicant must clearly identify the partnering agencies and include a
detailed plan of their working relationship, including a project budget
that reflects fund disbursements to the various partnering agencies.
Thus, the Secretary would give priority to projects in which the
delivery of instructional services includes:
1. A community-based organization (CBO), which may include a faith-
based organization, and
2. A local educational agency (LEA) (or school, including private,
non-profit schools).
A CBO is not required to submit a joint application with an LEA or
school when applying for funds; however, the proposed project must
deliver the educational services in partnership with an LEA (or
school).
Likewise, an LEA (or school) is not required to submit a joint
application with a CBO when applying for funds; however, the proposed
project must deliver the educational services in partnership with a
CBO.
Applicants that are neither CBOs nor LEAs must enter into a
partnership that includes a CBO and an LEA (or school) in the delivery
of educational services.
Rationale
The Secretary has determined that the participation of both CBOs
and LEAs (or schools) is critical to the success of CTC projects. Many
academic support programs for adolescents report that securing and
maintaining a high level of student participation can be challenging.
Involving CBOs in service delivery will help projects better master
this challenge, such as by providing expanded outreach and support to
students, joint programming, or alternative service sites that are in
or near the neighborhoods where students live. Community-based and
faith-based partners bring other important resources to the table as
well, such as assistance in recruiting staff and volunteers. LEAs (or
schools) also are essential partners. Their involvement is needed to
identify the students who are most in need of academic support and to
ensure that the project's curriculum, assessment, and instructional
practices are consistent with those of the schools the students attend.
[[Page 5002]]
Note: Applicants should bear in mind that although LEAs are
eligible under this program, individual public schools are not
eligible applicants.
Proposed Priority 2
We propose a priority pursuant to which applicants would meet the
following criteria:
Applicants must state whether they are proposing a local or State
project. A local project must include one or more CTCs; a State project
must include two or more CTCs. In addition, the project must be carried
out by or in partnership with one or more LEAs or secondary schools
that provide supplementary instruction in the core academic subjects of
reading or language arts, or mathematics, to low-achieving secondary
school students. Projects must serve students who are entering or
enrolled in grades 9 through 12 and who: (1) Have academic skills
significantly below grade level, or (2) who have not attained
proficiency on State academic assessments as established by NCLB.
Supplementary instruction may be delivered before or after school or at
other times when school is not in session. Instruction may also be
provided while school is in session, provided that it increases the
amount of time students receive instruction in core academic subjects
and does not require their removal from class. The instructional
strategies used must be based on practices that have proven effective
for improving the academic performance of low-achieving students. If
these services are not provided directly by an LEA or secondary school,
they must be provided in partnership with an LEA or secondary school.
Rationale
We believe that such supplemental instruction is important for the
students residing in the geographic areas the CTC program intends to
serve. Further, the Department encourages local CBOs and other entities
to expand their capacity for becoming supplemental service providers
through the effective use of the local CTC.
Proposed Priority 3
We propose a priority to focus CTC activities on adult education
and family literacy services.
Under this proposed priority, we would give priority to projects
that provide adult education and family literacy activities through
technology and the Internet, including adult basic education, adult
secondary education, and English literacy instruction.
Rationale
Section 5513(b)(3)(B) of the ESEA provides that funds under this
program may be used for CTC activities focusing on adult education and
family literacy services. We believe that projects using technology and
the Internet to provide adult education are critical to improving adult
academic achievement.
Proposed Priority 4
We propose a priority to focus CTC activities on career development
and job preparation activities.
Under this proposed priority we would give priority to projects
that provide career development and job preparation activities in high-
demand occupational areas.
Rationale
Section 5513(b)(3)(C) of the ESEA provides that program funds may
be used to provide services relating to career development and job
preparation. We believe that career development and job preparation
activities in high-demand occupational areas will benefit greatly the
students residing in areas that CTC projects serve.
Proposed Selection Criteria
We propose that the following selection criteria be used for this
competition:
Need for the Project
In evaluating the need for the proposed project, we consider the
extent to which the proposed project will--
(1) Serve students from low-income families;
(2) Serve students entering or enrolled in secondary schools that
are among the secondary schools in the State that have the highest
numbers or percentages of students who have not achieved proficiency on
the State academic assessments required by Title I of ESEA, or who have
academic skills in reading or language arts, or mathematics, that are
significantly below grade level;
(3) Serve students who have the greatest need for supplementary
instruction, as indicated by their scores on State or local
standardized assessments in reading or language arts, or mathematics,
or some other local measure of performance in reading or language arts,
or mathematics; and
(4) Create or expand access to information technology and related
training for disadvantaged residents of distressed urban or rural
communities.
Quality of the Project Design
In evaluating the quality of the design of the proposed project, we
consider the extent to which the proposed project will--
(1) Provide instructional services that will be of sufficient size,
scope, and intensity to improve the academic performance of
participating students;
(2) Incorporate strategies that have proven effective for improving
the academic performance of low-achieving students;
(3) Implement strategies in recruiting and retaining students that
have proven effective;
(4) Provide instruction that is aligned with the secondary school
curricula of the schools in which the students to be served by the
grant are entering or enrolled; and
(5) Provide high-quality, sustained, and intensive professional
development for personnel who provide instruction to students.
Quality of the Management Plan
In evaluating the quality of the management plan, we consider the
extent to which the proposed project--
(1) Outlines specific, measurable goals, objectives, and outcomes
to be achieved by the proposed project;
(2) Assigns responsibility for the accomplishment of project tasks
to specific project personnel, and provides timelines for the
accomplishment of project tasks;
(3) Requires appropriate and adequate time commitments of the
project director and other key personnel to achieve the objectives of
the proposed project; and
(4) Includes key project personnel, including the project director
and other staff, with appropriate qualifications and relevant training
and experience.
Adequacy of Resources
In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project,
we consider the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant;
(2) The extent to which a preponderance of project resources will
be used for activities designed to improve the academic performance of
low-achieving students in reading and/or mathematics;
(3) The extent to which the budget is adequate and costs are
reasonable in relation to the objectives and design of the proposed
project; and
(4) The potential for continued support of the project after
Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated
commitment of appropriate entities to such support.
[[Page 5003]]
Quality of the Evaluation
In determining the quality of the evaluation, we consider the
extent to which the proposed project--
(1) Includes a plan that utilizes evaluation methods that are
feasible and appropriate to the goals and outcomes of the project;
(2) Will regularly examine the progress and outcomes of
participating students on a range of appropriate performance measures
and has a plan for utilizing such information to improve project
activities and instruction;
(3) Will use an independent, external evaluator with the necessary
background and technical expertise to assess the performance of the
project; and
(4) Effectively demonstrates that the applicant has adopted a
rigorous evaluation design.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed requirements, priorities, 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.
The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed
requirements, priorities, 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 requirements, priorities,
and selection criteria, we have determined that the benefits of the
proposed requirements, priorities, 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.
Summary of Potential Benefits
Elsewhere in this notice we discuss the potential benefits of these
proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
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 84.341--Community
Technology Centers Program)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7263.
Dated: January 29, 2004.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 04-2126 Filed 1-29-04; 1:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P