Smaller Learning Communities Program, 9290-9297 [E5-767]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 37 (Friday, February 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9290-9297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-767]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Smaller Learning Communities Program

AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed priority, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 and subsequent years' 
funds.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education 
proposes a priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
under the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) program. The Assistant 
Secretary will use the priority, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria for a competition using fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds 
and may use them in later years.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 28, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed priority, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to Deborah Williams, 
U.S. Department of Education, OVAE, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Potomac 
Center Plaza, Room 11064, Washington, DC 20202-7241. If you prefer to 
send your comments through the Internet, use the following address: 
deborah.williams@ed.gov. You must include the term ``SLC Proposed 
Requirements'' in the subject line of your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Williams. Telephone: (202) 
245-7770 or via Internet: deborah.williams@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation To Comment

    We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priority, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. To ensure that your 
comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final 
priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge 
you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, 
definition, or selection criterion that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of 
reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed 
priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please let 
us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential 
costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and 
efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria at Potomac Center Plaza, Room 11064, 550 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking 
Record

    On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or 
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs 
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public 
rulemaking record for these proposed requirements and selection 
criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, 
please contact Deborah Williams. Telephone: (202) 245-7770 or via 
Internet: deborah.williams@ed.gov.

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.
    A strategy that may hold 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.
    While the research on school size to date has been largely non-
experimental, some evidence suggests that smaller schools may have 
advantages over larger schools. Research suggests that the

[[Page 9291]]

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 (SLCs) 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. 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 might, 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 educational agencies (LEAs) to set higher academic 
expectations for all of their students and to implement reforms that 
will provide the effective instruction and personalized academic and 
social support students need to meet those expectations.
    The Department's ongoing efforts to ensure improved outcomes for 
students enrolled in programs funded by the SLC program are reflected 
in this notice. Many of the proposed changes represent an effort to 
provide grantees with sufficient time and resources to carry out their 
plans for raising academic achievement through comprehensive structural 
and instructional reforms. Toward that end, the notice proposes to 
extend the project period from three to five years. In addition, we are 
proposing an increase in the award amounts for individual grants.
    In an attempt to facilitate the application process, encourage more 
LEAs to apply, and raise the quality of proposals received, we have 
streamlined the number of selection criteria from the previous 
competition. The priority, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria in this notice continue to focus on making the curriculum more 
rigorous and improving instruction through SLC structures and 
strategies.

Discussion of Priority

    We will announce the final priority, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will 
determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice 
and other information available to the Department. This notice does not 
preclude us from proposing or using additional priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, subject to meeting 
applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use a priority, we invite applications through a 
notice in the Federal Register. When inviting applications we 
designate the 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)).

Priority

Proposed Priority: Helping All Students To Succeed in Rigorous Academic 
Courses

    This proposed priority would support projects to create or expand 
SLCs 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 have acquired 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, 
apprenticeships, 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.

Application Requirements

Proposed Application Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary proposes the following application 
requirements for this SLC competition. These proposed requirements are 
in addition to the content that all SLC 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. LEAs, including schools 
funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and educational service 
agencies, applying on behalf of large public high schools, are eligible 
to apply for a grant. A discussion of each proposed application 
requirement follows.

Eligibility

    We propose that, to be considered for funding, LEAs must identify 
in their applications the name(s) of the eligible large high school(s) 
and the number of students enrolled in each school. A large high school 
is defined as one having grades 11 and 12, with 1,000 or more students 
enrolled in grades 9 and above. Enrollment figures would be based upon 
data from the current school year or data from the most recently 
completed school year. We would 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. We 
propose that LEAs may apply on behalf of no more than 10 schools.

Rationale

    The Department needs this information to determine if each school 
identified in an application meets the proposed definition of a large 
high school and to ensure that an LEA is not

[[Page 9292]]

applying for more than 10 schools. Schools under construction do not 
have actual enrollment data to be used to determine eligibility.

School Report Cards

    We propose to 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, including information about student academic 
achievement and other student outcomes. These ``report cards'' would 
include, at a minimum, the following 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 those indicators for 
students in the LEA as a whole and also shows the performance of the 
school's students on statewide assessments.

Rationale

    The Department needs the ``report cards'' to verify the accuracy of 
the information the LEA provides in its application about student 
academic achievement and other student outcomes at each school.

Types of Grants

    We propose awarding implementation grants to applicants to support 
the creation or expansion of an SLC or SLCs within each targeted high 
school. We do not propose funding any planning grants this year.
    Grants will be awarded for a period up to 60 months. We propose to 
require that applicants 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 grant amount at the time of the 
initial award.
    To apply for grant funds, applicants must be prepared to implement 
a new SLC project within each targeted high school or to expand an 
existing SLC project. The first year of grant funds is not to be used 
for planning purposes.

Rationale

    Effectively implementing an SLC project requires significant prior 
planning and preparation, as well as extensive consultation with, and 
participation by, school personnel, parents, students, and community 
leaders. It requires fundamentally rethinking how a school is organized 
and how instruction and other direct services to students are 
delivered. It is not a discrete activity that can be carried out by a 
handful of teachers and school personnel without the involvement of the 
larger school community. Grants would be available to those LEAs that 
have engaged in extensive planning activities and developed plans for 
implementing or expanding an SLC project at one or more high schools.
    Since the inception of the SLC program in 2000, the Department has 
funded grants dedicated to SLC planning activities. Planning grants 
have been awarded to more than 350 districts. Now, resources, planning 
tools, and SLC research are much more prevalent and accessible for 
schools and districts than was the case at the outset of the SLC 
program. Therefore, in order to focus the SLC program on the actual 
implementation of SLC strategies designed to improve student 
achievement, this year the Department will not offer a separate 
competition for planning grants. Schools receiving SLC grants need to 
be fully prepared to take on the activities outlined in their proposals 
and be able to document well-established support for the SLC project.
    Our proposal to extend the maximum length of the project period of 
grants from 36 to 60 months is appropriate, given the nature and focus 
of the SLC grant. Students who enter high school in the first year of 
the grant will be only in 11th grade by the end of a three-year grant; 
their experiences in the 12th grade and their post-high school outcomes 
will be unknown. The experiences of the LEAs that received the first 
SLC grants in FY 2000 also suggest that some schools may need more time 
to undertake the extensive restructuring associated with a successful 
SLC project that makes meaningful changes in curriculum and 
instructional practices. Therefore, we propose extending the grant 
period to a maximum of five years.

Consortium Applications and Educational Service Agencies

    In an effort to encourage systemic, district-level reform efforts, 
we propose permitting an individual LEA to submit only one grant 
application in a competition, specifying in each application which high 
schools the LEA intends to fund.
    In addition, we propose to require that an LEA applying for a grant 
under this competition apply only on behalf of a high school or high 
schools for which it has governing authority, unless the LEA is an 
educational service agency that includes in its application evidence 
that the entity that has governing authority over the eligible high 
school supports the application. An LEA, however, may form a consortium 
with another LEA and submit a joint application for funds. The 
consortium must follow the procedures for group applications described 
in 34 CFR 75.127-75.129 in the Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).
    An LEA is eligible for only one grant whether the LEA applies 
independently or as part of a consortium.

Rationale

    This requirement is designed to ensure that each LEA that receives 
assistance under this program will manage and coordinate school-level 
activities as part of a single, coherent, district-wide reform 
strategy. This will help LEAs make the most effective and efficient use 
of SLC resources and assist them in aligning SLC activities with other 
district-level initiatives, including the implementation of activities 
carried out under other programs funded by the ESEA and the Carl D. 
Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. For the same reason, we 
are proposing to require that the LEA have governing authority over 
each high school it includes in its application. A high school will 
have considerable difficulty implementing or expanding an SLC project 
without the involvement of the entity that has governing authority over 
the school and has responsibility for implementing other Federal, 
State, and local programs and initiatives that involve the school.
    We are proposing to make an exception for an educational service 
agency that applies on behalf on an eligible high school with the 
concurrence of the entity that has governing authority over that 
school, because educational service agencies are organized for the 
explicit purpose of providing education-related services to entities 
with governing authority over schools, to schools, and to their 
students. We note that educational service agencies are included in the 
ESEA statutory definition of LEA but typically do not have governing 
authority over high schools they serve. Generally, the administrative 
control or direction of a high school is vested in a public board of 
education or another public authority other than an educational service 
agency. However, we recognize that not all entities that have 
administrative control or direction of eligible high schools have the 
capacity to apply for and administer an

[[Page 9293]]

SLC grant. For some districts and schools, educational service agencies 
provide resources and expertise to assist them in performing functions 
that they otherwise could not, by themselves, perform efficiently or at 
all.

Budget Information for Determination of Award

    We propose that LEAs may receive, on behalf of a single school, up 
to $1,175,000, depending upon the size of the school, during the 60-
month project period. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible 
schools could receive up to $11,750,000 per grant. To ensure that 
sufficient funds are available to support SLC activities, we propose a 
limit of 10 schools that an LEA may include in a single application for 
a grant.
    The following chart provides the ranges of awards per high school 
size that we are proposing:

                         SLC Grant Award Ranges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Student enrollment                 Award ranges per school
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000-2,000 Students......................  $650,000-$800,000
2,001-3,000 Students......................  $650,000-$925,000
3,001-4,000 Students......................  $650,000-$1,050,000
4,001 and Up..............................  $650,000-$1,175,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The actual size of awards would be based on a number of factors. 
These factors include the scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the 
proposed project and the range of awards indicated in the application.
    Applications that request more funds than the maximum amounts 
specified for any school or for the total grant would not be read as 
part of the regular application process. However, if after the 
Secretary selects applications to be funded, it appears that additional 
funds remain available, the Secretary may choose to read those 
additional applications that requested funds exceeding the maximum 
amounts specified. If the Secretary chooses to fund any of those 
additional applications, applicants would be required to work with the 
Department to revise their proposed budgets to fit within the 
appropriate funding range.

Rationale

    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 activities that could only be implemented 
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 that requested funds within the specified 
funding range and outlined a less extensive set of activities. For this 
reason, we propose to fund only those applications that request an 
amount that does not exceed the maximum amounts specified for the 
grants.
    We determined these amounts after reviewing the experiences of 
previous recipients of SLC funds and examining the design and outcomes 
of other similar Federal, State, and privately funded programs.
    Requiring applicants to provide detailed, yearly budget information 
for the total grant period requested is necessary for us to determine 
appropriate grant amounts based on the needs of the LEA and high 
schools. We are proposing to increase the individual amount per school 
to $1,175,000 and the maximum LEA award amount to $11,750,000 for a 
grant of 10 schools. In previous competitions, the grant amount was 
substantially less, as was the allowed project period. Because we are 
proposing to increase the project period from 36 months to 60 months, 
we believed it necessary to increase the grant amount accordingly. The 
proposed grant amount also was increased to provide additional support 
for independent evaluation activities and for comprehensive strategies 
and interventions to assist students who enter high school with reading 
or math skills that are significantly below grade level, both of which 
we propose to require SLC grantees to implement. Moreover, we have also 
been seeking to focus SLC grantees on the more difficult work of making 
the curriculum more rigorous and improving instruction, and cautioning 
them against pursuing structural changes alone. Implementing these more 
complex reforms is likely to be more costly than changing the 
organizational structure of schools alone.

Student Placement

    We propose that applicants for SLC grants must include a 
description of how students will be selected or placed in an SLC and an 
assurance that students will not be placed according to ability or any 
other measure, but will be placed at random or by student/parent choice 
and not pursuant to testing or other judgments.

Rationale

    As in all previous SLC competitions, the Department needs this 
information to ensure that each funded project complies with the 
requirements of the statute regarding random assignment or student/
parent choice for SLC placement of students. Section 5441(b)(13) of the 
ESEA, 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 SLC or SLCs, ``such that students are not placed according to 
ability or any other measure, but are placed at random or by their own 
choice and not pursuant to testing or other judgments.'' For instance, 
projects that place students in any SLC on the basis of their prior 
academic achievement or performance on an academic assessment are not 
eligible for assistance under this program.

Including All Students

    We propose to require applicants for grants to implement or expand 
an SLC project that will include every student within the school by no 
later than the end of the fifth school year of implementation. 
Elsewhere in this notice, we propose to define an SLC as an environment 
in which a group of teachers and other adults within the school knows 
the needs, interests, and aspirations of each student well, closely 
monitors each student's progress, and provides the academic and other 
support each student needs to succeed.

Rationale

    The purpose of creating SLCs within large high schools is to 
provide students with individualized attention, support, and 
instruction that will help them excel academically and acquire the 
knowledge and skills they need to succeed after high school. Young 
people have many different needs and personal resources, but most young 
people could benefit from participating in a well-implemented SLC. 
While it may be easier to implement incremental reforms that include 
only a limited number of students, we do a disservice to young people 
when we narrow our sights in this way. For this reason, we propose to 
support only projects that will include every student within an SLC.

Performance Indicators

    We propose to require applicants to identify in their application 
specific performance indicators and annual performance objectives for 
each of these indicators. Specifically, we propose to require 
applicants to use the following performance indicators to measure the 
progress of each school:
    (1) The percentage of students who score at the proficient and 
advanced levels on the reading/language arts and mathematics 
assessments used by the State to determine whether a school has made 
adequate yearly progress under part A of title I of the ESEA, as well 
as

[[Page 9294]]

these percentages disaggregated by subject matter and the following 
subgroups:
    (A) Major racial and ethnic groups;
    (B) Students with disabilities;
    (C) Students with limited English proficiency; and
    (D) Economically disadvantaged students.
    (2) The school's graduation rate, as defined in the State's 
approved accountability plan for part A of title I of the ESEA;
    (3) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary 
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training for the semester 
following graduation;
    (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);
    (5) Other appropriate indicators the LEA may choose to identify in 
its application, such as rates of average daily attendance and year-to-
year retention; achievement and gains in English proficiency of limited 
English proficient students; the incidence of school violence, drug and 
alcohol use, and disciplinary actions; or the percentage of students 
completing advanced placement courses, and the rate of passing advanced 
placement tests (such as Advanced Placement and International 
Baccalaureate) and courses for college credit.
    Applicants would be required to include in their applications 
baseline data for each of these indicators and identify performance 
objectives for each year of the project period. We further propose to 
require recipients of grants to report annually on the extent to which 
each school achieves its performance objectives for each indicator 
during the preceding school year. We propose to 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.

Rationale

    While creating SLCs can appeal to teachers, students, and parents 
for many reasons, their fundamental purpose is to improve academic 
achievement and to prepare all young people to participate successfully 
in postsecondary education or advanced training, the workforce, and our 
communities. Assistance provided under the SLC project should also 
support and enhance the efforts of LEAs and schools to fulfill the 
ambitious goals of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
    For these reasons, it is important that projects measure their 
progress in improving student academic achievement and related 
outcomes. Two of the indicators we propose to use, student performance 
on reading/language arts and mathematics assessments and the graduation 
rate, are the same indicators used by States to measure the progress of 
LEAs and high schools under part A of title I of ESEA. Performance 
objectives for these indicators should equal or exceed the measurable 
annual objectives established by the State in its approved 
accountability plan for part A of title I of ESEA.
    In today's economy, completing some form of postsecondary education 
or training beyond high school is often a prerequisite to securing 
employment that pays family-supporting wages and offers opportunities 
for career advancement. Most parents and students understand this well, 
and they consider preparing young people for postsecondary education or 
further learning to be one of the central missions of the American high 
school. The third indicator we are proposing, entrance into 
postsecondary education or advanced training, will measure the success 
of LEAs and schools in fulfilling these expectations. Performance 
objectives for this indicator should exceed the baseline level of 
performance and give particular emphasis to narrowing any gaps between 
students in general and economically disadvantaged students, students 
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and 
students with limited English proficiency.
    Our high schools also must prepare young people to succeed in the 
workforce. All high school graduates should have the necessary skills 
to obtain gainful employment, whether they decide to work in order to 
help pay for postsecondary education and their living expenses or 
decide to enter the workforce full-time after high school. The extent 
to which graduates are able to find employment after leaving high 
school is another important measure of the success of a high school in 
meeting the needs of its students.
    Certainly, LEAs and schools will have other goals they hope to 
achieve through the implementation or expansion of an SLC project. For 
this reason, we propose to give applicants for grants the opportunity 
to identify and establish performance objectives for other indicators 
that they consider useful and appropriate, such as, for example, rates 
of average daily attendance or incidents of violence and drug and 
alcohol use.

Evaluation

    We propose to require each applicant to provide assurances that it 
will support an evaluation of the project that provides information to 
the project director and school personnel, and that will be useful in 
gauging the project's progress and in identifying areas for 
improvement. We propose that each evaluation include an annual report 
for each of the first four years of the project period and a final 
report that would be completed at the end of the fifth year of 
implementation and that will include information on implementation 
during the fifth year as well as information on the implementation of 
the project across the entire project period. We would require grantees 
to submit each of these reports to the Department.
    In addition, we propose to require that the evaluation be conducted 
by an independent third party, selected by the applicant, whose role in 
the project is limited to conducting the evaluation.

Rationale

    Implementing or expanding an SLC project is difficult and complex 
work that administrators, teachers, and other school personnel must 
carry out at the same time that they are carrying out other demanding, 
day-to-day responsibilities. An evaluation that provides regular 
feedback on the progress of implementation and its impact can help the 
project director and school personnel identify their successes and how 
they may need to revise their strategies to accomplish their goals. To 
be most useful, the evaluation should be objective and be carried out 
by an independent third party who has no other role in the 
implementation of the project.

High-Risk Status and Other Enforcement Mechanisms

    Because the requirements listed in this notice are material 
requirements, we propose that failure to comply with any requirement or 
with any elements of the grantee's application would subject the 
grantee to administrative action, including but not limited to 
designation as a ``high-risk'' grantee, the imposition of special 
conditions, or termination of the grant. Circumstances that might cause 
the Department to take such action include, but are not limited to: The 
grantee showing a decline in student achievement after two years of 
implementation of the grant; the grantee's failure to make substantial 
progress in completing the milestones outlined in the management plan 
included in the application; and the grantee's expenditure of funds in 
a manner that is inconsistent with the budget as submitted in the 
application.

[[Page 9295]]

Rationale

    Part of the Department's role in administering grant funds under 
the SLC program is to ensure that those funds are used in a manner 
consistent with the aims of the grant program. To help ensure proper 
use of funds, the Department reserves the right to use the enforcement 
actions listed above if grantees fail to meet the requirements of the 
law or the SLC program, or if student achievement appears to be 
declining during implementation of the grant.

Required Meetings Sponsored by the Department

    Applicants must set aside adequate funds within their proposed 
budget to send their project director to a two-day project directors' 
meeting in Washington, DC, and to send a team of five key staff 
members, including their external evaluator, to attend a two-and-a-
half-day Regional Institute. Both meetings will be hosted by the 
Department.

Rationale

    Convening all project directors at an initial meeting allows 
Federal staff to provide introductory information on grants 
administration and Department regulations, the evaluation process, and 
other topics of interest to new grantees. Regional Institutes provide 
grantee teams the opportunity to attend forums on topics relevant to 
the Department's high school-related activities.

Previous Grantees

    We propose to allow an LEA to apply on behalf of a school that 
received funds for an implementation grant under the original FY 2000 
SLC program competition to apply on behalf of the school for a second 
SLC grant under the terms set forth in this notice. LEAs applying on 
behalf of schools that received funding for an implementation grant 
under the FY 2000 competition would be required to submit a copy of the 
final report for their FY 2000 implementation grant. LEAs would not be 
able to apply for funding on behalf of schools that received an SLC 
implementation grant under the competitions in fiscal years 2001, 2002, 
or 2003.

Rationale

    The performance period for implementation grants awarded in FY 2000 
has ended. These grantees are no longer receiving Federal assistance to 
implement SLCs. The performance period for implementation grants 
awarded in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 has not yet expired. 
Moreover, the original SLC grantees that were awarded funds in FY 2000 
were not required to undertake a number of the activities that have 
been required in subsequent competitions, including implementing SLCs 
``wall-to-wall,'' interventions for students who enter high school with 
reading/language arts or mathematics skills that are significantly 
below grade level, and an external evaluation. Allowing LEAs to apply 
on behalf of these schools for further funding will enable them to 
implement activities that were required of schools that were awarded 
funds in subsequent SLC competitions.

Definitions

Proposed Definitions

    In addition to the definitions set out in the authorizing statute 
and 34 CFR 77.1, we propose that the following definitions also apply 
to this program:
    BIA School means a school operated or supported by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
    Large High School means an entity that includes grades 11 and 12 
and has an enrollment of 1,000 or more students in grades 9 and above.
    Smaller Learning Community (SLC) means an environment in which a 
core group of teachers and other adults within the school know the 
needs, interests, and aspirations of each student well, closely monitor 
each student's progress, and provide the academic and other support 
each student needs to succeed.

Selection Criteria

Proposed Selection Criteria

    We propose that the following selection criteria be used to 
evaluate applications for new grants under this program. We may apply 
these selection criteria to any SLC competition in the future.

    Note: The maximum score for all of these criteria will be 100 
points. We will inform applicants of the points or weights assigned 
to each criterion and sub-criterion in a notice published in the 
Federal Register.

Need for the Project

    In determining the need for the proposed project, we will consider 
the extent to which the applicant will:
    (1) Assist schools that have the greatest need for assistance, as 
indicated by, relative to other high schools within the State, one or 
more of the factors below:
    (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, including gaps in the performance of all students 
and that of student subgroups, such as economically disadvantaged 
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with 
disabilities, or students with limited English proficiency.
    (B) The school's dropout rate, and gaps in the graduation rate 
between all students and student subgroups.
    (C) Disciplinary actions.
    (D) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary 
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training in the semester 
following graduation, and gaps between all students and student 
subgroups.

Foundation for Implementation

    In determining the quality of the implementation plan for the 
proposed project, we will consider the extent to which:
    (1) Teachers and administrators within each school support the 
proposed project and have been and will continue to be involved in its 
planning and development, including, particularly, those teachers who 
will be directly affected by the proposed project.
    (2) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders support the 
proposed project and have been involved in its planning and 
development.
    (3) 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 student subgroups.
    (4) The applicant demonstrates that it has carried out sufficient 
planning and preparatory activities to enable it to implement the 
proposed project at the beginning of the school year immediately 
following receipt of an award.

Quality of the Project Design

    In determining the quality of the project design for the SLC 
project, we will consider the extent to which--
    (1) The applicant will implement or expand strategies, new 
organizational structures, or other changes in practice that are likely 
to create an environment in which a core group of teachers and other 
adults within the school know the needs, interests, and aspirations of 
each student well, closely monitor each student's progress, and provide 
the academic and other support each student needs to succeed;
    (2) The applicant proposes research-based strategies that are 
likely to improve overall student achievement and other outcomes 
(including

[[Page 9296]]

graduation rates and enrollment in postsecondary education), narrow any 
gaps in achievement between all students and student subgroups, and 
address the particular needs identified by the school under the 
paragraph titled Need for the Project, 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 other academic and technical courses that offer 
both high school and postsecondary credit.
    (3) The applicant will 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 and that:
    (A) Are designed to equip participating students with grade-level 
reading/language arts and mathematics skills by no later than the end 
of the 10th grade; and that--
    (B) Are grounded in scientifically based research;
    (C) Include the use of age-appropriate instructional materials and 
teaching and learning strategies;
    (D) Provide additional instructional 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;
    (E) Will be delivered with sufficient intensity to improve the 
reading/language arts or math skills, as appropriate, of participating 
students; and
    (F) Include sustained professional development and ongoing support 
for teachers and other personnel who are responsible for delivering 
instruction.
    (4) The applicant will provide high-quality professional 
development throughout the project period that advances the 
understanding of teachers, administrators, and other school staff of 
effective, research-based instructional strategies for improving the 
academic achievement of students, including, particularly, students 
with academic skills that are significantly below grade level, and 
provide the knowledge and skills those staff need to participate 
effectively in the development, expansion, or implementation of an SLC.
    (5) The proposed project fits into a comprehensive district high 
school improvement strategy to increase the academic achievement of all 
district high school students, reduce gaps between the achievement of 
all students and student subgroups, and prepare students to enter 
postsecondary education or the workforce.
    (6) The proposed project is part of a cohesive plan that uses 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 sufficient to ensure continuation of efforts after 
Federal support ends.

Quality of the Management Plan

    In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed 
project, we consider the following factors:
    (1) The adequacy of the proposed management plan to 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) The extent to which time commitments of the project director 
and other key personnel are appropriate and adequate to implement the 
SLC project effectively.
    (3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of the project director and other key personnel; and
    (4) The adequacy of resources, including the extent to which the 
budget is adequate and costs are directly related to the objectives and 
design of the research evaluation and SLC activities.

Quality of the SLC Project Evaluation

    In determining the quality of the proposed project evaluation 
conducted by an independent, third-party evaluator, we consider the 
following factors--
    (1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 
proposed SLC project;
    (2) The extent to which the evaluation will collect and report 
accurate qualitative and quantitative data that will be useful in 
assessing the success and progress of implementation, including, at a 
minimum--
    (A) Measures of student academic achievement that provide data for 
the performance indicators identified in the application, 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; and
    (B) Other measures identified by the applicant in the application 
as performance indicators;
    (3) 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.
    (4) The qualifications and relevant training and experience of the 
independent evaluator.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of proposed priority, requirements, definitions, 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 this notice of proposed 
priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative 
and qualitative--of this notice of proposed priority, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria, we have determined that the 
benefits of the proposed priority, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria justify the costs.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive 
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened 
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State 
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.

[[Page 9297]]

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: 
https://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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/.


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.215L, Smaller 
Learning Communities Program)

    Dated: February 22, 2005.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
 [FR Doc. E5-767 Filed 2-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P