FR Doc 04-5817
[Federal Register: March 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 12253-12261]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15mr04-138]
[[Page 12253]]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VI
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller Learning Communities Program; Notices
[[Page 12254]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RIN 1830 ZA04
Smaller Learning Communities Program
AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of final requirements, priorities, and selection
criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and subsequent years funds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education
announces final requirements, priorities, and selection criteria under
the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) Program. The Assistant Secretary
will use these requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for a
competition using fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds and may use them in later
years.
We intend these final requirements, priorities and selection
criteria to further the purpose of the SLC program, which is to promote
academic achievement through the planning, implementation or expansion
of small, safe and successful learning environments in large public
high schools.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These final requirements, priorities and selection
criteria are effective April 14, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Williams, U.S. Department of
Education, OVAE MES room 5518, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20202-7120. Telephone: (202) 205-0242 or via Internet at
deborah.williams@ed.gov.
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:
Background
The Smaller Learning Communities 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 Public Law 107-110, the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the most sweeping reform of
Federal education policy in a generation. It is designed to implement
the President's agenda to improve America's public schools by: (1)
Ensuring accountability for results, (2) providing unprecedented
flexibility in the use of Federal funds in implementing education
programs, (3) focusing on proven educational methods, and (4) expanding
educational choice for parents. Since the enactment of the original
ESEA in 1965, the Federal Government has spent more than $130 billion
to improve public schools. Unfortunately, this investment in education
has not yet eliminated the achievement gap between affluent and lower-
income students or between minority students and non-minority students.
One strategy that holds promise for improving the academic
performance of our Nation's young people is the establishment of
smaller learning communities as components of comprehensive high school
improvement plans. The problems of large high schools and the related
question of optimal school size have been debated for the last 40 years
and are of growing interest today. Approximately 50 percent of American
high schools enroll 1,000 or more students; nearly 70 percent of high
school students attend schools enrolling more than 1,500 students. Some
students attend schools enrolling as many as 4,000 to 5,000 students.
While the research on school size to date has been largely non-
experimental, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that
smaller schools may have advantages over larger schools. Research
suggests that the positive outcomes associated with smaller schools
stem from the schools' ability to create close, personal environments
in which teachers can work collaboratively, with each other and with a
small set of students, to challenge students and support learning. A
variety of structures and operational strategies are thought to provide
important supports for smaller learning environments; some data suggest
that these approaches offer substantial advantages to both teachers and
students (Ziegler 1993; Caroll 1994).
Structural changes for recasting large schools as a set of smaller
learning communities are described in the Conference Report for the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113, H.R. Conference
Report No. 106-479, at 1240 (1999)). These methods and strategies
include establishing small learning clusters, ``houses,'' career
academies, magnet programs, and schools-within-a-school. Other
activities may include: Freshman transition activities, advisory and
adult advocate systems, academic teaming, multi-year groupings, ``extra
help'' or accelerated learning options for students or groups of
students entering below grade level, and other innovations designed to
create a more personalized high school experience for students. These
structural changes and personalization strategies, by themselves, are
not likely to improve student academic achievement. They do, however,
create valuable opportunities to improve the quality of instruction and
curriculum, and to provide the individualized attention and academic
support that all students need to excel academically. The SLC program
encourages Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to set higher academic
expectations for all of their students and to use these strategies to
provide students with the effective instruction and personalized
academic and social support they need to meet those expectations.
We published a notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and
selection criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and subsequent years funds
in the Federal Register on January 7, 2004 (69 FR 1066). This notice of
final requirements, priorities, and selection criteria contains several
significant changes from the notice of proposed requirements,
priorities, and selection criteria. We fully explain these changes in
the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in this notice.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria 16 parties submitted
comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the
requirements, priorities, or selection criteria since publication of
the notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria
follows.
Comments: Several commenters suggested we make clear under Types of
Grants that Implementation Grant awardees are expected to begin program
implementation in the first year of funding. The commenters suggested
we require some actual outcomes in the first year of the grant and not
allow grantees to use the first year for planning purposes.
Discussion: We agree that the requirement would be clearer with the
change recommended by the commenters. The Implementation Grant is
awarded to applicants who are expected to have the capacity to
implement new smaller learning communities or expand an existing
program. The first year is not to be used for planning purposes.
Changes: We have changed the timeframe for determining whether an
Implementation Grant should be classified as High Risk as a result of
[[Page 12255]]
several factors, including not making substantial progress in specific
goals set by the applicant.
Comments: Several commenters suggested the award ranges for
Implementation Grants, especially those with larger high schools, be
increased.
Discussion: We agree that the schools with larger student
populations require higher funding levels to carry out the complex
reform activities of this program, support the additional staff needed
to provide the more personalized education that will result from
implementing smaller learning communities, and procure the services of
a qualified third party for an external evaluation of the project.
Changes: We have increased the award ranges for schools with
student enrollments of more than 1,000 through more than 3,000 in this
notice.
Comments: Several commenters requested clarification regarding an
LEA applying for a grant on behalf of a consortium of districts. The
commenters asked whether an intermediate school district could apply on
behalf of a consortium of schools.
Discussion: If an entity is an LEA, has governing authority over
eligible schools, and meets other eligibility requirements, the LEA may
apply for a planning grant and/or an implementation grant as the fiscal
agent for a consortium of two or more districts on behalf of their
eligible schools.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters sought clarification regarding whether
adequate yearly progress would be the only indicator for review of the
progress of SLCs.
Discussion: Adequate yearly progress will not be the only factor
used to determine progress. Several factors will be used to review the
progress of SLCs, including progress in achieving planned objectives,
data submitted in response to performance indicators, the annual
performance reports from the projects, the evaluation reports from the
projects, and site visits to the projects.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters sought clarification regarding
placement of students and whether magnet programs are eligible as an
SLC program.
Discussion: Magnet programs may be eligible as SLCs. This notice
requires that students be placed at random or by student/parent choice
to participate in an SLC program. They cannot be placed as a result of
testing, any form of competition, or any other judgment. Magnet
programs are eligible as SLC programs if they do not use any form of
testing or selection process other than random selection or student/
parent choice for placement of students.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters sought clarification and several
commenters requested a change in the requirement regarding funding
schools that have benefited from previous planning and implementation
grants.
Discussion: We are seeking to provide access to SLC grant funds to
more districts across the country. Therefore schools that received
funds through planning grants in a prior year's competition will not be
eligible to apply for additional planning grants and schools that
received funds through implementation grants in a prior year's
competition will not be eligible to apply for additional implementation
grants. Grantees are expected to work toward sustainability of funding
to support programs after the federal funding period.
Changes: None.
Note: This notice of final requirements, priorities and selection
criteria does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose
to use these requirements, priorities and selection criteria, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Application Requirements
The Assistant Secretary announces the following application
requirements for the SLC program. These 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. A discussion
of each application requirement follows:
A. Proof of Eligibility
To be considered for funding, LEAs must identify in their
applications the name(s) of the eligible school(s) and the number of
students enrolled in each school. 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.
B. School Report Cards
We require that LEAs provide, for each school 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 and 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 performance of
the school's students on the statewide assessment as a whole.
C. Types of Grants
The Secretary will award two types of grants in this competition:
(1) Planning grants, which will be awarded to support planning, design,
and other preparatory activities that culminate in the development of a
detailed plan for the implementation of a smaller learning communities
program in a school; and (2) implementation grants, which will be
awarded to applicants to support the implementation of a new smaller
learning community program within each targeted high school, or to
expand an existing smaller learning community program.
Planning grants will be awarded for a period of up to 12 months,
and implementation grants will be awarded for a period of up to 36
months. We require that applicants for implementation grants 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 for implementation grants at the time of the
initial award.
Applicants pursuing planning grant funds must not yet have
developed a viable plan for creating smaller learning communities in
the school(s) that will be served by the grant. To apply for
implementation grant funds, applicants must be prepared to implement a
new smaller learning communities program within each targeted high
school, or to expand an existing smaller learning communities program.
The first year of implementation grant funds is not to be used for
planning purposes.
D. Applications on Behalf of Multiple Schools
In an effort to encourage systemic, district-level reform efforts,
the Secretary is permitting an individual LEA to submit only one
planning grant application and one implementation grant application in
a competition,
[[Page 12256]]
specifying in each application which high schools the LEA intends to
fund.
An LEA may not apply on behalf of a high school for which it does
not have governing authority, such as a high school in a neighboring
school district. An LEA, however, may form a consortium with another
LEA and submit a joint application for funds. They must follow the
procedures for group applications described in 34 CFR 75.127-75.129 in
EDGAR.
An LEA may not apply for both a planning and implementation grant
on behalf of the same high school. A single high school could be
included in either the LEA's planning grant application or its
implementation grant application, but not both. An LEA may apply only
for one planning grant and one implementation grant whether the LEA
applies independently or as part of a consortium application.
E. Award Ranges/Project Periods
For a one-year planning grant, LEAs applying on behalf of only one
school are eligible for a grant in the range of $25,000 to $50,000.
LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible schools may receive up
to $250,000 per planning grant depending on the number of schools
included in the application. To ensure sufficient planning funds at the
local level, LEAs may not request funds for more than 10 schools in a
single application for a planning grant. The following chart provides
the ranges for awards for planning grants:
Planning Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of schools in LEA application Award ranges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One School........................................ $25,000-$50,000
Two Schools....................................... $50,000-$100,000
Three Schools..................................... $75,000-$150,000
Four Schools...................................... $100,000-$200,000
Five Schools...................................... $125,000-$250,000
Six Schools....................................... $150,000-$250,000
Seven Schools..................................... $175,000-$250,000
Eight Schools..................................... $200,000-$250,000
Nine Schools...................................... $225,000-$250,000
Ten Schools....................................... $250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants requesting more funds than the maximum amounts specified
for any school or for the total grant will be declared ineligible for
funding, and their applications will not be read. However, an applicant
may request an amount lower than the suggested minimum for an
individual school or for the overall grant based on the pertinent
number of schools.
Schools that received funding through planning grants in a prior
year competition will not be eligible to receive funding for additional
planning grants in this or future competitions.
For a 36-month implementation grant, LEAs may receive, on behalf of
a single school, $250,000 to $550,000, depending upon the size of the
school. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible schools could
receive up to $5,500,000 per implementation grant. Implementation
grants are designed to support extensive redesign and improvement
efforts, professional development, direct student services, and other
activities associated with creating or expanding a smaller learning
community program. To ensure that sufficient funds are available to
support implementation activities, LEAs may not request funds for more
than 10 schools in a single application for an implementation grant.
The following chart provides the ranges of awards per high school
for implementation grants:
Implementation Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Award ranges per
Student enrollment school
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000-1,500 Students.............................. $250,000-$300,000
1,501-2,000 Students.............................. $250,000-$400,000
2,001-2,500 Students.............................. $250,000-$450,000
2,501-3,000 Students.............................. $250,000-$500,000
More than 3,000 Students.......................... $250,000-$550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants requesting more funds than the maximum amounts specified
for any school or for the total grant would be declared ineligible for
funding, and their applications will not be read. However, an applicant
may request an amount lower than the suggested minimum for an
individual school or for the overall grant based on the pertinent
number of schools.
Schools that received funding through implementation grants in a
prior year competition will not be eligible to receive funding for
additional implementation grants in this or future competitions.
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 any number of activities that could only be
made possible 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 who requested funds within
the specified funding range and outlined a less extensive set of
activities. For this reason, we will fund only those applications that
request an amount that does not exceed the maximum amounts specified
for planning and implementation grants.
The actual size of awards will 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.
F. Student Placement
Section 5441(b)(13) of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, requires applicants for SLC grants to describe the
method of placing students in the smaller learning community or
communities, 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 smaller learning community on the
basis of their prior academic achievement or performance on an academic
assessment are not eligible for assistance under this program.
To be considered for funding, applicants for planning grants must
include in their application an assurance that the applicant will
identify, as part of the planning process, methods of selecting or
placing students in a smaller learning community that are not according
to ability or any other measure but are at random or by student/parent
choice, and not pursuant to testing or other judgments.
Applicants for implementation grants must include an assurance/
description of how students will be selected or placed in a smaller
learning community 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.
G. Including All Students
Applicants for planning grants are required to develop plans to
implement or expand a smaller learning community program that will
include every student within the school by no later than the end of the
fourth school year of implementation. Applicants for implementation
grants are required to implement or expand a smaller learning community
program that will include every student within the school by no later
than the end of the fourth school year of implementation. Elsewhere in
this notice, we define a smaller learning community as 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 his or her progress, and provide the academic and
[[Page 12257]]
other support he or she needs to succeed.
H. Reporting Requirement for Recipients of Planning Grants
We require recipients of planning grants to include as part of
their final performance report a copy of the implementation plan they
developed during the project period.
I. Performance Indicators
The Secretary requires applicants for implementation grants to
identify in their application specific performance indicators and
annual performance objectives for each of these indicators.
Specifically, applicants are required to use the following performance
indicators to measure the progress of each school:
1. The percentage of students who scored at the proficient and
advanced levels on the reading/language arts and mathematics
assessments used by the State to measure adequate yearly progress under
Part A of Title I of ESEA, disaggregated by subject matter and the
following subgroups:
a. All students;
b. Major racial and ethnic groups;
c. Students with disabilities;
d. Students with limited English proficiency; and
e. 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 ESEA;
3. The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training for the semester
following graduation; and
4. The percentage of graduates who are employed by the end of the
first quarter after they graduate (e.g., for students who graduate in
May or June, this would be September 30).
In addition to the four required indicators listed above,
applicants may choose to set performance levels for other appropriate
indicators, such as:
1. Rates of average daily attendance and year-to-year retention;
2. Achievement and gains in English proficiency of limited English
proficient students;
3. The incidence of school violence, drug and alcohol use, and
disciplinary actions;
4. The percentage of students completing advanced placement
courses, and the rate of passing advanced placement tests (such as
Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and courses for
college credit); and
5. The level of teacher, student, and parent satisfaction with the
Smaller Learning Communities structures and strategies being
implemented.
Applicants for implementation grants are required to include in
their applications their most recent School Report Card. Upon receipt
of awards, recipients of implementation grants will be required to
provide baseline data responding to each of these indicators for the
three years preceding the baseline year. Specific instructions will be
sent from us to grant recipients. Recipients of implementation grants
will be required to report annually on the extent to which each school
achieved its performance objectives for each indicator during the
preceding school year. Additionally, implementation grantees will have
to submit a final Annual Performance Report at the end of the fourth
year of implementation. We 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.
J. Evaluation of Implementation Grants
The Assistant Secretary requires recipients of implementation
grants to support an evaluation of the project that will provide
information to the project director and school personnel that will be
useful in gauging their progress and in identifying areas for
improvement. Each project must include an annual evaluation report for
each of the three years of the project period and a final evaluation
report that will be completed at the end of the fourth year of
implementation. We require that grantees submit each of these reports
to us.
In addition, the Assistant Secretary requires that the evaluation
be conducted by an independent third party whose role in the project is
limited to conducting the evaluation.
K. Forty-Eight (48) Month Management Plan
The Assistant Secretary requires applicants for implementation
grants to include in their applications a management plan for the 12
months following the end of the 36-month project period, and a budget
for these activities that will be supported by other Federal, State,
local, or private funds. Recipients of implementation grants are
required to submit to us a copy of the final evaluation report and a
final Annual Performance Report that will be completed at the end of
the fourth year of implementation.?
L. High-Risk Status and Other Enforcement Mechanisms
Applicants should note that the requirements listed in this notice
are material requirements. Failure to comply with any requirement or
with any elements of the grantee's application may 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 show improvement on the required performance indicators by
the end of the first year of implementation; the grantee's failure to
demonstrate that performance remains above the baseline level; the
grantee's failure to make substantial progress in completing the
milestones outlined in the management plan as submitted in the
application; and the grantee's expenditure of funds in a manner that is
inconsistent with the budget as submitted in the application. The
grantee's failure to carry out its plans for sustaining the program
into the fourth year of implementation may be taken into account in a
future competition in accordance with 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3). We may
institute other remedies as appropriate.
M. Definitions
In addition to the definitions set out in the authorizing statute
and 34 CFR 77.1, the following definitions also apply to this program:
Large High School: A large high school is an entity that includes
grades 11 and 12 and has an enrollment of 1,000 or more students in
grades 9 and above.
Smaller Learning Community: A smaller learning community is 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 his or her progress, and provide the academic and
other support he or she needs to succeed.
BIA School: A BIA school is a school operated or supported by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Selection Criteria
The following criteria will be used to evaluate applications
submitted for planning and implementation grants. Please note:
(a) The maximum score for both a planning and an implementation
grant is 100 points.
(b) The maximum score for each criterion or factor under that
criterion is indicated in parentheses.
[[Page 12258]]
Planning Grants
(a) Need for the project (10 points). In determining the need for
the proposed project, we will consider the extent to which:
(1) (7 points) The applicant will devise a plan or plans to assist
school(s) that have the greatest need for assistance relative to other
high schools within the State, as indicated by--
(A) Student performance on the academic assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics administered by the State under Part A,
Title I of the ESEA;
(B) Gaps in performance between all students and economically
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups,
students with disabilities, and students with limited English
proficiency on the academic assessments in reading or language arts and
mathematics administered by the State under Part A, Title I of the
ESEA;
(C) The school's graduation rate, and gaps in the graduation rate
between all students and economically disadvantaged students, students
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English proficiency;
(D) Disciplinary actions and reported incidents of violence and of
drug and alcohol use;
(E) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training in the semester
following graduation, and gaps in the percentage of all students who
enroll in postsecondary education, apprenticeships, and advanced
training and that of economically disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English proficiency;
(2) (3 points) The applicant's planning activities will address
effectively the needs it identified in paragraph (1);
(b) Foundation for planning (30 points). In determining whether
there is an adequate foundation for the development of an effective
implementation plan, we will consider the extent to which:
(1) (6 points) Teachers, administrators, and other school staff
within each school support the proposed planning project and will be
involved actively in the development of an implementation plan,
including, particularly, those teachers who will be directly affected
by the plan.
(2) (6 points) Teachers, administrators, and other school staff
within each school will be provided sufficient and appropriate
professional development to enable them to participate effectively in
developing the implementation plan.
(3) (6 points) Teachers, administrators, and other school staff
within each school will be provided sufficient paid release time during
the regular school day or compensated time outside school hours to
participate actively in professional development, planning, and
preparatory activities.
(4) (6 points) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders
(such as institutions of higher education, employers, and community
organizations, including local non-profit agencies, faith-based
organizations, and other service organizations) support the proposed
planning project and will be involved actively in the development of an
implementation plan.
(5) (6 points) The implementation or expansion of a smaller
learning community program is consistent with, and will advance State
and local initiatives to improve 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, and students with limited English proficiency.
(c) Quality of project design. (40 points) In evaluating the
quality of the project design, we will consider the extent to which the
applicant will adequately and effectively investigate and incorporate
in its implementation plan:
(1) (10 points) Research-based strategies, services, and
interventions that are likely to improve overall student achievement
and other outcomes (including graduation and enrollment in
postsecondary education) and narrow any gaps in achievement between all
students and economically disadvantaged students, students from major
racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with
limited English proficiency.
(2) (10 points) Research-based strategies, services, and
interventions to accelerate learning by students who enter high school
with reading/language arts or mathematics skills that are significantly
below grade level so that, by no later than the end of the 10th grade,
they acquire the reading/language arts and mathematics skills they need
to participate successfully in rigorous academic courses that will
equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary to transition
successfully to postsecondary education, an apprenticeship, or advanced
training.
(3) (10 points) A high-quality program of sustained and intensive
professional development that will be provided to teachers,
administrators, and school staff to assist them in carrying out the
implementation plan.
(4) (10 points) Strategies for using funds provided under the ESEA,
the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, or other
Federal programs, as well as local, State, and private funds, to carry
out the implementation plan.
(d) Adequacy of resources. (20 points) In determining the adequacy
of the financial and personnel resources to support effective planning,
we will consider the extent to which:
(1) (8 points) The budget is adequate and funds will be used
appropriately and effectively to develop a comprehensive implementation
plan.
(2) (6 points) The time commitments of the project director and
other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to achieve the
objectives of the proposed project.
(3) (6 points) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of the project director and other key project personnel.
Implementation Grants
(a) Need for the project (10 points). In determining the need for
the proposed project, we will consider the extent to which the
applicant will:
(1) (5 points) Assist schools that have the greatest need for
assistance, as indicated by, relative to other high schools within the
State:
(A) Student performance on the academic assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics administered by the State under Part A,
Title I of the ESEA;
(B) Gaps in the performance of all students and that of
economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited
English proficiency on the academic assessments in reading or language
arts and mathematics administered by the State under Part A, Title I of
the ESEA.
(C) The school's graduation rate, and gaps in the graduation rate
between all students and economically disadvantaged students, students
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English proficiency.
(D) Disciplinary actions and reported incidents of violence and of
drug and alcohol use;
(E) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training in the semester
following graduation, and gaps in the percentage of students who
[[Page 12259]]
enroll in postsecondary education, apprenticeships, and advanced
training between all students and economically disadvantaged students,
students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with
disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency.
(2) (5 points) Employ strategies and carry out activities in its
implementation of the proposed project that address the needs it has
identified in paragraph (1);
(b) Foundation for Implementation (15 points). In determining the
quality of the implementation plan for the proposed project, we will
consider the extent to which:
(1) (3 points) Teachers within each school support the proposed
project 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) (3 points) Administrators, teachers, and other school staff
within each school support the proposed project and have been and will
continue to be involved in its planning, development, and
implementation.
(3) (3 points) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders
(such as institutions of higher education, employers, and community
organizations, including local non-profit agencies, faith-based
organizations, and other service organizations) support the proposed
project and have been and will continue to be involved in its planning,
development, and implementation.
(4) (3 points) The proposed project 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.
(5) (3 points) The applicant demonstrates that it has reviewed
relevant scientifically based and other rigorous research and carried
out sufficient planning and preparatory activities, outreach, and
consultation with teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders to
enable it to implement the proposed project at the beginning of the
school year immediately following receipt of an award.
(c) Quality of Project Design (30 points). In determining the
quality of the design of the project we will consider the extent to
which, using funds provided by this program in conjunction with other
Federal, State, local, or private funds, the proposed project will:
(1) (6 points) Implement 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 his or her progress, and provide the academic and other
support he or she needs to succeed.
(2) (6 points) Implement research-based strategies, services, and
interventions that are likely to improve overall student achievement
and other outcomes (including graduation and enrollment in
postsecondary education) and narrow any gaps in achievement between all
students and economically disadvantaged students, students from major
racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, or students with
limited English proficiency, such as--
(A) More rigorous academic curriculum for all students, and the
provision of academic support to struggling students who need
assistance to master more challenging academic content;
(B) More intensive and individualized educational counseling and
career and college guidance, provided through mentoring, teacher
advisories, adult advocates, or other means;
(C) Strategies designed to increase average daily attendance,
increase the percentage of students who transition from the 9th to 10th
grade, and improve the graduation rate; and
(D) Expanding opportunities for students to participate in Advanced
Placement courses and academic and technical courses that offer both
high school and postsecondary credit.
(3) (6 points) Implement accelerated learning strategies and
interventions that will assist students who enter the school with
reading/language or mathematics skills that are significantly below
grade level that--
(A) Will serve all students who enter the school with reading/
language arts or mathematics skills that are significantly below grade
level;
(B) Are designed to equip participating students with grade-level
reading/language arts and mathematics skills by no later than the end
of 10th grade;
(C) Are grounded in scientifically based research;
(D) Include the use of age-appropriate instructional materials and
teaching and learning strategies;
(E) Provide additional instruction and academic support during the
regular school day, which may be supplemented by instruction that is
provided before or after school, on weekends, and at other times when
school is not in session;
(F) Will be delivered with sufficient intensity to improve the
reading/language arts or math skills, as appropriate, of participating
students; and
(G) Include sustained professional development and ongoing support
for teachers and other personnel who are responsible for delivering
instruction.
(4) (6 points) Provide high-quality, sustained and intensive
professional development throughout the project period that--
(A) Improves the content knowledge of teachers of core academic
subjects;
(B) Includes activities designed to enable all teachers of core
academic subjects to become ``highly qualified'' as defined by ESEA by
the end of the project period;
(C) 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;
(D) Provides teachers, administrators, other school personnel, and
parents with the knowledge and skills they need to participate
effectively in the development and implementation of a smaller learning
community, including professional development that improves the
capacity of teachers to deliver instruction and support students within
a smaller learning community;
(5) (6 points) Provides the participating schools sufficient
flexibility and autonomy to enable school administrators, teachers,
other school staff, and parents to participate as full partners in the
implementation of the proposed project.
(d) Quality of the Management Plan (25 points). In determining the
quality of the management plan for the proposed project, we consider
the following factors:
(1) (10 points) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the
objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including
clearly defined responsibilities and detailed timelines and milestones
for accomplishing project tasks.
(2) (5 points) The extent to which the time commitments of the
project director and other key personnel, including the individuals who
will have primary responsibility for implementing the project at each
school, are appropriate and adequate to achieve the objectives of the
proposed project.
[[Page 12260]]
(3) (5 points) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of the project director and other key personnel, including
the individuals who will have primary responsibility for professional
development and technical assistance, and the individuals responsible
for implementing the project at each school.
(4) Adequacy of resources. (5 points) In determining the adequacy
of resources for the proposed project, we consider:
(A) The extent to which the budget is adequate and costs are
directly related to the objectives and design of the proposed project.
(B) The extent to which the applicant will use funds provided under
the ESEA, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act,
or other Federal programs, as well as discretionary grants provided by
the State or private sources, to support the implementation of the
project;
(C) The potential for continued support of the project after
Federal funding ends.
(e) Quality of Project Evaluation. (20 points) In determining the
quality of the project evaluation conducted by an independent, third
party evaluator, we consider the following factors:
(1) (4 points) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are
thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of the proposed project.
(2) (4 points) 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) (4 points) 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:
(A) The results of multiple measures of student academic
achievement, including results that are disaggregated for economically
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups,
students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency,
and other subgroups identified by the applicant.
(B) Rates of average daily attendance, year-to-year retention, and
graduation that are disaggregated for economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with
disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and other
subgroups identified by the applicant.
(C) Information on the satisfaction and perspectives of teachers,
administrators, parents, and students at each school.
(D) Information on the extent to which the school is providing a
safe and orderly environment for learning, such as the number of
disciplinary actions, incidents of violence or drug or alcohol use, or
other indicators identified by the applicant.
(E) Information on the progress of the school in 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 his or her progress, and provide the academic and
other support he or she needs to succeed.
(4) (4 points) 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 identify areas for needed
improvement.
(5) (4 points) The qualifications and relevant training and
experience of the independent evaluator.
Discussion of Priorities
Note: In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these
priorities, 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
Priority 1: Helping All Students To Succeed in Rigorous Academic
Courses (Planning Grants)
This priority will support projects that will develop a plan to
create or expand a smaller learning community program that will
implement a coherent set of strategies and interventions that are
designed to ensure that all students who enter high school with
reading/language arts and mathematics skills that are significantly
below grade level ``catch up'' quickly so that, by no later than the
end of the 10th grade, they acquire the reading/language arts and
mathematics skills they need to participate successfully in rigorous
academic courses that will equip them with the knowledge and skills
necessary to transition successfully to postsecondary education, an
apprenticeship, or advanced training.
These accelerated learning strategies and interventions must:
(1) Be grounded in the findings of scientifically based and other
rigorous research;
(2) Include the use of age-appropriate instructional materials and
teaching and learning strategies;
(3) Provide additional instruction and academic support during the
regular school day, which may be supplemented by instruction that is
provided before or after school, on weekends, and at other times when
school is not in session; and
(4) Provide sustained professional development and ongoing support
for teachers and other personnel who are responsible for delivering
instruction.
Priority 2: Helping All Students To Succeed in Rigorous Academic
Courses (Implementation Grants)
This priority will support projects that will implement a coherent
set of strategies and interventions that are designed to ensure that
all students who enter high school with reading/language arts or
mathematics skills that are significantly below grade level ``catch
up'' quickly so that, by no later than the end of the 10th grade, they
acquire the reading/language arts and mathematics skills they need to
participate successfully in rigorous academic courses that will equip
them with the knowledge and skills necessary to transition successfully
to postsecondary education, an apprenticeship, or advanced training.
These accelerated learning strategies and interventions must:
(1) Be grounded in the findings of scientifically based and other
rigorous research;
(2) Include the use of age-appropriate instructional materials and
teaching and learning strategies;
(3) Provide additional instruction and academic support during the
regular school day, which may be supplemented by instruction that is
provided before or after school, on
[[Page 12261]]
weekends, and at other times when school is not in session; and
(4) Provide sustained professional development and ongoing support
for teachers and other personnel who are responsible for delivering
instruction.
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 9, 2004.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 04-5817 Filed 3-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P