[Federal Register: April 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20765-20771]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap04-127]
[[Page 20765]]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Vocational and Adult Education; Community Technology Centers
Program; Notices
[[Page 20766]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RIN 1830-ZA05
Community Technology Centers Program
AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of final requirements, priorities, and selection
criteria for novice and non-novice applicants for the Community
Technology Centers program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education
announces final requirements, priorities, and selection criteria under
the Community Technology Centers (CTC) program. The Assistant Secretary
may use one or more of these requirements, priorities, and selection
criteria for competitions in FY 2004 and competitions to be conducted
in later years.
We establish these final requirements, priorities, and selection
criteria to further the purpose of the CTC program, which 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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These final requirements, priorities, and selection
criteria are effective May 17, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Holliday, U.S. Department of
Education, OVAE, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-7110.
Telephone: (202) 245-7708 or via Internet at karen.holliday@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 Community Technology Centers program is authorized under Title
V, Part D, Subpart 11, Sections 5511-13 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7263-7263b), 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 of the purposes of the CTC program is to address these gaps by
providing students with access to information technology and related
training.
We published a notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and
selection criteria in the Federal Register on February 2, 2004 (69 FR
5000).
In that notice, we discussed (on pages 5000 through 5003) our
proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for the FY
2004 CTC competition and competitions to be conducted in later years.
Except for two changes to Priority 1, which we explain in the Analysis
of Comments and Changes section, and minor editorial and technical
revisions, there are no differences between the notice of proposed
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria, and this notice of
final requirements, priorities, and selection criteria.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria, nine parties
submitted comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in
the proposed requirements, priorities, or selection criteria since we
published the notice follows.
We have grouped major issues by subject. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor, non-substantive changes and
suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority.
Definitions
Comments: One commenter sought clarification regarding the
definition of a ``community-based organization'' (CBO) and whether a
community college is considered a CBO.
Discussion: Section 5512(a) of the ESEA includes among the types of
applicants eligible to apply for a CTC award a ``community-based
organization'' and an ``institution of higher education.'' Community
colleges are considered institutions of higher education, rather than
community-based organizations. Section 9101(6) of the ESEA defines a
community-based organization to mean ``a public or private nonprofit
organization of demonstrated effectiveness that--(A) is representative
of a community or significant segments of a community; and provides
educational or related services to individuals in the community.''
Under the CTC program a community college could apply directly for an
award as an ``institution of higher education'', but it could not
otherwise serve as a ``community-based organization'' in an application
filed by another eligible entity. For example, a community college
could not play the required role of one of the entities in partnership
with an applicant under Priority 1.
Changes: None.
Access to Comments and Information
Comments: One commenter expressed concern regarding the posting of
public comments and inquired whether they are posted online or could be
posted online for all to see and not just for those who can physically
travel to DC to view them.
Discussion: The Department does not have an electronic docket
system so it is not possible currently for us to post comments online
in a systematic manner. We will be developing such a system in the
future as part of a Federal government wide initiative on electronic
rulemaking. A summary of the public comments, and our responses, are
contained in this notice which will be published in the Federal
Register and can be electronically accessed in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http:/www.ed.gov/news/fedregister
.
Changes: None.
Comments: Commenters suggested that the Department make available
on its Web site information concerning instructional strategies that
have proven effective and evidence-based model programs that could be
adopted or replicated locally in an effort to assist applicants.
Another commenter also suggested that the Department consider working
with intermediate organizations, whether they be state, local or
regional, to better identify and target resources and technical
assistance where need is greatest and to support and disseminate the
good work that has already been accomplished as widely as possible.
[[Page 20767]]
Discussion: The Department's Web site provides information on
practices that can improve student performance at http://www.ed.gov/teachers/landing.jhtml?src=fp.
The Office of Vocational and Adult
Education will continue to update the Web site as additional
information becomes available. Through the Department's technical
assistance provider, grantees can access information specific to issues
surrounding CTCs at http://www.americaconnects.net.
Changes: None.
Matching Requirement
Comments: One commenter sought clarification regarding the matching
requirement of cash or in-kind support of at least 50% from non-Federal
sources towards total project costs. Two commenters expressed concern
that some organizations and LEAs may have difficulty raising the
required minimum match of $250,000 and asked whether the Department is
aware of any instances where entities had difficulties providing the
required match.
Discussion: The statute requires that Federal funds may not be used
to pay for more than 50 percent of a CTC project's total costs. As an
example, if a CTC applicant requests $250,000 in Federal funds (the
mandatory minimum request) for its project, the applicant must have
available or obtain at least $250,000 in cash or in kind from non-
Federal sources. Through our experience with the CTC program since
1999, we have discovered that, in order to provide significant
increased access to technology at the local level, CTC projects must be
adequately funded.
We believe that the minimum award threshold, coupled with the
applicant's mandatory match, will ensure the applicant's ability to be
effective. We have taken into account the ability of applicants to
raise funds and therefore, in the notice of proposed requirements,
priorities, and selection criteria, proposed to lower the minimum
required match that was required in FY 2003 from $300,000 to $250,000
for FY 2004. We are adopting that change in this notice. Additionally,
if an applicant desires to draw non-Federal funds from a variety of
other resources, it could do so by entering into a group application
with other eligible entities in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-129.
Changes: None.
Use of Funds
Comments: One commenter asked that at least a portion of the FY
2004 funds be made available for adult education program activities
that do not include a mandatory program to reach disadvantaged
secondary school students. The commenter recommended that if the
Department uses absolute priorities for the FY 2004 program, some of
the funding should be reserved for either proposed Priority 3 or
Priority 4 programs. Additionally, another commenter suggested that the
Department broaden the scope of the CTC program to include greater
family involvement and learning and specifically to provide support for
single parents through such areas as life skills enhancement and
lifelong learning opportunities.
Discussion: Section 5513(a) of the ESEA requires that grant
recipients use funds for ``(1) creating or expanding community
technology centers that expand access to information technology and
related training for disadvantaged residents of distressed urban and
rural communities''. Serving disadvantaged students as well as other
members of the disadvantaged community is mandatory. With respect to
the commenter's recommendation that funding be reserved for either
proposed Priority 3 or Priority 4 should the Department use absolute
priorities, we offer the following. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, we are publishing a notice inviting applications for
new awards for this program for FY 2004 in which we establish the
priorities to be used in the FY 2004 competition. To the extent that we
do not use Priorities 3 and 4 in the FY 2004 competition, applicants
may include services for adult learners as well as family literacy
activities as part of their overall program, as long as they meet the
other requirements and priorities set forth in the notice inviting
applications. With respect to the commenter's suggestion to broaden the
scope toward greater family involvement and learning, we agree that the
family has a significant impact on the educational development of low
and under-achieving students. Applicants may want to structure their
project designs to include more family involvement consistent with the
CTC program's statutory purpose. We cannot, however, prescribe a scope
of format for family involvement that applicants must follow.
Changes: None.
Allowable Use of Funds
Comments: One commenter indicated that in an effort to support
learning and program outreach, food purchases should be an allowable
use of Federal funds at a minimum for outreach meetings, refreshments,
and after-school snacks.
Discussion: While we recognize that there are a variety of ways to
support learning and program outreach, Section 5513(b) of the ESEA does
not allow Federal funds to be used for the purchase of food.
Changes: None.
Mandatory Services for High School Students
Comments: Several commenters expressed concerns with the
requirement that projects must serve students who are entering or
enrolled in grades 9 through 12. One commenter further recommended
that, unless the 9th through 12th grade requirement is legislatively
mandated, the Department should eliminate the requirement, as the
commenter stated that ``good centers'' should improve the academic
skills of children of all ages. As an alternative, the commenter
suggested the Department have a requirement that applicants offer
programs for those in the 9th through 12th grades and that their
management plans be reflective of the intended program.
Discussion: We recognize the need to ensure that children of all
ages improve their academic skills. However, we are especially
concerned about issues relating to the academic achievement of high
school students. As a result, through Priority 2, we may give priority
to applications focused on improving the academic achievement of low-
achieving high school students while not neglecting members of the
disadvantaged community as a whole.
Changes: None.
Additional Credit for Past Performance
Comments: One commenter recommended that the priorities provide for
the award of additional points to applicants that meet the requirements
set forth therein and also have prior experience in implementing a CTC
project. The commenter further recommended that additional or
``priority'' points be given to applicants that have projects in
underserved areas. Under this proposal, the award of such additional
points would become part of the selection criteria for the CTC program.
Discussion: While we recognize the value of the experience and
accomplishments of previous grantees, the Department does not regard it
as necessary to award extra points for past applicants. All projects
funded under this program by law must serve disadvantaged residents of
economically distressed communities.
Changes: None.
[[Page 20768]]
Program Impact
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department may need to
articulate more specifically the Secretary's intent for a systematic
approach to enhancing and improving education through community
learning while also increasing parental involvement and community
participation. Similarly, the commenter suggested that it might be
helpful to applicants if the Department established a general framework
for evaluation and assessment of program effectiveness and impact.
Discussion: With regard to the commenter's concern for the
Department to articulate the Secretary's intent for a systematic
approach to enhancing and improving education through community
learning, Priority 2 and the Need for the Project criterion under the
Selection Criteria address this matter in detail. With respect to the
commenter's request for the Department to establish a general framework
for evaluation and assessment of program effectiveness and impact, such
guidance is provided to grantees by the Department through its
technical assistance provider. We have further developed a set of
performance measures for the program. These performance measures are
provided in the notice inviting applications.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern regarding the Need for
the Project criterion in the selection criteria. The commenter
suggested that the scope of the disadvantaged population and audience
include persons with, and the families of persons with, disabilities
and English as a second language needs.
Discussion: We agree that persons with disabilities and those for
whom English is a second language may require and can benefit from
services that may be offered through a CTC project. We encourage
applicants to demonstrate such a need in the Need for the Project
section of the application.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that, in an effort to reduce
potential costs or increase potential benefits to applicants, the
Department develop one standard online application for everyone to
complete, thereby reducing the amount of paperwork.
Discussion: In an effort to reduce paperwork and applicant burden,
we are utilizing e-Application for the CTC grant competition.
Changes: None.
Eligibility
Comments: We received a number of comments about eligibility under
the CTC program and the requirements of Priority 1. One commenter
sought clarification regarding the wording of ``partnership between a
community-based organization and a local educational agency'' as
described in the first paragraph under Proposed Priority 1 and also
asked the Department to clarify the statement ``LEAs are eligible under
the CTC program, but an individual public school is not an eligible
applicant.'' Another commenter also sought clarification regarding an
individual public school not being considered an eligible applicant.
The commenter indicated that an individual school is just as capable as
a charter or private school of fulfilling the role set forth in the
educational agency partnership.
A third commenter expressed concern that an individual public high
school would have access to information necessary to identify students
who are most in need of academic support and to ensure that the
project's goals and objectives are consistent with the CTC program. The
commenter stated that this contention justifies allowing an individual
school to make application for the CTC program.
Discussion: We take this opportunity to clarify which entities are
eligible to apply for grants under this program and how eligible
applicants must meet the requirements under Priority 1.
Pursuant to the statute, the following entities are eligible to
submit applications for the CTC program--(a) an entity, such as a
foundation, museum, library, for-profit business, public or private
nonprofit organization or community-based organization (including
faith-based organizations), (b) an institution of higher education, (c)
a State educational agency (SEA), (d) a local educational agency (LEA),
or (e) a consortium of such entities, institutions, or agencies. With
respect to individual schools, under these statutory provisions, a
charter school that meets its State's definition of LEA is an eligible
applicant. A private school also is an eligible applicant. However, an
individual public school is not an eligible applicant. Thus, although
we agree that the individual public school can play an integral role in
the execution of a CTC program, the law does not permit an individual
public school to apply for a grant under the CTC program. Instead the
law makes LEAs, rather than individual public schools, eligible
applicants.
The fact that an individual public school is not eligible to apply
for a grant does not mean that it cannot participate in a CTC project
with an eligible applicant. We had proposed in the notice of proposed
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria to establish Priority
1--a priority for projects that included a partnership between a
community-based organization (CBO) and an LEA. Based on the comments
received and our own internal review, we are clarifying in Priority 1
that the partnership must be between a CBO, on the one hand, and an LEA
(including a charter school that meets its State's definition of an
LEA), or a public school or a private school, on the other hand. We did
not intend to exclude private schools and individual public schools
from this priority. Accordingly, if a CBO applies for a grant under
Priority 1, its project must propose a partnership with an LEA
(including a charter school that meets its State's definition of an
LEA), or a public school or a private school. If an LEA (including a
charter school that meets its State's definition of an LEA) or a
private school applies for a grant under Priority 1, its project must
propose a partnership with a CBO. Because of the general eligibility
restrictions in the law, an individual public school cannot submit an
application for the CTC program; its role under Priority 1 is limited
solely to being a partner with a CBO under an application filed by any
eligible applicant.
Changes: Yes. We are making these changes to Priority 1.
Comments: One commenter indicated that Priority 1 should not
require partnerships between LEAs and CBOs, as this would stifle
innovation and program effectiveness. The commenter further stated that
allowing institutions to deliver effective services and programs
voluntarily in partnership with one another would encourage a better
informed knowledge base for ``the broader field'' and help to deliver
on the promise of flexibility and innovation at the local level.
Discussion: We have determined that the participation of both CBOs
and LEAs (including a charter school that meets its State's definition
of an LEA), or a public school or a private school, pursuant to the
clarifications we are making to Priority 1, 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 services
sites that are in or near the neighborhoods where students live. LEAs
(including a charter school
[[Page 20769]]
that meets its State's definition of an LEA), or a public school or a
private school also are essential participants. 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.
Changes: None.
Priorities
Comments: One commenter indicated that it was unclear in the notice
of proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria whether
the four proposed priorities are absolute priorities and how the funds
would be distributed between them. The commenter also indicated that
the priorities did not appear to be in alignment with the descriptions
provided under the selection criteria sections, Need for the Project
and Quality of the Project Design. The commenter then suggested that,
if the project is to support adult learners and career development
needs, the two descriptions would need to be expanded to include
criteria related to the respective populations.
Discussion: As indicated in the notice of proposed requirements,
priorities, and selection criteria, we will designate the priorities as
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational in a notice inviting
applications for new awards. The decision how to use them is made each
year, see 34 CFR 75.105. After considering the proposed comment, the
Secretary believes no action or change strengthening the priorities is
necessary. The notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2004,
including the designation of priorities, is published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern that the focus of the CTC
program should be not only on the increased academic achievement of
low-achieving high school students but also on enrichment activities
for high school students.
Discussion: Although Priority 2 focuses on increased academic
achievement of low-achieving high schools, recipients also may use
grant funds for academic enrichment activities pursuant to Section 5513
(b)(3)(A) of the ESEA.
Changes: None.
Funding
Comments: One commenter recommended the Department restore its
funding and programmatic scope to a multi-year cycle that includes the
award of smaller multi-year grants rather using a one-year grant cycle.
Discussion: While the Department recognizes that a multi-year cycle
would allow additional time for grantees to implement and evaluate the
effectiveness of their projects, the Department has not requested funds
for the CTC program for 2005 and, therefore, does not want to commit a
project to several years of funding and staffing without assurance of
continued support.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern regarding the set-aside
designation for the novice applicants. The commenter further indicated
that, although novice applicants may be first-time applicants for or
recipients of Federal funding under the CTC program, they are not
necessarily new entrants to the field of community technology.
Discussion: The Department's goal in setting aside a percentage of
funding for novice applicants is to ensure that applicants with limited
experience in administering Federal funds are provided an opportunity
to compete for CTC funds, whatever may be their prior experience in
community technology.
Changes: None.
Partnering
Comments: One commenter expressed concern regarding the requirement
concerning the minimum number of participating educational entities--
including LEAs and high schools--that must be engaged. Additionally,
the commenter indicated that by basing the number of CTCs involved and
requiring partnership with LEAs and secondary schools, the potential to
focus attention on other educational groups (including middle or
elementary schools) is lessened.
Discussion: We recognize the importance of serving students of
other grade levels; however, we are especially concerned about issues
relating to the academic achievement of high school students.
Therefore, we have emphasized secondary schools within Priority 2.
Changes: None.
Novice Applicants
Discussion: As part of our internal review of the proposed
priorities, we are further modifying Priority 1 to indicate that it
will not apply to novice applicants. As most novice applicants are
applying for Federal funding for the first time, the Department has
determined that the additional time and administrative requirements of
Priority 1 would be too cumbersome for novice applicants.
Changes: Yes. We are modifying Priority 1 to state specifically
that it does not apply to novice applicants.
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.
Requirements
The Assistant Secretary announces the following requirements for
the CTC program. These requirements are in addition to the content that
all Community Technology Centers grant applicants include in their
applications as required by the program statute under Title V, Part D,
Subpart 11, Sections 5511-13 of the ESEA.
A. Targeted Applicants
One combined competition will be conducted for both non-novice and
novice applicants. The Department will rank and fund the two groups
separately. At least seventy-five percent of the funds will be set-
aside for non-novice applicants and up to twenty-five percent will be
set-aside for novice applicants.
B. Range of Awards
The Department establishes $250,000 as the minimum award and
$500,000 as the maximum award. No grant application will be considered
for funding if it requests an award amount outside the funding range of
$250,000 to $500,000.
C. Matching Funds Requirement
Pursuant to section 5512(c) of 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. In order to
receive a grant award under the 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. 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 application would be required
to furnish at least $250,000 in cash or in kind from non-Federal funds,
fairly evaluated, resulting in a total project cost of $500,000.
[[Page 20770]]
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
This priority supports projects by eligible applicants that include
a partnership with a community-based organization, on the one hand, and
a local educational agency (including a charter school that meets its
State's definition of an LEA), or a public school or a private school,
on the other hand. 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
gives priority to projects in which the delivery of instructional
services includes:
1. A community-based organization (CBO), which may be a faith-based
organization, and
2. A local educational agency (LEA) (including a charter school
that meets its State's definition of an LEA), or a public school or a
private school.
A CBO is not required to submit a joint application with its
proposed partners when applying for funds; however, the proposed
project must deliver the educational services in partnership with an
LEA (including a charter school that meets its State's definition of an
LEA), or a public school or a private school.
An LEA (including a charter school that meets its State's
definition of an LEA) or a private school also 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.
An eligible applicant, e.g., an institution of higher education,
that is not a CBO or an LEA (including a charter school that meets its
State's definition of an LEA) or a private school must enter into a
partnership that includes a CBO, on the one hand, and an LEA (including
a charter school that meets its State's definition of an LEA), or a
public school or a private school, on the other hand, in the delivery
of educational services.
An individual public school is not eligible to submit an
application under the CTC program in general due to the authorizing
statute's general eligibility restrictions. However, an individual
public school may be included as a partner in an eligible applicant's
proposed project and application.
This priority does not apply to novice applicants. In any
competition in which the Department establishes this priority as an
absolute priority, novice applicants are not required to meet the
requirements of this priority.
Priority 2
This priority supports applicants that 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
coordinated with one or more LEAs (including a charter school that
meets its State's definition of an LEA), or a public school or a
private school that provides supplementary instruction in the core
academic subjects of reading or language arts, or mathematics, to low-
achieving high 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) have not attained
proficiency on the State academic assessments conducted under Title I
of the ESEA. 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 school, they must be provided in coordination with an LEA or
school. Each applicant must demonstrate how their project's proposed
academic approach is aligned with the secondary school curricula of the
school or schools in which the students to be served by the grant are
entering or enrolled.
Priority 3
This priority supports projects whose CTC activities focus on adult
education and family literacy services.
Under this priority, we 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.
Priority 4
This priority supports projects whose CTC activities focus on
career development and job preparation activities. Under this priority
we give priority to projects that provide career development and job
preparation activities in high-demand occupational areas.
Selection Criteria
The following criteria will be used to evaluate applications
submitted for grants under the CTC program.
(a) Need for the Project. In evaluating the need for the proposed
project, we will consider the extent to which the proposed project
will:
(1) Serve students from low-income families;
(2) Serve students entering or enrolled in high schools (9th
through 12th grades) that are among the high 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.
(b) Quality of the Project Design. In evaluating the quality of the
project design, we will consider the extent to which the proposed
project will adequately and effectively investigate
[[Page 20771]]
and incorporate in its implementation plan the following elements:
(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 high 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.
(c) 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.
(d) Adequacy of Resources. In determining the adequacy of the
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 grades 9 through 12 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.
(e) Quality of the Evaluation. In determining the quality of the
project evaluation, we consider the extent to which the application:
(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 final 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 final
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 final requirements, priorities and
selection criteria, we have determined that the benefits of the final
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.
We summarized the costs and benefits in the notice of 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 84.341A, Community
Technology Centers Program)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7263-7263b.
Dated: April 12, 2004.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 04-8659 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P