Smaller Learning Communities Program, 10502-10507 [E7-4228]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10502
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices
Stacey Miller at (206) 437–5670 at least
five days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: March 1, 2007.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7–4090 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC) Actions at Fort
Lee, Virginia, and Fort A.P. Hill,
Virginia
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of Availability (NOA).
AGENCY:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of the Army
announces the availability of an FEIS
which evaluates the potential
environmental impacts associated with
realignment actions directed by the Base
Closure and Realignment (BRAC)
Commission at Fort Lee, Virginia.
DATES: The waiting period for the FEIS
will end 30 days after publication of an
NOA in the Federal Register by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
ADDRESSES: To obtain a copy of the
FEIS, please contact: Ms. Carol
Anderson (Fort Lee), IMNE–EE–PWE,
1816 Shop Rd., Fort Lee, Virginia
23801–1604, e-mail address:
CRMLee@lee.army.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Anderson at (804) 734–5071, or Ms.
Terry Banks, Fort A.P. Hill, at (804)
633–8223, during normal business
hours Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
subject of the FEIS and the Proposed
Action is the construction and
renovation activities at both
installations, movement of personnel to
Fort Lee, and related field training
activities at Fort A.P. Hill associated
with the BRAC-directed realignment of
Fort Lee.
To implement the BRAC
recommendations, Fort Lee will be
receiving personnel, equipment, and
missions from various closure and
realignment actions within the
Department of Defense. To implement
the BRAC Commission
recommendations, the Army will
provide the necessary facilities,
buildings, and infrastructure at Fort Lee
to support the establishment of a
Sustainment Center of Excellence, a
Joint Center for Consolidated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:53 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
Transportation Management Training,
and a Joint Center of Excellence for
Culinary Training; locate various offices
of the Defense Contract Management
Agency (DCMA) Headquarters; and
receive all components of the Defense
Commissary Agency (DeCA).
Additionally, facilities will be installed
or constructed at Fort A.P. Hill to
accommodate field training exercises
and leadership skills training for
Student Soldiers at Fort Lee. These
actions will impact several areas at the
installations.
Following a rigorous examination of
all implementation alternative, those
alternatives found not to be viable were
dropped from further analysis in the
Fort Lee and Fort A.P. Hill FEIS.
Alternatives carried forward include the
Preferred Alternative and a No Action
Alternative. The Preferred Alternative
includes construction, renovation, and
operation of proposed facilities to
accommodate incoming military
missions at Fort Lee.
The FEIS analyses indicate that
implementation of the preferred
alternative would have long-term,
significant adverse impacts on
socioeconomic resources (local school
districts, and community services), and
the transportation network at Fort Lee
and its surrounding area, and no longterm significant adverse impacts on any
resources at Fort A.P. Hill or its
surrounding area. Minor adverse
impacts on all other resources at both
installations would potentially occur
from implementation of the preferred
alternative. Construction of new
facilities in the cantonment area would
have a long-term minor adverse impact
on the historic setting of the Petersburg
National Battlefield.
An electronic version of the FEIS can
be viewed or downloaded from the
following URL: https://
www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/
nepa_eis_docs.htm.
Dated: March 1, 2007
Addison D. Davis, IV,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army,
(Environment, Safety and Occupational
Health).
[FR Doc. 07–1072 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–08–M
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection Requests
Department of Education.
Notice of intention to remove
certain questions from proposed IPEDS
survey.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the
Department of Education published on
January 24, 2007, a Notice of Proposed
Information Collection Requests in the
Federal Register on Page 3119, Column
1 (72 FR 3119). That document invited
public comment for a period of 60 days
on the proposed information collection
entitled, ‘‘Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS), WebBased Collection System’’. The
Department has received comments
regarding some of the new questions
included for the first time in this
proposed IPEDS Information Collection
Request (ICR). The Secretary has taken
these comments into consideration and
decided to revise the proposed
collection by removing some of the new
items proposed for this annual data
collection. The Department will
continue to take comment on the
proposed IPEDS ICR during the
remainder of the initial 60-day comment
period and will post the revised IPEDS
ICR on the Web site the Department
uses to take comment. The current
proposed IPEDS ICR and the revised
proposed IPEDS ICR are and will be
available at https://edicsweb.ed.gov.
After posting the revised ICR, the
Department will publish the required
second PRA notice, providing an
opportunity for an additional 30-day
public comment period. The IC
Clearance Official, Regulatory
Information Management Services,
Office of Management, hereby issues
this notice under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
Dated: March 2, 2007.
Angela C. Arrington,
IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of Management.
[FR Doc. E7–4108 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Smaller Learning Communities
Program
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priority,
requirements, and selection criteria for
fiscal year (FY) 2006 and subsequent
years’ funds.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Deputy Secretary of
Education proposes a priority,
requirements, and selection criteria
under the Smaller Learning
Communities (SLC) program. The
Deputy Secretary will use the priority,
requirements, and selection criteria, in
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
addition to any other previously
established priorities and requirements,
for a competition using fiscal year (FY)
2006 funds and may use them in later
years. We take this action to focus
Federal financial assistance on an
identified national need. We intend the
priority, requirements, and selection
criteria to enhance the effectiveness of
SLC projects in improving academic
achievement and the preparation of
students for postsecondary education
and careers.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before April 9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about
the proposed priority, requirements, and
selection criteria to Gregory Dennis,
U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., FB–6, room
3W243, Washington, DC 20202–6200. If
you prefer to send your comments
through the Internet, use the following
address:
smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov.
You must include the term ‘‘SLC
Proposed Requirements’’ in the subject
line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Dennis. Telephone: (202) 205–
3784 or via Internet:
smallerlearningcommunities@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, and selection criteria. To
ensure that your comments have
maximum effect in developing the
notice of final priority, requirements,
and selection criteria, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific proposed
priority, requirement, 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, 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:53 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about the proposed priority,
requirements, and selection criteria at
the U.S. Department of Education, FB6,
room 3W243, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20202 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 the proposed priority,
requirements, and selection criteria. If
you want to schedule an appointment
for this type of aid, please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
General
The SLC 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 the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001. It awards discretionary
grants to local educational agencies
(LEAs) to support the restructuring of
large public high schools with
enrollments of 1,000 or more students
into smaller units. SLC structures
include freshman academies, multigrade academies organized around
career interests or other themes,
‘‘houses’’ in which small groups of
students remain together throughout
high school, and autonomous schoolswithin-a-school. These structural
changes are typically complemented by
other personalization strategies, such as
student advisories, family advocate
systems, and mentoring programs. As
used in this notice, the terms smaller
learning community, large high school,
and BIA school have the meanings
assigned to them in the notice of final
priority, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria (NFP) for this program,
published in the Federal Register on
April 28, 2005 (70 FR 22233).
Creating a more personalized learning
experience for students has been a
prominent part of high school
improvement efforts in recent years,
supported not only by the SLC program
but also by States and private
foundations. Several recently completed
evaluations of SLCs have highlighted
the strengths and limitations of these
efforts. They have found, generally, that
the implementation of SLCs and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10503
complementary personalization
strategies can increase student
attendance, reduce disruptive behavior,
and create a more orderly environment
for learning. However, these structural
changes and personalization strategies,
by themselves, do not appear to improve
student academic achievement and
readiness for postsecondary education
and careers.
Student learning gains have been seen
only in those schools that also have
made considerable changes in
curriculum and instruction (Bernstein,
et al., 2005; Kahne, Sporte, et al., 2006;
Quint, 2006; Rhodes, Smerdon, 2005).
Similarly, some large comprehensive
high schools that have not implemented
SLCs have significantly increased
student achievement in reading or
mathematics and narrowed achievement
gaps by implementing more rigorous
courses, providing extra support to
struggling students, and systematically
using data to improve instruction (ACT,
Inc. and the Education Trust, 2005;
Billig, Jaime, et al., 2005; National
Center for Educational Accountability,
2005; Robinson, et al., 2005).
This evidence suggests that SLCs are
most likely to be successful in raising
academic achievement and improving
other student outcomes if their
implementation is integrated closely
with improvements in curriculum and
instruction. As some reform advocates
have argued persuasively, the focus of
these efforts should be on achieving
what most students and their parents
now consider to be the core mission of
the American high school: preparing all
students to succeed in postsecondary
education and careers without need for
remediation (Roderick, 2006).
Earning a bachelor’s degree or higher
is now the goal of an overwhelming
majority of high school students,
regardless of their race, gender,
ethnicity, or family income. The
percentage of high school sophomores
who say they expect to earn a bachelor’s
degree or higher has nearly doubled
over the last two decades, from 41
percent in 1980 to nearly 79 percent in
2002, with the largest increases
occurring among American Indian and
Alaskan Native, Hispanic, and lowincome students. Another 11 percent of
2002 sophomores said they expected to
earn an associate’s degree or
postsecondary certificate (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2006).
Yet too many young people do not
receive the academic preparation,
guidance, and support they need to
achieve these ambitious aspirations.
Many students lack a clear
understanding of the academic
requirements for entrance to
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10504
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices
postsecondary education, how to apply
for postsecondary education, or options
for financial aid (Horn and Chen, 2003;
Horn and Nunez, 2000; and Kirst and
Venezia, 2004). Most importantly,
considerable numbers of young people
are graduating from high school without
the academic foundation needed to
succeed in postsecondary education.
According to the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), more
than one-third of all high school seniors,
and the majority of minority and lowincome seniors, scored ‘‘below basic’’ in
mathematics in 2000. Just 17 percent
scored proficient or higher. Similarly,
on the NAEP reading assessment in
2002, only about one-third of 12th
graders demonstrated proficient or
advanced reading skills, while the
reading skills of one-quarter of high
school seniors were ‘‘below basic.’’
Fewer than 22 percent of the high
school graduates who took the ACT
college-entrance examination in 2004
demonstrated readiness to do collegelevel work in core subjects such as
mathematics, English, and science
(ACT, Inc., 2005). Consequently, a
significant number of students begin
their postsecondary education by
enrolling in one or more remedial
reading, writing, or mathematics courses
(NCES, 2004).
Students who plan to enter the
workforce immediately after high
school, rather than pursue
postsecondary education, also need a
strong academic foundation. An
emerging body of research indicates that
the knowledge and skills needed to
succeed in postsecondary education are
comparable to those that employers
expect from their entry-level workers
(Achieve, Inc., 2004, 2005; ACT, Inc.,
2006). Moreover, most students who
decide initially that they do not want a
postsecondary education and enter the
workforce immediately after high school
change their minds and decide within
18 months of high school graduation to
pursue postsecondary education
(Haimson, Deke, 2003).
For these reasons, we are proposing a
priority and selection criteria that are
intended to promote the integration of
SLC implementation with efforts to
improve the preparation of all students
for postsecondary education and careers
without need for remediation. We also
propose other requirements to clarify
statutory provisions, facilitate the
review of applications, and promote the
equitable distribution of limited SLC
grant funds.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:53 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
Discussion of Priority, Requirements,
and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priority,
requirements, and selection criteria in a
notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priority,
requirements, and selection criteria after
considering responses to this notice and
other information available to the
Department. This notice does not
preclude us from 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 this 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
Preparing All Students To Succeed in
Postsecondary Education and Careers
This proposed priority supports
projects that create or expand SLCs that
are part of a comprehensive effort to
prepare all students to succeed in
postsecondary education and careers
without need for remediation.
In order to meet this priority an
applicant must demonstrate that, using
SLC grant funds or other resources, it
will:
(1) Provide intensive interventions to
assist students who enter high school
with reading/language arts or
mathematics skills that are significantly
below grade level to ‘‘catch up’’ quickly
and attain proficiency by the end of
10th grade;
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(2) Enroll students in a coherent
sequence of rigorous English language
arts, mathematics, and science courses
that will equip them with the skills and
content knowledge needed to succeed in
postsecondary education and careers
without need for remediation;
(3) Provide tutoring and other
academic supports to help students
succeed in rigorous academic courses;
(4) Deliver comprehensive guidance
and academic advising to students and
their parents that include assistance in
selecting courses and planning a
program of study that will provide the
academic preparation needed to succeed
in postsecondary education, early and
ongoing college awareness and planning
activities, and help in identifying and
applying for financial aid for
postsecondary education; and
(5) Increase opportunities for students
to earn postsecondary credit through
Advanced Placement courses,
International Baccalaureate courses, or
dual credit programs.
Application Requirements
Proposed Application Requirements
The 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, and the
application requirements we established
in the NFP for this program, published
in the Federal Register on April 28,
2005 (70 FR 22233) in the following
areas: Eligibility; School Report Cards;
Consortium Applications and
Educational Service Agencies; Student
Placement; Including All Students; and
Evaluation. LEAs, including BIA
schools 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.
1. 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 during
the school year in which funds are first
awarded. 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. At the time of the
initial award, the Department will
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices
provide funds for the first 36 months of
the performance period. Funding for the
remaining 24 months will be contingent
on the availability of funds and each
grantee’s substantial progress toward
accomplishing the goals and objectives
of the project as described in its
approved application.
Rationale
Since the inception of the SLC
program in 2000, the Department has
awarded planning grants to more than
350 LEAs. Now, resources, planning
tools, and research on SLCs and high
school improvement strategies are much
more prevalent and accessible for
schools and LEAs than was the case at
the outset of the SLC program.
Therefore, the Department does not see
a need to fund planning grants and,
instead, intends to focus the SLC
program on the actual implementation
of projects to create or expand SLCs.
2. Budget Information for Determination
of Award
We propose that LEAs may receive,
on behalf of a single school, up to
$1,750,000, depending upon student
enrollment in the school, during the 60month project period. To ensure that
sufficient funds are available to support
awards to LEAs of all sizes, and not only
the largest LEAs, we propose, as we
have in previous years, to limit to 10 the
number of schools that an LEA may
include in a single application for a
grant. LEAs applying on behalf of a
group of eligible schools thus could
receive up to $17,500,000 per grant.
The following chart provides the
ranges of awards per high school size
that we are proposing:
SLC GRANT AWARD RANGES
Student enrollment
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
1,000–2,000 Students .................
2,001–3,000 Students .................
3,001 and Up ........
Award ranges per
school
$1,000,000–$1,250,000
1,000,000–1,500,000
1,000,000–1,750,000
The actual size of awards would be
based on a number of factors, including
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:53 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
read initially only those applications
that request an amount that does not
exceed the maximum amounts specified
for the grants.
3. Indirect Costs
We propose to require eligible
applicants who propose to use SLC
grant funds for indirect costs to include,
as part of their applications, a copy of
their approved indirect cost agreement.
Rationale
The Department needs a copy of the
approved indirect cost agreement to
verify the accuracy of the amount of
indirect costs for which an applicant is
seeking to use SLC funds.
4. 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 or above the proficient level 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10505
(2) The school’s graduation rate, as
defined in the State’s approved
accountability plan for Part A of Title I
of the ESEA; and
(3) The percentage of graduates who
enroll in postsecondary education in the
semester following high school
graduation.
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 grant
funds 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
student success after high school.
Assistance provided under the SLC
program 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 the
ESEA. Performance objectives for these
indicators should equal or exceed the
annual measurable objectives
established by the State in its approved
accountability plan for Part A of Title I
of the ESEA.
Enrolling in postsecondary education
is now a nearly universal aspiration
among high school students and their
parents. The third indicator we are
proposing, entrance into postsecondary
education in the semester following
high school graduation, would measure
the success of LEAs and schools in
helping students achieve this goal.
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
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
10506
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices
students with limited English
proficiency.
criteria to any SLC competition in the
future.
5. 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, in years one and two
of the grant, and to send a team of five
key staff members to attend a two-day
regional institute in year one of the
grant. The Department will host these
meetings.
Need for the Project
In determining the need for the
proposed project, we will consider the
magnitude of the need for the services
that will be provided and the activities
that will be carried out by the proposed
project.
Rationale
Convening all project directors at an
initial meeting enables Department staff
to provide introductory information on
grants administration and Department
regulations, and other topics of interest
to new grantees. The second project
directors’ meeting is intended to
provide project directors an opportunity
to take stock of their implementation
progress and to share with their peers
what they have learned, their success,
and any challenges encountered in the
first year of implementation. Project
directors will have an opportunity to
ask questions of one another and
consult with technical assistance
providers at this second meeting.
Regional institutes in year one will
provide grantee teams with technical
assistance that will be useful in
implementing their projects.
Previous Grantees
We propose to allow an LEA to apply
only on behalf of a school or schools
that will not receive funds through an
SLC implementation grant that has a
performance period that extends beyond
the current fiscal year (September 30,
2007).
Rationale
Schools included in implementation
grants that will be active after
September 30, 2007 do not need
additional assistance. Since the
Department has received more
applications for SLC grants than it has
been able to fund in recent years, we
believe that targeting new awards to
LEAs that will assist high schools that
are not included in grants that will be
active after September 30, 2007 would
be equitable and make the best use of
limited program funds.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:53 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
Quality of the Project Design
In determining the quality of the
design of the proposed project, we will
consider the extent to which—
(1) Teachers, school administrators,
parents and community stakeholders
support the proposed project and have
been and will continue to be involved
in its development and implementation;
(2) The applicant has carried out
sufficient planning and preparatory
activities to enable it to implement the
proposed project during the school year
in which the grant award will be made;
(3) School administrators, teachers,
and other school employees will receive
effective, ongoing technical assistance
and support in implementing structural
and instructional reforms;
(4) The applicant will offer all
students a coherent sequence of rigorous
English language arts, mathematics, and
science courses that will provide
students with the knowledge and skills
needed to succeed in postsecondary
education and careers without need for
remediation; and
(5) The proposed project is part of a
districtwide strategy for high school
redesign and strengthens the district’s
capacity to develop and implement
smaller learning communities and
improve student academic achievement
as part of that strategy.
significantly below grade-level ‘‘catch
up’’ quickly and attain proficiency by
the end of the 10th grade;
(4) Providing teachers with the
professional development, coaching,
regular opportunities for collaboration
with peers, and other supports needed
to implement a rigorous curriculum and
provide high-quality instruction;
(5) Increasing the participation of
students, particularly low-income
students, in Advanced Placement,
International Baccalaureate, or dual
credit courses; and
(6) Increasing the percentage of
students who enter postsecondary
education in the semester following
high school graduation.
Support for Implementation
In determining the adequacy of the
support the applicant will provide for
implementation of the proposed project,
we will consider the extent to which—
(1) The management plan is likely to
achieve the objectives of the proposed
project on time and within budget and
includes clearly defined responsibilities
and detailed timelines and milestones
for accomplishing project tasks;
(2) The project director and other key
personnel are qualified to carry out their
responsibilities, and their time
commitments are appropriate and
adequate to implement the SLC project
effectively;
(3) The applicant will support the
proposed project with funds provided
under other Federal or State programs
and local cash or in-kind resources; and
(4) The requested grant amount and
the project costs are sufficient to attain
project goals and reasonable in relation
to the objectives and design of the
project.
Quality of Project Services
Quality of the SLC Project Evaluation
In determining the quality of the
services to be provided by the proposed
project, we will consider the extent to
which the proposed project is likely to
be effective in—
(1) Creating an environment in which
a core group of teachers and other adults
within the school know the needs,
interests, and aspirations of each
student well, closely monitor each
student’s progress, and provide the
academic and other support each
student needs to succeed;
(2) Equipping all students with the
reading/English language arts,
mathematics, and science knowledge
and skills they need to succeed in
postsecondary education and careers
without need for remediation;
(3) Helping students who enter high
school with reading/English language
arts or mathematics skills that are
In determining the quality of the
proposed project evaluation to be
conducted by an independent, thirdparty evaluator, we consider the extent
to which—
(1) The evaluation will provide
timely, regular, and useful feedback to
the LEA and the participating schools
on the success and progress of
implementation, and identify areas for
needed improvement; and
(2) The independent evaluator is
qualified to conduct the evaluation.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priority,
requirements, 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.
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices
The potential costs associated with
this notice of proposed priority,
requirements, 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, 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.
Elsewhere in this notice we discuss
the potential costs and benefits of the
proposed priority, requirements, and
selection criteria under the following
heading: Discussion of Priority,
Requirements, and Selection Criteria.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
Certain sections of the proposed priority,
requirements, and selection criteria for the
SLC grant program contain changes to
information collection requirements already
approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under OMB control number
1810–0676 (1890–0001). We will be
publishing a separate notice in the Federal
Register requesting comments on these
changes.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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: 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:53 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
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/
index.html.
10507
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Oil and Gas Global
Security and Supply, Office of Fossil
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy,
Forrestal Building, Room 3E–042, FE–
34, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larine Moore or Beverly Howard, Office
of Oil and Gas Global Security and
Supply, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 3E–042, FE–34, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. (202) 586–
9478; (202) 586–9387.
Edward Myers, Office of the Assistant
General Counsel for Fossil Energy and
Energy Efficiency, U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6B–
159, 1000 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. (202) 586–
3397.
[FE Docket No. 07–02–LNG]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Office of Fossil Energy;
ConocoPhillips Alaska Natural Gas
Corporation and Marathon Oil
Company; Application for Blanket
Authorization To Export Liquefied
Natural Gas
Background
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Number 84.215L, Smaller Learning
Communities Program.)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7249.
Dated: March 2, 2007.
Raymond Simon,
Deputy Secretary of Education Delegated the
Authority to Perform the Functions of the
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. E7–4228 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy
(FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE)
gives notice of receipt of an application
filed jointly on January 10, 2007 by
ConocoPhillips Alaska Natural Gas
Corporation (CPANGC) and Marathon
Oil Company (Marathon), requesting
blanket authorization to export on their
own behalf or as agents for others on a
short-term or spot market basis from
existing facilities near Kenai, Alaska up
to 99 Trillion British thermal units
(TBtu’s) (approximately 99 Billion cubic
feet (Bcf)) of liquefied natural gas (LNG)
to Japan and/or one or more countries
on either side of the Pacific Rim over a
two year period commencing April 1,
2009 and terminating March 31, 2011.
The application is filed under section
3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C.
717b), as amended by section 201 of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–
486), and DOE Delegation Order No. 00–
002.00G (Jan. 29, 2007) and DOE
Redelegation Order No. 00–002.04C
(Jan. 30, 2007). Protests, motions to
intervene, notices of intervention, and
written comments are invited.
DATES: Protests, motions to intervene or
notices of intervention, as applicable,
requests for additional procedures, and
written comments are to be filed at the
address listed below no later than 4:30
p.m., eastern time, April 9, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ADDRESSES:
CPANGC, a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in
Anchorage, Alaska, is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company,
a publicly traded Delaware corporation.
Marathon is an Ohio corporation with
its principal place of business in
Houston, Texas. CPANGC and Marathon
are not affiliated with each other. The
applicants are joint indirect owners of
natural gas liquefaction and marine
terminal facilities near Kenai, Alaska
(Kenai LNG Facility) on Cook Inlet in
Southcentral Alaska.1
Existing Long-Term Authorization
The applicants hold an existing longterm authorization to export LNG to
Japan granted to CPANGC predecessor
Phillips Petroleum Company (Phillips)
and Marathon by the Federal Power
Commission in 1967.2 Phillips and
Marathon were specifically authorized
to export LNG from the State of Alaska
to supply Tokyo Electric Power
Company Inc. (Tokyo Electric) and
Tokyo Gas Company Limited (Tokyo
Gas) for a 15-year period terminating on
May 31, 1984. The order also authorized
Phillips and Marathon to construct the
necessary liquefaction and marine
terminal facilities in the Cook Inlet
Basin near Kenai, Alaska. The long-term
export authorization was subsequently
amended and extended by the Economic
1 The Kenai LNG Facility is owned by the Kenai
LNG Corporation. CPANGC has a 70-percent
ownership interest and Marathon has a 30-percent
ownership interest in Kenai LNG Corporation.
2 See, Phillips Alaska Natural Gas Corporation
and Marathon Oil Company, 37 FPC 777 (April 19,
1967).
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10502-10507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4228]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Smaller Learning Communities Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priority, requirements, and selection
criteria for fiscal year (FY) 2006 and subsequent years' funds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Deputy Secretary of Education proposes a priority,
requirements, and selection criteria under the Smaller Learning
Communities (SLC) program. The Deputy Secretary will use the priority,
requirements, and selection criteria, in
[[Page 10503]]
addition to any other previously established priorities and
requirements, for a competition using fiscal year (FY) 2006 funds and
may use them in later years. We take this action to focus Federal
financial assistance on an identified national need. We intend the
priority, requirements, and selection criteria to enhance the
effectiveness of SLC projects in improving academic achievement and the
preparation of students for postsecondary education and careers.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed priority,
requirements, and selection criteria to Gregory Dennis, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., FB-6, room 3W243, Washington,
DC 20202-6200. If you prefer to send your comments through the
Internet, use the following address: smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov.
You must include the term ``SLC Proposed Requirements'' in the
subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Dennis. Telephone: (202) 205-
3784 or via Internet: smallerlearningcommunities@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, and selection criteria. To ensure that your comments have
maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority,
requirements, and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly
the specific proposed priority, requirement, 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, 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 the proposed priority, requirements, and selection
criteria at the U.S. Department of Education, FB6, room 3W243, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202 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 the proposed priority, requirements, and
selection criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this
type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
General
The SLC 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 the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. It awards
discretionary grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support
the restructuring of large public high schools with enrollments of
1,000 or more students into smaller units. SLC structures include
freshman academies, multi-grade academies organized around career
interests or other themes, ``houses'' in which small groups of students
remain together throughout high school, and autonomous schools-within-
a-school. These structural changes are typically complemented by other
personalization strategies, such as student advisories, family advocate
systems, and mentoring programs. As used in this notice, the terms
smaller learning community, large high school, and BIA school have the
meanings assigned to them in the notice of final priority,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NFP) for this
program, published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2005 (70 FR
22233).
Creating a more personalized learning experience for students has
been a prominent part of high school improvement efforts in recent
years, supported not only by the SLC program but also by States and
private foundations. Several recently completed evaluations of SLCs
have highlighted the strengths and limitations of these efforts. They
have found, generally, that the implementation of SLCs and
complementary personalization strategies can increase student
attendance, reduce disruptive behavior, and create a more orderly
environment for learning. However, these structural changes and
personalization strategies, by themselves, do not appear to improve
student academic achievement and readiness for postsecondary education
and careers.
Student learning gains have been seen only in those schools that
also have made considerable changes in curriculum and instruction
(Bernstein, et al., 2005; Kahne, Sporte, et al., 2006; Quint, 2006;
Rhodes, Smerdon, 2005). Similarly, some large comprehensive high
schools that have not implemented SLCs have significantly increased
student achievement in reading or mathematics and narrowed achievement
gaps by implementing more rigorous courses, providing extra support to
struggling students, and systematically using data to improve
instruction (ACT, Inc. and the Education Trust, 2005; Billig, Jaime, et
al., 2005; National Center for Educational Accountability, 2005;
Robinson, et al., 2005).
This evidence suggests that SLCs are most likely to be successful
in raising academic achievement and improving other student outcomes if
their implementation is integrated closely with improvements in
curriculum and instruction. As some reform advocates have argued
persuasively, the focus of these efforts should be on achieving what
most students and their parents now consider to be the core mission of
the American high school: preparing all students to succeed in
postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation
(Roderick, 2006).
Earning a bachelor's degree or higher is now the goal of an
overwhelming majority of high school students, regardless of their
race, gender, ethnicity, or family income. The percentage of high
school sophomores who say they expect to earn a bachelor's degree or
higher has nearly doubled over the last two decades, from 41 percent in
1980 to nearly 79 percent in 2002, with the largest increases occurring
among American Indian and Alaskan Native, Hispanic, and low-income
students. Another 11 percent of 2002 sophomores said they expected to
earn an associate's degree or postsecondary certificate (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2006).
Yet too many young people do not receive the academic preparation,
guidance, and support they need to achieve these ambitious aspirations.
Many students lack a clear understanding of the academic requirements
for entrance to
[[Page 10504]]
postsecondary education, how to apply for postsecondary education, or
options for financial aid (Horn and Chen, 2003; Horn and Nunez, 2000;
and Kirst and Venezia, 2004). Most importantly, considerable numbers of
young people are graduating from high school without the academic
foundation needed to succeed in postsecondary education. According to
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), more than one-
third of all high school seniors, and the majority of minority and low-
income seniors, scored ``below basic'' in mathematics in 2000. Just 17
percent scored proficient or higher. Similarly, on the NAEP reading
assessment in 2002, only about one-third of 12th graders demonstrated
proficient or advanced reading skills, while the reading skills of one-
quarter of high school seniors were ``below basic.'' Fewer than 22
percent of the high school graduates who took the ACT college-entrance
examination in 2004 demonstrated readiness to do college-level work in
core subjects such as mathematics, English, and science (ACT, Inc.,
2005). Consequently, a significant number of students begin their
postsecondary education by enrolling in one or more remedial reading,
writing, or mathematics courses (NCES, 2004).
Students who plan to enter the workforce immediately after high
school, rather than pursue postsecondary education, also need a strong
academic foundation. An emerging body of research indicates that the
knowledge and skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education are
comparable to those that employers expect from their entry-level
workers (Achieve, Inc., 2004, 2005; ACT, Inc., 2006). Moreover, most
students who decide initially that they do not want a postsecondary
education and enter the workforce immediately after high school change
their minds and decide within 18 months of high school graduation to
pursue postsecondary education (Haimson, Deke, 2003).
For these reasons, we are proposing a priority and selection
criteria that are intended to promote the integration of SLC
implementation with efforts to improve the preparation of all students
for postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation.
We also propose other requirements to clarify statutory provisions,
facilitate the review of applications, and promote the equitable
distribution of limited SLC grant funds.
Discussion of Priority, Requirements, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priority, requirements, and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the
final priority, requirements, and selection criteria after considering
responses to this notice and other information available to the
Department. This notice does not preclude us from 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 this 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
Preparing All Students To Succeed in Postsecondary Education and
Careers
This proposed priority supports projects that create or expand SLCs
that are part of a comprehensive effort to prepare all students to
succeed in postsecondary education and careers without need for
remediation.
In order to meet this priority an applicant must demonstrate that,
using SLC grant funds or other resources, it will:
(1) Provide intensive interventions to assist students who enter
high school with reading/language arts or mathematics skills that are
significantly below grade level to ``catch up'' quickly and attain
proficiency by the end of 10th grade;
(2) Enroll students in a coherent sequence of rigorous English
language arts, mathematics, and science courses that will equip them
with the skills and content knowledge needed to succeed in
postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation;
(3) Provide tutoring and other academic supports to help students
succeed in rigorous academic courses;
(4) Deliver comprehensive guidance and academic advising to
students and their parents that include assistance in selecting courses
and planning a program of study that will provide the academic
preparation needed to succeed in postsecondary education, early and
ongoing college awareness and planning activities, and help in
identifying and applying for financial aid for postsecondary education;
and
(5) Increase opportunities for students to earn postsecondary
credit through Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate
courses, or dual credit programs.
Application Requirements
Proposed Application Requirements
The 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, and the application
requirements we established in the NFP for this program, published in
the Federal Register on April 28, 2005 (70 FR 22233) in the following
areas: Eligibility; School Report Cards; Consortium Applications and
Educational Service Agencies; Student Placement; Including All
Students; and Evaluation. LEAs, including BIA schools 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.
1. 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 during the school year in which funds are first awarded. 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. At the time of the initial award, the
Department will
[[Page 10505]]
provide funds for the first 36 months of the performance period.
Funding for the remaining 24 months will be contingent on the
availability of funds and each grantee's substantial progress toward
accomplishing the goals and objectives of the project as described in
its approved application.
Rationale
Since the inception of the SLC program in 2000, the Department has
awarded planning grants to more than 350 LEAs. Now, resources, planning
tools, and research on SLCs and high school improvement strategies are
much more prevalent and accessible for schools and LEAs than was the
case at the outset of the SLC program. Therefore, the Department does
not see a need to fund planning grants and, instead, intends to focus
the SLC program on the actual implementation of projects to create or
expand SLCs.
2. Budget Information for Determination of Award
We propose that LEAs may receive, on behalf of a single school, up
to $1,750,000, depending upon student enrollment in the school, during
the 60-month project period. To ensure that sufficient funds are
available to support awards to LEAs of all sizes, and not only the
largest LEAs, we propose, as we have in previous years, to limit to 10
the number of schools that an LEA may include in a single application
for a grant. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible schools
thus could receive up to $17,500,000 per 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........................... $1,000,000-$1,250,000
2,001-3,000 Students........................... 1,000,000-1,500,000
3,001 and Up................................... 1,000,000-1,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual size of awards would be based on a number of factors,
including 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 read initially only those applications that
request an amount that does not exceed the maximum amounts specified
for the grants.
3. Indirect Costs
We propose to require eligible applicants who propose to use SLC
grant funds for indirect costs to include, as part of their
applications, a copy of their approved indirect cost agreement.
Rationale
The Department needs a copy of the approved indirect cost agreement
to verify the accuracy of the amount of indirect costs for which an
applicant is seeking to use SLC funds.
4. 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 or above the proficient
level 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 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; and
(3) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary
education in the semester following high school graduation.
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 grant funds 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 student success after high school. Assistance provided
under the SLC program 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 the ESEA. Performance
objectives for these indicators should equal or exceed the annual
measurable objectives established by the State in its approved
accountability plan for Part A of Title I of the ESEA.
Enrolling in postsecondary education is now a nearly universal
aspiration among high school students and their parents. The third
indicator we are proposing, entrance into postsecondary education in
the semester following high school graduation, would measure the
success of LEAs and schools in helping students achieve this goal.
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
[[Page 10506]]
students with limited English proficiency.
5. 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, in years one and two of the grant, and to
send a team of five key staff members to attend a two-day regional
institute in year one of the grant. The Department will host these
meetings.
Rationale
Convening all project directors at an initial meeting enables
Department staff to provide introductory information on grants
administration and Department regulations, and other topics of interest
to new grantees. The second project directors' meeting is intended to
provide project directors an opportunity to take stock of their
implementation progress and to share with their peers what they have
learned, their success, and any challenges encountered in the first
year of implementation. Project directors will have an opportunity to
ask questions of one another and consult with technical assistance
providers at this second meeting. Regional institutes in year one will
provide grantee teams with technical assistance that will be useful in
implementing their projects.
Previous Grantees
We propose to allow an LEA to apply only on behalf of a school or
schools that will not receive funds through an SLC implementation grant
that has a performance period that extends beyond the current fiscal
year (September 30, 2007).
Rationale
Schools included in implementation grants that will be active after
September 30, 2007 do not need additional assistance. Since the
Department has received more applications for SLC grants than it has
been able to fund in recent years, we believe that targeting new awards
to LEAs that will assist high schools that are not included in grants
that will be active after September 30, 2007 would be equitable and
make the best use of limited program funds.
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.
Need for the Project
In determining the need for the proposed project, we will consider
the magnitude of the need for the services that will be provided and
the activities that will be carried out by the proposed project.
Quality of the Project Design
In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project,
we will consider the extent to which--
(1) Teachers, school administrators, parents and community
stakeholders support the proposed project and have been and will
continue to be involved in its development and implementation;
(2) The applicant has carried out sufficient planning and
preparatory activities to enable it to implement the proposed project
during the school year in which the grant award will be made;
(3) School administrators, teachers, and other school employees
will receive effective, ongoing technical assistance and support in
implementing structural and instructional reforms;
(4) The applicant will offer all students a coherent sequence of
rigorous English language arts, mathematics, and science courses that
will provide students with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed
in postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation;
and
(5) The proposed project is part of a districtwide strategy for
high school redesign and strengthens the district's capacity to develop
and implement smaller learning communities and improve student academic
achievement as part of that strategy.
Quality of Project Services
In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the
proposed project, we will consider the extent to which the proposed
project is likely to be effective in--
(1) Creating an environment in which a core group of teachers and
other adults within the school know the needs, interests, and
aspirations of each student well, closely monitor each student's
progress, and provide the academic and other support each student needs
to succeed;
(2) Equipping all students with the reading/English language arts,
mathematics, and science knowledge and skills they need to succeed in
postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation;
(3) Helping students who enter high school with reading/English
language arts or mathematics skills that are significantly below grade-
level ``catch up'' quickly and attain proficiency by the end of the
10th grade;
(4) Providing teachers with the professional development, coaching,
regular opportunities for collaboration with peers, and other supports
needed to implement a rigorous curriculum and provide high-quality
instruction;
(5) Increasing the participation of students, particularly low-
income students, in Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or
dual credit courses; and
(6) Increasing the percentage of students who enter postsecondary
education in the semester following high school graduation.
Support for Implementation
In determining the adequacy of the support the applicant will
provide for implementation of the proposed project, we will consider
the extent to which--
(1) The management plan is likely to achieve the objectives of the
proposed project on time and within budget and includes clearly defined
responsibilities and detailed timelines and milestones for
accomplishing project tasks;
(2) The project director and other key personnel are qualified to
carry out their responsibilities, and their time commitments are
appropriate and adequate to implement the SLC project effectively;
(3) The applicant will support the proposed project with funds
provided under other Federal or State programs and local cash or in-
kind resources; and
(4) The requested grant amount and the project costs are sufficient
to attain project goals and reasonable in relation to the objectives
and design of the project.
Quality of the SLC Project Evaluation
In determining the quality of the proposed project evaluation to be
conducted by an independent, third-party evaluator, we consider the
extent to which--
(1) The evaluation will provide timely, regular, and useful
feedback to the LEA and the participating schools on the success and
progress of implementation, and identify areas for needed improvement;
and
(2) The independent evaluator is qualified to conduct the
evaluation.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priority, requirements, 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.
[[Page 10507]]
The potential costs associated with this notice of proposed
priority, requirements, 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, 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.
Elsewhere in this notice we discuss the potential costs and
benefits of the proposed priority, requirements, and selection criteria
under the following heading: Discussion of Priority, Requirements, and
Selection Criteria.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
Certain sections of the proposed priority, requirements, and
selection criteria for the SLC grant program contain changes to
information collection requirements already approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 1810-0676
(1890-0001). We will be publishing a separate notice in the Federal
Register requesting comments on these changes.
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:
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.)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7249.
Dated: March 2, 2007.
Raymond Simon,
Deputy Secretary of Education Delegated the Authority to Perform the
Functions of the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education.
[FR Doc. E7-4228 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
