Office of Vocational and Adult Education--Smaller Learning Communities Program; Notice of final priorities, application requirements, and selection criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 [OVAE]

[Federal Register: March 20, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13690-13696]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20mr03-48]
Download:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Vocational and Adult Education--Smaller Learning
Communities Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, application requirements, and
selection criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of the program is to promote academic achievement
through the planning, implementation, or expansion of small, safe, and
successful learning environments in large public high schools through
competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs). LEAs,
including schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA schools),
applying on behalf of large high schools are eligible applicants. For
the purposes of this program, a large high school is defined as a
school that includes grades 11 and 12 and enrolls at least 1,000
students in grades 9 and above.
The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education
announces final priorities, application requirements, and selection
criteria for the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) program for FY
2002. The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of these priorities
for competitions in later years.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities, application requirements and
selection criteria are effective March 20, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the program and to
download a grant application, you may access the SLC program Web site
at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/HS/SLCP/. If you have questions

at http://http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/HS/SLCP/. If you have questions

pertaining to the application, need further assistance or need to speak
with someone in the SLC program, you may contact Karen Stratman Clark
at (202) 205-3779, or by mail at 330 C Street, SW., Room 4423,
Washington, DC 20202 or via the internet at karen.clark@ed.gov. Please

type ``SLC Notice Correspondence'' as the subject line of your
electronic message. Requests for applications may also be sent by fax
to (202) 401-4079.
Individuals who use the telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) 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 persons listed above.

Note: This notice of priorities, application requirements, and
selection criteria does not

[[Page 13691]]

solicit applications. A notice inviting applications under this
competition is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. The notice inviting applications specifies the deadline
date by which applications for an award must be mailed or hand-
delivered to the Department.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General

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
Elementary and Secondary Education Act 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 well-off and lower-income students or between
minority students and non-minority students.
In implementing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the U.S.
Department of Education has developed a strategic plan that will serve
as the roadmap for all Departmental activities and investments. The
plan specifically focuses on, among other areas, improving the
performance of all high school students and holding schools accountable
for raising the academic achievement level of all students. The
Department will work with States to ensure that students attain the
strong academic knowledge and skills necessary for future success in
postsecondary education and adult life. The Department will encourage
students to take more rigorous courses, especially in the areas of math
and science. In addition, the Department of Education is committed to
ensuring that our Nation's schools are safe environments conducive to
learning.
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 is of growing interest today. Approximately 70 percent of American
high schools enroll 1,000 or more students; nearly 50 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 to date on school size is 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).
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 Pub. L. 107-110, the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
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)). Such methods include establishing
small learning clusters, ``houses,'' career academies, magnet programs,
and schools-within-a-school. Structural changes are necessary but not
sufficient to ensure that the reorganization will result in improved
academic performance. It is also necessary to define a set of
operational considerations that describe what learning looks like in
the restructured smaller learning community. For example, strategies
that complement a restructured large high school should include at a
minimum a focus on a rigorous academic course of study. 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 and,
thus, improve student achievement.
Prospective applicants are encouraged to review the program Web
site for non-regulatory guidance and information about current
grantees, and to review a successful application that received fiscal
year 2001 funding at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/HS/SLCP/.
year 2001 funding at: http://http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/HS/SLCP/.

Discussion of Priority or Priorities

Note:
This notice does not solicit applications. 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)).

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553),
it is the practice of the Secretary to offer interested parties the
opportunity to comment on proposed rules. Section 437(d)(1) of the
General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), however, allows the Secretary
to exempt from this requirement rules governing the first competition
under a new or substantially revised program authority (20 U.S.C.
1232(d)(1)). This competition is the first Smaller Learning Communities
competition under the program as reauthorized by Public Law 107-110,
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and, therefore, qualifies for this
exemption. The Secretary, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA,
exercises his authority to waive public comment in order to ensure
timely grant awards. These rules will apply to the FY 2002 grant
competition only.

Absolute Priority

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) the Secretary gives an absolute priority
to applications in which the following conditions are met: (1) The
applicant will place students in smaller learning communities based on
student/parent choice or through random assignment--

[[Page 13692]]

consistent with the statute, students may not be placed according to
ability or any other measure, and not pursuant to testing or other
judgments; and (2) The application must address the following
instructional or operational issues:
a. How the applicant will provide a common core of rigorous
academic courses tied to standards;
b. A process that the applicant will use for distribution of highly
qualified teachers among SLCs in the school and strategies for
improving teacher content knowledge;
c. Explicit strategies for providing assistance for struggling
students; and
d. Strategies for securing widespread staff, community, and parent
support for the initiative.
The Secretary will fund only applicants that meet the absolute
priority described above and that meet all of the other requirements
for this competition described elsewhere in this notice and in the
accompanying notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal
year 2002.

Note:
Applicants must clearly identify the proposed grant-funded
smaller learning community in their application.

Competitive Preference Priority (up to 5 points)

In addition to the points to be awarded under the selection
criteria for both planning and implementation grants, the Secretary
proposes to award additional points to an application from an LEA
applying on behalf of a high school that has failed to achieve adequate
yearly progress for two or more consecutive years, as defined by
section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. LEAs applying on
behalf of one or more than one school will be awarded additional
competitive preference points (up to five points) proportionate to the
number of schools in the application that meet the criterion above. For
example, an LEA applying on behalf of five schools would be awarded the
maximum of five points if all five schools meet the criterion. An LEA
applying on behalf of five schools would be awarded three out of a
possible five points if only three of the schools meet the criterion.

Application Requirements

The Secretary announces the following application requirements for
the Smaller Learning Communities program. A discussion of each
requirement follows. 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 Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. A discussion of each requirement follows:

A. Proof of Eligibility

To be considered for funding, LEAs must include for each eligible
school included in the application the name of the eligible school and
the number of students enrolled in the school. Enrollment must be based
upon data from the current school year or from the most recently
completed school year. LEAs, including schools funded by the BIA,
applying on behalf of schools that are still being constructed and do
not have an active student enrollment at the time of application are
not eligible under this program.

B. Types and Ranges of Awards

The Secretary will award both planning and implementation grants
under this competition. 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 under this competition, specifying in each application
which high schools the LEA intends to fund. An LEA may not apply for
both a planning and implementation grant on behalf of the same high
school. A high school may only be included in either the LEA's planning
grant application or its implementation grant application. Applicants
pursuing planning grant funds must not yet have developed a viable plan
for creating smaller learning communities in the schools that would be
served through the grant. To apply for implementation grant funds,
applicants must be prepared either to implement a new smaller learning
community program within each targeted high school, or to expand an
existing smaller learning community program.
For a one-year planning grant, LEAs may receive, on behalf of a
single school, $25,000 to $50,000. LEAs applying on behalf of a group
of eligible schools may receive up to $250,000 per planning grant. As
this program is designed for redesign and improvement efforts at the
individual school level, districts must stay within the minimum and
maximum school allocations when determining their award request. In
addition, in order to ensure sufficient planning funds at the local
level, LEAs may not request funds for more than 10 schools under a
single application.
The chart below provides eligible ranges for awards under a
planning grant:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In previous SLC competitions, applicants have routinely requested
more money than the above award ranges dictate. As a result, plans
submitted to the Department have included any number of activities that
could only be made possible if an applicant received a funding amount
much higher than intended in the award range. Based on this experience,
the Department will fund only those applications that correctly request
funds within the award ranges specified in this notice for both
planning and implementation grants. Applicants requesting funding
amounts higher than the award ranges dictated by the number of schools
to be served will be declared ineligible and will not receive funding.
Further, schools that received support through planning grants in the
FY 2000 or FY 2001 competition are not eligible to receive support
through additional planning grants under this competition.
For a three-year implementation grant, LEAs may receive, on behalf
of a single school, $250,000 to $500,000. LEAs applying on behalf of a
group of eligible schools may request up to $2,500,000 per
implementation grant. As with planning grants, districts must stay
within the minimum and maximum school allocations when determining
their group award request, or the Department will consider the
application ineligible. In order to ensure sufficient implementation
funds at the local level, LEAs may not request funds for more than 10
schools under a single application.
The chart below provides eligible ranges for awards under the
implementation grant:

[[Page 13693]]

Six schools....................................... 1,500,000-2,500,000
Seven schools..................................... 1,750,000-2,500,000
Eight schools..................................... 2,000,000-2,500,000
Nine schools...................................... 2,250,000-2,500,000
Ten schools....................................... 2,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously noted, LEAs may not apply on behalf of a single high
school in more than one application. Schools that benefited from FY
2000 or FY 2001 implementation awards are not eligible to receive
additional support under this competition.
Applicants should note that the requirements listed in this notice
are material requirements. Please note that a failure to comply with
any applicable program requirement (for example, failure to reasonably
implement the proposed grant-funded project) may subject a grantee to
administrative action, including the imposition of special conditions
or termination of the grant.

C. Project Period

Planning grants will fund activities up to 12 months.
Implementation grants will fund activities up to 36 months.

Note: Applicants for multi-year awards must 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, the Secretary anticipates
awarding the entire grant amount for implementation projects at the
time of the initial award.

D. Page Limits

Applicants should limit the application narrative to no more than
25 double-spaced pages using the following standards:

[sbull] A page is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only;
[sbull] The page limit includes all narrative, titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as charts,
tables, figures, and graphs. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs may be
single-spaced;
[sbull] The font should be 12-point or larger;

The page limit does not apply to the Application for Federal Education
Assistance Form (424); the SLC cover page; the Budget information Form
(ED 524) and attached itemization of costs; any other required or
supplementary application forms and attachments to those forms; the
assurances and certifications; the table of contents; the one-page
abstract (which should precede the narrative section and provide
enrollment data for each eligible high school and a short description
of the project); or appendices. Appendices used should relate directly
to the selection criteria and project activities. Pages should be
numbered.

E. Application and Reporting Requirements Related to Expected Outcomes

For both planning and implementation grants, applicants must
describe their:
(a) Project activities, including measurable goals, objectives and
timelines; and
(b) Indicators to gauge progress toward meeting project objectives.
In addition, the Secretary requires implementation grantees to
collect data that address the performance indicators for this program,
in order for them to produce annual performance reports. These reports
will document the grantees' yearly progress toward expected project
objectives. The Secretary will use these reports to measure the success
of each grantee's project, as well as the effects of the Smaller
Learning Communities program nationwide. A copy of the Smaller Learning
Communities Annual Performance Report form for implementation grantees
is included in the application package. Planning grantees will be
required to submit a performance report, including their implementation
plan, at the end of their project.
Applicants for an implementation grant must submit initial baseline
data for each student outcome measure described below. Baseline data
should come from either the current or previous school year. Applicants
must report these data as an appendix. Upon notification of award,
implementation grantees will be required to submit student outcome data
for all participating schools for three years preceding the baseline
year within forty-five days of the award date.
Required student outcome measures include:
I. Student Achievement
(a) Whether the schools achieved adequate yearly progress, as such
term is defined under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act; and
(b) The percentage and number of students taking the SAT and ACT,
and their average scores;
II. Academic Rigor and Student Retention
(a) The number of students who take courses for which they receive
both high school and college credit, including AP or International
Baccalaureate courses; and
(b) The overall reported average daily attendance for October.
III. School Climate
(a) The number of incidents of student violence and alcohol and
drug use;
(b) The number of expulsions, suspensions, or other serious
disciplinary actions; and
(c) The number of students involved in extracurricular activities.

Applicants for implementation grants who do not provide initial
baseline data on the student outcome measures indicated above will be
declared ineligible and will not receive funding.

Note: Percentages may be used in place of number of students
where appropriate.

F. Definitions

(a) Definitions in EDGAR--Definitions defined in 34 CFR 77.1 are
applicable to this program.
(b) Other definitions--The following definitions also apply to this
program:
BIA school is a school operated or supported by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
A group of schools is two or more schools that each meet the
definition of a 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.

Selection Criteria

The following selection criteria will be used to evaluate
applications submitted for planning and implementation grants. Please
note:
(a) The maximum score for both planning and implementation grants
is 110 points. The additional 10 points will be awarded to those
applicants that respond to the competitive preference described earlier
in the notice.
(b) The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in
parentheses.

Planning Grants

(a) Need for the project. (10 points)
In determining the need for the proposed project, the Department
will consider the extent to which the applicant:
(1) Describes and documents evidence of the applicant schools' need
for the proposed restructuring of the school learning environment. Need
may be demonstrated by such factors as: Low student achievement scores;
number of students enrolled; low attendance; low graduation rates; and
high dropout rates; incidents of violence, drug and alcohol use, and
disciplinary actions;

[[Page 13694]]

percentage of students who have limited English proficiency, come from
low-income families, or are otherwise disadvantaged; evidence of
achievement gaps among student populations; or other need factors as
identified by the applicant. (5 points)
(2) Documents how the creation of smaller learning communities will
address the nature and magnitude of specific gaps or weaknesses in both
structural and operational services, infrastructure, or opportunities
within the learning environment. (5 points)
(b) Foundation for planning. (30 points)
In determining the merit of the proposed process for developing its
smaller learning communities plan, the Department will consider the
extent to which the applicant:
(1) Provides evidence on how the applicant has involved and secured
the support of, and will continue to involve and secure the support of,
teachers, administrators, and other pertinent staff within each school
to be restructured in the planning process, particularly those teachers
and other staff who will be directly affected by the implementation
plan. (10 points)
(2) Provides evidence on how the applicant has involved and
secured, and will continue to involve and secure, the support of
individuals within the broader local community (such as parents,
institutions of higher education, businesses, employers, and community
organizations, including local non-profit agencies, faith-based
organizations, and other service organizations) in the planning
process. (5 points)
(3) Provides evidence on how the proposed effort aligns with the
State's education reform efforts and State, or, when applicable,
industry standards. (5 points)
(4) Describes the applicant's approach for identifying and
utilizing evidence-based practices, particularly practices that are
grounded in ``scientifically-based research'' as defined in section
9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in designing
the structural and operational changes necessary to accomplish the
desired change in the learning environment. (10 points)
(c) Feasibility and soundness of the planning process. (40 points)
In determining the feasibility and soundness of the applicant's
planning process, the Department will consider the extent to which the
applicant:
(1) Proposes a process for developing a plan that, within a three-
year grant period, will result in identification of the structural
changes necessary to create smaller learning communities, assign all
students to a smaller learning community within the school(s), and
describe the method the school(s) will use to place students in a
smaller learning community. (10 points)
(2) Proposes a feasible and sound process to conduct research and
plan for the development of smaller learning communities that address
the operational and instructional considerations needed to facilitate
student achievement. These considerations include a common core of
rigorous academic coursework and a clear, sequenced program of study,
appropriate teacher assignment and professional development, strategies
for assisting struggling students, and strategies for ensuring school,
district and community engagement and support. (15 points)
(3) Proposes a process for developing a plan that would ensure
appropriate autonomy of the smaller learning communities in their
administrative and managerial relationship to the governance structure
of the high school(s) and the local school district, including other
Federal grants and how those programs will come together to produce a
comprehensive and successful smaller learning communities project. (10
points)
(4) Proposes a process for developing a plan that includes
quantifiable goals, objectives, and timelines for implementing
structures and operational strategies needed for the implementation of
smaller learning communities, and phasing them in over the period of
the grant, addresses evidence of achievement gaps within student
populations, and identifies key personnel who are qualified to
undertake project activities. (5 points)
(d) Commitment of resources to the planning effort. (20 points)
In determining the commitment of resources to the planning process,
the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:
(1) Requests a budget that adequately supports the proposed
activities. Expenditures on equipment and administrative costs should
be limited. (10 points)
(2) Provides evidence that the administrators of the district and
school(s) understand and are committed to the smaller learning
community concept, and to the inclusion of rigorous academic courses in
smaller learning communities and propose to integrate project planning
activities with local policy and to use other State, local, and Federal
funds to ensure sustainability of efforts after Federal support ends.
(10 points)

Implementation Grants

(a) Need for the project. (10 points)
In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary
will consider the extent to which the applicant:
(1) Describes and documents evidence of the applicant schools' need
for implementation funds and how a smaller learning communities
approach will facilitate improved student learning. Need may be
demonstrated by such factors as: student achievement scores and
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 disadvantaged; or other need factors as identified by the
applicant. (5 points)
(2) Describes and documents the nature and magnitude of specific
gaps or weaknesses in current school services, infrastructure, or
opportunities and how the proposed project will address these gaps and
weaknesses. (5 points)
(b) Foundation for implementation. (25 points)
In determining the quality of the implementation plan, the
Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:
(1) Provides evidence of the involvement and support of teachers,
administrators, and other pertinent staff within each school in the
planning, development, and implementation of the proposal, particularly
those teachers who will be directly affected by the implementation
plan. (5 points)
(2) Provides evidence of how the applicant has involved and
secured, and will continue to involve and secure, the on-going support
of stakeholders within the broader local community (such as parents,
institutions of higher education, businesses, employers, and community
organizations, including local non-profit agencies, faith-based
organizations, and other service organizations) in the planning
process. (5 points)
(3) Provides evidence of how the proposed effort aligns with State
education reform efforts designed to increase student achievement (5
points); and
(4) Provides evidence of how the applicant has identified and used
evidence-based practices in the development of structural and
operational strategies for creating smaller learning communities
designed to improve student achievement. (10 points)

Note: Implementation grant applicants who received planning
grants under either the FY

[[Page 13695]]

2000 or the FY 2001 SLC competition are further required to describe
the impact of the funded planning activities on their implementation
plan. Further, such applicants should note that the Secretary will
review both the expenditure rates and the progress achieved of SLC
planning grantees requesting implementation funds.

(c) Project design. (30 points)
In determining the quality of the design of the project the
Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:
(1) Proposes both structural and operational changes that result in
the establishment of smaller learning communities designed to improve
the academic performance of participating students. These changes may
include, but are not limited to, development of programs of study that
include rigorous academic coursework, freshman transition activities,
and innovations to create a more personalized and safe learning
environment. The applicant clearly defines the proposed smaller
learning community, including the structures and strategies to be
implemented, the grade levels or ages of the students who will
participate and the rationale and research base supporting the
applicant's contention that these particular structures are likely to
be effective in raising achievement and helping all students make more
informed choices about postsecondary education and longer-term career
options. (10 points)
(2) Provides evidence that decisions about how students will be
placed in the smaller learning community or communities will be made
based on student/parent choice or random assignment. The applicant
provides assurances that placement by smaller learning community will
not be based on ability, testing or other judgments or any other
measure, and describes the process for making smaller learning
community student assignments. The applicant also assures that, by the
end of the three-year grant period, all students will be assigned to a
smaller learning community structure within the school(s). (5 points)
(3) Describes the applicant's operational strategies for improving
the learning environment including (1) the common academic core
curriculum and standards, (2) how teachers will be assigned to SLCs and
provided with appropriate content and knowledge specific to smaller
learning community implementation, (3) strategies for assisting
struggling students, and strategies for securing and maintaining
widespread staff, community and parent buy-in. (10 points)
(4) Documents the administrative and managerial relationship of the
smaller learning communities to the governance structure of the high
school(s) and the local school district, including the LEA's operation
of other Federal grants, and demonstrates a commitment to sustain the
smaller learning community structures beyond the period covered by the
Federal smaller learning communities grant. The applicant must describe
the timeline and milestones for implementing the proposed structures
and strategies and for phasing them in over the period of the grant. (5
points)
(d) Feasibility of the plan. (15 points)
In determining the feasibility of the implementation plan, the
Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:
(1) Provides a budget that adequately supports the proposed
activities. In addition, items in the budget must clearly reflect the
proposed goals and objectives in the application. (5 points)
(2) Provides evidence that the proposed project will provide high-
quality professional development for teachers in their academic content
areas as well as professional development for other pertinent staff, to
enable them to improve classroom instruction and target instruction to
helping all students meet challenging academic content standards. This
professional development must be aligned with the goals, curriculum,
and evidence-based instructional practices of the proposed smaller
learning communities. (5 points)
(3) Provides evidence of, or proposes, an ongoing partnership with
an external technical assistance provider. (5 points)
(e) Quality of the project evaluation. (10 points)
In determining the quality of the applicant's project evaluation
plan, the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:
(1) Describes the overall evaluation strategy, including the
applicant's plan to contract with an independent, third-party evaluator
and the measures that evaluator will use to determine (a) progress of
implementation and (b) changes in student outcomes, especially student
achievement, both school-wide and disaggregated by the population
categories identified in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act; (5 points)
(2) Describes the method of collecting and reporting the required
data for the Annual Performance Reports to the Department of Education
(2 points); and
(3) Describe how the proposed project will address the school's
efforts to make adequate yearly progress as defined in section 1111 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and how information gleaned
from student assessments, and used in adequate yearly progress
determination, will be used for project improvement within the school.
(3 points)
(f) Adequacy of resources. (10 points)
In determining the adequacy of resources, the Department will
consider the extent to which the applicant:
(1) Focuses grant expenditures on activities that directly affect
the structural and operational changes needed to establish SLCs that
will endure beyond the life of the grant, and how the applicant will
limit expenditures on equipment and administrative costs. (5 points)
(2) Documents qualifications and availability of project personnel
responsible for implementing the project plan, and the amount of time
they will dedicate to this effort. (5 points)

Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs

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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ed.gov/legislation/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://access.gpo.gov/
nara/index.html.

(Catalogue of Federal Assistance Number: 84.215L Smaller Learning
Communities program)

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81,
82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

[[Page 13696]]

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7249.

Dated: March 14, 2003.
Richard La Pointe,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 03-6699 Filed 3-19-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P