Carol M. White Physical Education Program, 12522-12532 [2010-5736]
Download as PDF
12522
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Carol M. White Physical Education
Program
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 84.215F.
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, and definitions.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy
Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free
Schools proposes priorities,
requirements, and definitions for the
Carol M. White Physical Education
Program (PEP). The Assistant Deputy
Secretary may use one or more of these
priorities, requirements, and definitions
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2010
and later years. We take this action to
align PEP projects more closely with
best practices and research related to
improving children’s health and fitness.
Under the proposed requirements, new
projects would be required to address a
variety of mechanisms and approaches
for improving students’ physical activity
and eating habits and improve students’
ability to meet their State physical
education standards.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before April 15, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about
this notice to Carlette Huntley, U.S.
Department of Education, 550 12th
Street, SW., Room 10071, Washington,
DC 20202–6450. If you prefer to send
your comments through e-mail, use the
following address:
carlette.huntley@ed.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carlette Huntley.
Telephone: (202) 245–7871 or by
e-mail: carlette.huntley@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at
1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final priorities, requirements,
and definitions, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific proposed priority,
requirement, or definition 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
these proposed priorities, requirements,
and definitions. Please let us know of
any further ways we could reduce
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 this notice in room 10096, 550
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday
through Friday of each week except
Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
PEP is to initiate, expand, and improve
physical education for students in
grades K–12.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7261–
7261f.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR part 299.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General: We propose a new direction
to strengthen and enhance PEP and to
support a broader, strategic vision for (a)
encouraging the development of lifelong
healthy habits, and (b) improving
nutrition and physical education
programming and policies in schools
and communities to prevent obesity and
to decrease the number of children who
are overweight or obese. This new
direction will focus on increasing
opportunities for students to be
physically active and practice good
nutritional habits in and out of school.
PEP’s new direction would apply
lessons learned and best practices based
on research and program evaluation that
were not available during PEP’s earlier
years. With this new direction, we seek
to provide funding to districts and
community-based organizations in
communities that plan to implement
comprehensive, integrated physical
activity and nutrition programs and
policies that are reinforced in and by the
community. By promoting sequential,
research-based physical education and
instruction in healthy eating and
implementing policies to encourage
physical activity and healthy eating, we
expect PEP projects to result in students
developing important skills, knowledge,
and behaviors that will translate into
healthy habits that will carry into
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
adulthood. Research demonstrates that
active, healthy youth are more likely to
become active, healthy adults.
Proposed Priorities:
This notice contains three proposed
priorities. One is proposed as an
absolute priority and two are proposed
as competitive priorities.
Proposed Absolute Priority—Programs
Designed To Create Quality Physical
Education Programs
Background:
Over the last decade, health and
education professionals, as well as
States and communities, have been
increasingly concerned about changing
health and behavior patterns related to
physical activity, nutrition, and weight
status. While a healthy lifestyle can help
prevent a host of serious health
outcomes, including heart disease and
diabetes, data show that a large
percentage of youth are sedentary and
neither active enough nor have a
healthy diet. Only about 17 percent of
high school students meet the current
recommendations for physical activity.1
In a recent study, about one-quarter of
high school students reported that they
used a computer or played computer or
video games more than three hours a
day and about 35 percent of high school
students reported watching television
three or more hours per day on an
average school day. Only 21 percent of
high school students reported eating
five or more fruits or vegetables each
day in the previous week.2 These
behaviors have contributed to a rise in
overweight and obese youth, with recent
studies indicating that 17 percent of 6–
11 year-olds and 17.6 percent of 12–19
year-olds are considered obese.
Furthermore, 33 percent of 6–11 year
olds and 34 percent of 12–19 year olds
1 Department of Health and Human Services.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
Washington, DC, 2008. The 2008 Physical Activity
Guidelines for Americans recommends 60 minutes
of physical activity per day for children and
adolescents, which should include moderate to
vigorous aerobic activity, as well as age-appropriate
muscle and bone strengthening activities.
2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2007. Accessed online
at https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth. The question
on physical activity asks about doing any kind of
physical activity that increased their heart rate and
made them breathe hard some of the time for a total
of at least 60 minutes per day on five or more of
the seven days before the survey. The question on
nutritional intake asks students to report if the
student ate fruits and vegetables (100 percent fruit
juices, fruit, green salad, potatoes [excluding French
fries, fried potatoes, or potato chips], carrots, or
other vegetables) five or more times per day during
the seven days before the survey.
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
are overweight; 3 these rates have
roughly doubled since 1980.4
Schools are most likely to have an
impact on student physical activity and
dietary behaviors when they provide
students with a quality physical
education program, nutrition instruction
and a healthy nutrition environment,
and multiple opportunities and settings
that promote and practice physical
activity and healthy eating.5 PEP’s
authorizing statute identifies six
program elements that may be included
in funded projects, and that, when
undertaken together, characterize a
quality program in physical education
and nutrition education. The six
program elements are designed to
provide the cognitive, instructional, and
experiential components that promote
the adoption of lifelong healthy habits,
as well as enhanced cooperative and
social skills for students, and ongoing
professional development for teachers
and staff. The program elements are: (1)
Fitness education and assessment to
help students understand, improve, or
maintain their physical well-being; (2)
instruction in a variety of motor skills
and physical activities designed to
enhance the physical, mental, and social
or emotional development of every
student; (3) development of, and
instruction in, cognitive concepts about
motor skills and physical fitness that
support a lifelong healthy lifestyle; (4)
opportunities to develop positive social
and cooperative skills through physical
activity participation; (5) instruction in
healthy eating habits and good
nutrition; and (6) opportunities for
professional development for teachers of
physical education to stay abreast of the
latest research, issues, and trends in the
field of physical education.
Historically, the Department has
required applicants for PEP grants to
address at least one of the six elements.
Beginning in 2004, we sought to refocus the program to include efforts that
strategically support the promotion of
lifelong healthy habits. We have funded
six cohorts of grantees under this
particular framework and, through our
observations, reviews of project reports,
work with grantees, and consultation
with other Federal agencies and nongovernmental partners, have concluded
that additional changes are necessary to
strengthen the program, better align it
3 ‘‘Overweight’’ is defined as at or above the 85th
percentile and ‘‘obese’’ is defined as at or above the
95th percentile on BMI-for-age growth charts.
4 Ogden C, Carroll M, Flegal K. High body mass
index for age among US children and adolescents,
2003–2006. JAMA. 2008;299(20): 2410–2405.
5 Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood
Obesity: Health in the Balance. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press, 2005.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
with the latest research and best
practices in the field, and fund
programs that are most likely to be
sustainable following the period of
Federal funding.
We believe that requiring applicants
to create programs and policies that
address element 5, regarding nutrition
instruction, plus at least one of the other
elements related to physical activity
will result in the development and
implementation of approaches that go
beyond instruction in physical
education or fulfillment of physical
education equipment needs, which have
been the historical foci of PEP-funded
projects. A combined focus on both
nutrition and physical activity and
physical education programming,
curricula, and related equipment
necessary for implementation, along
with changes to related physical activity
and nutrition policies, provide the basis
for an initiative that goes beyond
implementing a specific curriculum or
using a particular piece or set of
physical education equipment. Instead,
this requirement will encourage
applicants to consider the range of
approaches necessary to promoting
healthy habits within two broad
categories, instruction in healthy eating
and physical activity or physical
education, while allowing applicants to
design programs that best meet their
identified gaps and needs and enhance
their identified assets in as
comprehensive a manner as possible.
Proposed Absolute Priority:
Under this proposed priority, an
applicant would be required to develop,
expand, or improve its physical
education program and address its
State’s physical education standards 6
by undertaking the following activities:
(1) Instruction in healthy eating habits
and good nutrition and (2) physical
fitness activities that must include at
least one of the following: (a) Fitness
education and assessment to help
students understand, improve, or
maintain their physical well-being; (b)
instruction in a variety of motor skills
and physical activities designed to
enhance the physical, mental, and social
or emotional development of every
student; (c) development of, and
instruction in, cognitive concepts about
motor skills and physical fitness that
support a lifelong healthy lifestyle; (d)
opportunities to develop positive social
and cooperative skills through physical
activity participation; or (e)
opportunities for professional
development for teachers of physical
6 States that do not have their own physical
education standards may use another State’s
standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12523
education to stay abreast of the latest
research, issues, and trends in the field
of physical education.
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority 1—Collection of Body Mass
Index Measurement Background:
Over the last several years, with
increasing attention focused on the
childhood obesity epidemic, several
States and municipalities have begun
using the Body Mass Index (BMI) to
create awareness of the extent of weight
problems in their State or municipality.
Collecting data on BMI can identify the
percentages of students in the
population who are obese, overweight,
normal weight, and underweight.
Childhood obesity is associated with
cardiovascular disease risk factors,
including high blood pressure, high
cholesterol, and impaired fasting
glucose.7 Obese young people are more
likely than children of normal weight to
become overweight or obese adults and,
therefore, more at risk for associated
health problems during adulthood,
including heart disease, type 2 diabetes,
stroke, several types of cancer, and
osteoarthritis.8 Additionally, researchers
estimate that medical costs of the
obesity epidemic may total as much as
$147 billion annually.9
Several States and municipalities
have started using BMI as an approach
to identifying the percentage of youth in
the population who are obese,
overweight, normal weight, and
underweight. These data, in the
aggregate, can be used to describe the
weight status over time in the student
population; monitor progress toward
achieving national health objectives 10;
and monitor the effects of school-based
physical activity and nutrition policies
and programs.
BMI is a tool for assessing weight
status that is relatively easy to use and
correlates with body fat. The BMI is
based on a calculation using weight and
height (kg/m 2). Although the same
formula is used for adults, children, and
adolescents, weight status for children
7 Freedman D, Zuguo M, Srinivasan S, Berenson
G, Dietz W. Cardiovascular risk factors and excess
adiposity among overweight children and
adolescents: The Bogalusa Heart Study. J Pediatr.
2007;150(1): 12–17.
8 U.S. Surgeon General. Overweight and obesity:
Health consequences. Rockville, MD, 2001.
Accessed at https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/
obesity/on October 14, 2009.
9 Finkelstein E, Trogdon J, Cohen J, and Dietz W.
Annual medical spending attributable to obesity:
Payer-and service-specific estimates. Health Affairs.
2009; 28(5): w822–w831.
10 National health objectives can be found in
Healthy People, 2010, accessed at https://
www.healthypeople.gov/Document/html/uih/
uih_bw/uih_4.htm#overandobese on October 15,
2009.
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
12524
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
and adolescents is determined by
plotting BMI by age on a sex-specific
growth chart, created by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
and presented as a BMI-for-age
percentile (https://www.cdc.gov/
growthcharts). For children and
adolescents, the weight status categories
are ‘‘underweight’’ (BMI less than the 5th
percentile), ‘‘healthy weight’’ (BMI is
greater than the 5th percentile but less
than the 85th percentile), ‘‘overweight’’
(BMI is greater than the 85th percentile
and less than the 95th percentile) and
‘‘obese’’ (BMI is greater than the 95th
percentile). The BMI-for-age percentiles
identified by the CDC are the
recommended method of reporting size
and growth patterns among children in
the United States.11
As BMI is a measure of weight status
at only one point in time, it is important
for students, families, and policymakers to consider trends in BMI data
rather than taking action based on one
measurement point. For children and
teens, BMI is used as a screening tool,
not a diagnostic tool, which means that
it can suggest that a child may have a
weight concern but it is not a tool that
will determine that the child’s weight
status is a problem.12 A trained medical
care provider would need to perform
other follow-up assessments and tests 13
to determine if the student actually has
excess body fat or other health risks
related to obesity.
To understand a BMI score more
accurately, practitioners often also look
at other measures, such as assessments
of fitness levels, physical activity levels,
and nutritional intake. For policymakers, looking at prevalence and
trends in obesity among youth at the
school, district, and/or community
levels (as measured by the BMI) can
create awareness of the overall
population’s health and fitness, and
provide an impetus to improve policies,
practices, and services.
Program planners should carefully
consider the issues related to
undertaking a BMI assessment program
in a school or a school-related setting,
and should first define the intent of
their assessment program and the
desired outcomes they wish to achieve
by undertaking BMI assessment.
11 Krebs NF et al. Assessment of child and
adolescent overweight and obesity. Pediatrics.
2007;120:S193–S228.
12 Freedman D, Wang, J, Thornton J, Mei Z,
Sopher A, Pierson R, Dietz W, and Horlick M.
Classification of Body Mass Index-for-Age
Categories Among Children. Archives of Pediatrics
and Adolescent Medicine. 2009;163(9):805–811.
13 Additional assessments and tests could include
a patient’s medical history, family history, diet,
physical activity habits, and blood pressure and
laboratory tests, such as cholesterol levels.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
Program planners should consider how
these efforts would be understood and
accepted by the community. Planners
should also consider how the
information would be used in the
context of the other required measures
for this program (see the
REQUIREMENTS section of this notice)
and as part of the fitness assessments
that applicants may propose in response
to this program element in Proposed
Absolute Priority 1. When presented
with complementary measures of
fitness, physical activity, nutritional
habits, and behaviors to be addressed
through PEP, these measures provide
not only a means for assessing the
health and fitness of the student
population, but also ideas about
program and policy components that
require improvement and the ability to
monitor changes to these indicators over
time.
Grantees that receive funds under this
priority would be required to provide
parents with the choice to have their
child opt out of this assessment as part
of the development and implementation
of their BMI measurement practice, and
to inform parents of this choice.
Additionally, unless the BMI
assessment is permitted or required by
State law, local educational agency
(LEA) applicants must develop policies
in consultation with parents that
provide reasonable notice of the
applicant’s plan to collect BMI data, in
compliance with the Protection of Pupil
Rights Amendment (PPRA), 20 U.S.C.
1232h.
Planners should also consider the
timing and flow of students into the
assessment site to have their BMI
measured, how the measurement would
be performed, the equipment needed to
carry out the assessment, who would
perform the assessment, and how data
would be calculated, recorded, and
protected. These procedures should
adhere to the best available scientific
practices and procedures.
If program planners intend to provide
information to parents about their
children, planners should consider if
and how they would be able to access
follow-up testing or treatment by a
heath care provider, and might create a
referral system for youth who are
identified as obese, overweight, or
underweight. If the information will be
shared with parents, planners should
provide a clear and respectful
explanation of the BMI results and a list
of the appropriate actions. Resources are
available to help schools implement
these kinds of activities in the safest and
most effective way possible, including
CDC’s Children’s BMI Tool for Schools,
which can be accessed at: https://
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/
bmi/childrens_bmi/
tool_for_schools.html.
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority:
We propose giving a competitive
preference priority to applicants that
agree to implement aggregate BMI data
collection, and use it as part of a
comprehensive assessment of health
and fitness for the purposes of
monitoring the weight status of their
student population across time.
Applicants would be required to sign a
Program-Specific Assurance that would
commit them to:
(a) Use the CDC’s BMI-for-age growth
charts to interpret BMI results (https://
www.cdc.gov/growthcharts);
(b) Create a plan to develop and
implement a protocol that would
include parents in the development of
their BMI assessment and data
collection policies, including a
mechanism to allow parents to provide
feedback on the policy. Applicants
would be required to detail the
following required components in their
aggregate BMI data collection protocol:
The proposed method for measuring
BMI, who would perform the BMI
assessment (i.e., staff members trained
to obtain accurate and reliable height
and weight measurements), the
frequency of reporting, the planned
equipment to be used, methods for
calculating the planned sampling frame
(if the applicant would use sampling),
the policies used to ensure student
privacy during measurement, how the
data would be secured to protect
student confidentiality, who would
have access to the data, how long the
data will be kept, and what will happen
to the data after that time. Applicants
that intend to inform parents of their
student’s weight status must include
plans for notifying parents of that status,
and must include their plan for ensuring
that resources are available for safe and
effective follow-up with trained medical
care providers;
(c) Create a plan to notify parents of
the BMI assessment and to allow
parents to opt out of the BMI assessment
and reasonable notification of their
choice to opt out. Unless the BMI
assessment is permitted or required by
State law, LEA applicants would be
required to detail their policies for
providing reasonable notice of the
adoption or continued use of such
policies directly to the parents of the
students enrolled in the LEA’s schools
served by the agency. At a minimum,
the LEA would have to provide such
notice at least annually, at the beginning
of the school year and within a
reasonable period of time after any
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
substantive change in such policies,
pursuant to the Protection of Pupil
Rights Amendment, 20 U.S.C. Section
1232h(c)(2)(A); and
(d) De-identify the student
information (such as by removing the
student’s name and any identifying
information from the record and
assigning a record code 14), aggregate the
BMI data to the school or district level,
and make the aggregate data publicly
available and easily accessible to the
public annually. Applicants would need
to describe their plan for the level of
reporting they plan to use, depending
on the size of the population, such as at
the district level or the school level.
Applicants would also be required to
detail in their application their plan for
how these data will be used in
coordination with other required data
for the program, such as fitness,
physical activity, and nutritional intake
measures, and how the combination of
these measures will be used to improve
physical education programming and
policy.
On June 18, 1991, 17 Federal
Departments and Agencies, including
the Department of Education, adopted a
common set of regulations known as the
Federal Policy for the Protection of
Human Subjects or ‘‘Common Rule.’’ See
34 CFR Part 97. Applicants that engage
in BMI data collection may be subject to
the U.S. Department of Education’s
Protection of Human Subjects
regulations if the data are used in
research funded by the Federal
government or for any future research
conducted by an institution that has
adopted the Federal policy for all
research of that institution. The
regulations define research as ‘‘a
systematic investigation, including
research development, testing and
evaluation, designed to develop or
contribute to generalizable knowledge.
Activities which meet this definition
constitute research for purposes of this
policy, whether or not they are
conducted or supported under a
program which is considered research
for other purposes. For example, some
demonstration and service programs
may include research activities.’’ 34 CFR
97.102(d). Information on Human
Subjects requirements is found at:
https://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
ocfo/humansub.html.
14 LEAs are subject to the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act and must de-identify
education records based on regulations issued by
the Department of Education in December, 2008.
More information can be found at: https://
www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/
ferparegs.pdf. CBO applicants should follow all
applicable Federal, State, and local privacy laws
and regulations regarding the de-identification of
personal data.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
Applications that do not provide a
Program-Specific Assurance signed by
an Authorized Representative
committing the applicant to completing
the tasks above during their project
period would not be eligible for
competitive preference points.
In implementing this proposed
priority, we would encourage applicants
to consult with their partners to
determine if and how any of the
partners could contribute to the data
collection, reporting, or potential
referral processes.
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority 2—Partnerships Between
Applicants and Supporting Community
Entities
Background:
Most research demonstrates that to
effectively change social norms and
behaviors, coordinated, multicomponent approaches and policies are
necessary.15 As part of a comprehensive
approach to encouraging youth to be
more physically active and eat healthier
foods, schools and communities should
have common and consistent policies,
practices, and expectations for healthy
eating and physical activity and provide
the opportunity for healthy lifestyle
choices in all settings in which a child
spends time, throughout the student’s
day, including before, during, and after
school, as well as on weekends,
holidays, and vacations.16
This type of community effort
requires a sustained commitment from
LEAs and schools, local government,
community-based organizations (CBOs),
the health sector, businesses, parents,
and community members. Schools have
a critical role to play in teaching
students about physical activity, fitness,
and healthy choices, and providing
opportunities to practice making
healthy choices throughout the day. But
students spend a significant amount of
time outside of school, which makes it
important to implement a consistent
community approach that reinforces
and supports lessons and messages that
are taught and learned in schools. For
example, CBOs, particularly those CBOs
that provide before- or after-school or
summer programs, can play an
important role in supplementing the
skills and concepts that students learn
in school. CBOs can also help LEAs
target specific populations of students
who may be underserved or at higher
15 Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood
Obesity: Health in the Balance. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press, 2005.
16 IOM (Institute of Medicine) and National
Research Council. 2009. Local Government Actions
to Prevent Childhood Obesity. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12525
risk of becoming overweight or obese, or
provide additional expertise in such
areas as nutrition instruction.
We have found that CBOs that have
received PEP grants function optimally
when they work collaboratively with
one or more schools in the area served
by the project. Grantees that conduct
their projects separately from a school’s
or an LEA’s efforts are often less familiar
with State standards for physical
education and, as a result, struggle to
develop projects that help students meet
or exceed these standards. Some CBOs
also find it challenging to attract
students to their programs, maintain the
students’ attendance at their programs,
and deliver services that complement
those that schools are already providing.
A partnership between a CBO and an
LEA or school should help ensure that
these challenges will be addressed.
Although some current grantees’
communities may be engaged in efforts
to improve physical activity and
nutrition, these efforts are not always
coordinated with the PEP grant, often
resulting in disjointed and inconsistent
efforts to improve physical activity and
nutrition policy and programs in
schools and communities. Thus, a more
coordinated effort would improve the
community’s ability to positively affect
youth physical activity participation,
childhood nutrition, and fitness, and
prevent and reduce the trends of
overweight and obese youth by
fundamentally changing the policies
and practices of the settings where
children spend their time before,
during, and after school.
We also believe that a formal
partnership agreement will
institutionalize this collaboration and
ensure that local leadership is
committed to investing in these efforts.
Applicants might leverage these formal
partnerships to secure the required
matching funds for a PEP grant, such as
through donated time, expertise, and
other resources. Further, partners from
public health agencies might also
increase applicants’ awareness of best
practices and research-based approaches
in the public health field, as well as
connect applicants to other related
efforts in the community and to
potential funding streams, which could
increase the likelihood of the PEP
project being sustained after the end of
Federal funding.
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority:
We propose giving a competitive
preference priority to an applicant that
includes in its application an agreement
that details the participation of required
partners, as defined in this notice. The
agreement would have to include a
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
12526
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
description of: (1) Each partner’s roles
and responsibilities in the project; (2) if
and how each partner will contribute to
the project, including any contribution
to the local match; (3) an assurance that
the application was developed after
timely and meaningful consultation
between the required parties, as defined
in this notice; and (4) a commitment to
work together to reach the desired goals
and outcomes of the project. The partner
agreement would be required to be
signed by the Authorized Representative
of each of the required partners and by
other partners as available and
appropriate.
For an LEA applicant, we propose
that this partnership agreement must
include: (1) The LEA; (2) at least one
CBO; (3) a local public health entity, as
defined in this notice; (4) the LEA’s food
service or child nutrition director; and
(5) the head of the local government, as
defined in this notice.
For a CBO applicant, we propose that
the partnership agreement must include:
(1) The CBO; (2) a local public health
entity, as defined in this notice; (3) a
local organization supporting nutrition
or healthy eating, as defined in this
notice; (4) the head of the local
government, as defined in this notice;
and (5) the LEA from which the largest
number of students expected to
participate in the CBO’s project attend.
If the CBO applicant is a school, such
as a parochial or other private school,
the applicant would need to describe its
school as part of the partnership
agreement but would not be required to
provide an additional signature from a
different LEA or school. A CBO
applicant that is a school and serves its
own population of students would be
required also to include another
community CBO as part of its
partnership and include the head of that
CBO as a signatory on the partnership
agreement.
Although partnerships with other
parties are required, the eligible
applicant would have to retain the
administrative and fiscal control of the
project.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the 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
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirements:
Background:
The Department believes that the
following proposed requirements will
result in PEP projects that are more
likely to have an impact on children’s
health, fitness levels, and dietary habits.
Proposed Requirements:
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for
Safe and Drug-Free Schools proposes
the following requirements for this
program. We may apply one or more of
these requirements in any year in which
this program is in effect.
Proposed Requirement 1—Align Project
Goals With Identified Needs Using the
School Health Index
Background:
In order to ensure that PEP projects
meet the needs of the schools and
communities they are intended to serve,
it is critical that the nutrition and
physical education program needs, as
well as the policies that support them,
be assessed. The CDC’s Division of
Adolescent and School Health has
developed the School Health Index
(SHI), a self-assessment and planning
tool that schools can use to assess their
student health policies and programs
and their ‘‘school health environment.’’
The SHI includes eight self-assessment
modules: (1) School Health and Safety
Policies and Environment; (2) Health
Education; (3) Physical Education and
Other Physical Activity Programs; (4)
Nutrition Services; (5) Health Services;
(6) Counseling, Psychological, and
Social Services; (7) Health Promotion
for Staff; and (8) Family and Community
Involvement. The SHI enables schools
to develop an action plan for improving
student health, which can be
incorporated into the School Health
Improvement Plan.
CDC has developed two forms of the
SHI, one for elementary schools and one
for middle and high schools. Although
much of the content is identical on
each, there are some differences that
reflect the developmental differences
between elementary school students and
middle and high school students.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Completing the SHI allows a school to
assess its health policies and practices
and to compare those policies and
practices with national standards and
recommendations. The CDC estimates
that undertaking the Physical Education
and Other Physical Activity Programs
and Nutrition Services SHI modules
will take approximately one to three
hours. For more information about the
SHI, please see https://www.cdc.gov/
healthyyouth/SHI.
In the context of PEP, we believe that
the SHI will provide applicants with a
framework for assessing their strengths
and weaknesses, which can then be
used to design programs based on
identified gaps and plans to address
these gaps. We have found that many
PEP applicants have not undertaken this
type of self-assessment prior to
submitting their grant applications and,
not having done so, have created
programs and policies that are not
responsive to their site’s needs or
aligned with best practices in the field.
Because the SHI must be done at the
school-building level, CBOs cannot
undertake the SHI without the support
and participation of a school or LEA.
Therefore, we suggest that CBO
applicants collaborate with an identified
school or LEA partner to complete the
physical activity and nutrition questions
in modules 1–4 of the SHI.
To meet this requirement, CBO
applicants that do not collaborate with
an LEA or school may propose and use
a local needs assessment tool that
analyzes the physical activity and
nutrition environments at the
community level and, ideally, at the
CBO site itself. The CBO applicant
would need to specify the local needs
assessment tool used, as well as the
results of the assessment. The
applicant’s program must be designed to
address the needs and gaps identified
through the needs assessment.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that applicants be
required to complete the physical
activity and nutrition questions in
Modules 1–4 of the CDC’s SHI selfassessment tool and to develop project
goals and plans that address the
identified needs. Modules 1–4 are
School Health and Safety Policies and
Environment, Health Education,
Physical Activity and Other Physical
Activity Programs, and Nutrition
Services. The applicant would use the
SHI self-assessment to develop a School
Health Improvement Plan focused on
improving these issues, and design an
initiative that addresses their identified
gaps and weaknesses. Applicants would
be required to include their Overall
Score Card for the questions answered
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
in modules 1–4 in their application, and
correlate their School Health
Improvement Plan to their project
design. Grantees would also be required
to complete the same modules of the
SHI at the end of the project period and
submit the Overall Score Card from the
second assessment in their final reports
to demonstrate SHI completion and
program improvement as a result of PEP
funding.
If a CBO applicant (unless the CBO is
a school) is in a partner agreement with
an LEA or school, it would be required
to collaborate with its partner or
partners to complete modules 1–4 of the
SHI.
Alternatively, if the CBO has not
identified a school or LEA partner, the
CBO would be required to use an
alternative needs assessment tool to
assess the nutrition and physical
activity environment in the community
for children. CBO applicants would be
required to include their overall
findings from the community needs
assessment and correlate their findings
with their project design. Grantees
would also be required to complete the
same needs assessment at the end of
their project and submit their findings
in their final reports to demonstrate the
completion of the assessment and
program involvement as a result of PEP
funding.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Requirement 2—Nutritionand Physical Activity-Related Policies
Background:
In recent years, research has shown
that interventions to change behaviors
and develop healthy habits, including
physical activity and healthy eating,
cannot rely on instruction alone.17
Although interventions that focus on a
single element of PEP may produce
positive behavior changes, they
typically result in smaller effects than
those produced by comprehensive,
multi-sector interventions that include
changes to programs and curricula and
create or enhance policies encouraging
physical activity and healthy eating
choices.18 Applicants can identify
physical activity and nutrition policies
to address using their State’s standards
for physical education and the results
from their SHI assessment.
Research also shows that policy
interventions and environmental
changes can promote desirable
behaviors and discourage negative
behaviors.19 20 To encourage students to
eat more healthy foods in and out of
17 Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood
Obesity: Health in the Balance. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press, 2005.
18 Ibid.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:53 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
school, policies might include those
governing the sale of ‘‘competitive
foods’’ 21 at school, and food placement
and pricing in cafeterias; policies on
vending machines and on food sold as
fundraisers; developing partnerships
with farms or farmers’ markets; adopting
the recent Institute of Medicine
recommendations for school meals that
include more fruits and vegetables,
whole grains, and low-fat dairy
products ; 22 or creating school or
community gardens.
Physical activity-related policy
improvements that might enhance the
applicant’s programs include, but are
not limited to: staffing policies that
enable a physical educator to
coordinate, plan, and direct the
comprehensive program related to all
physical activity efforts in the school,
including those related to policy;
integrating physical activity into the
classroom to foster learning and
increase children’s physical activity;
removing barriers to enable children to
walk or bike to school or in the
community; encouraging time for recess;
developing and implementing joint-use
agreements for use of facilities or
equipment between schools and
communities or community groups;
providing supervision of play areas
during out-of-school time; altering bus
schedules to facilitate after-school
program participation; establishing time
requirements for physical education;
requiring certification and professional
development for physical education
teachers; setting class size limits; and
reviewing the use of waivers that allow
students to opt out of physical
education class.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that grantees be required
to develop, update, or enhance physical
activity policies and food- and
nutrition-related policies that promote
healthy eating and physical activity
throughout students’ everyday lives, as
part of their PEP projects. Applicants
would describe in their application their
current policy framework, areas of
focus, and the planned process for
19 Peterson D, Zeger S, Remington P, Anderson P.
The effect of state cigarette tax increases on
cigarette sales, 1985–1988. American Journal of
Public Health. 82(1): 94–96.
20 French S, Story M, Breitlow K, Baxter J,
Hannan P, Snyder M. Pricing and promotion effects
on low-fat vending and snack purchases: The
CHIPS study. American Journal of Public Health.
91(1): 112–117.
21 ‘‘Competitive foods’’ are defined as any foods
and beverages sold at a school separately from the
US Department of Agriculture’s school meal
programs.
22 Institute of Medicine. 2010, School Meals:
Building Blocks for Healthy Children. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12527
policy development, implementation,
review, and monitoring. Grantees would
be required to detail at the end of their
project period in their final reports the
physical activity and nutrition policies
selected and how the policies improved
through the course of the project.
Applicants would be required to sign
a Program-Specific Assurance that
commits them to developing, updating,
or enhancing these policies during the
project period. Applicants that do not
submit such a Program-Specific
Assurance signed by the applicant’s
Authorized Representative would be
ineligible for the competition.
Proposed Requirement 3—Linkage
With Local Wellness Policies
Background:
The local wellness policy provision of
the Child Nutrition Act of 2004 (Pub. L.
108–265) requires that each LEA
participating in a program authorized by
the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) or the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
1771 et seq.) have a local wellness
policy beginning in school year 2006–
2007.
Under these provisions, a local
wellness policy, at a minimum, includes
goals for nutrition education, physical
activity, and other school-based
activities designed to promote student
wellness; nutrition guidelines for all
foods available on each school campus;
guidelines for reimbursable school
meals that are no less restrictive than
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) regulations and guidelines; and
a plan for measuring implementation,
including designation of one or more
persons at the LEA or school level
charged with operational responsibility
for ensuring that the school meets the
local wellness policies. In addition,
parents, students, and various other
‘‘stakeholders’’ must be involved in the
development of the local wellness
policy.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that applicants that are
participating in a program authorized by
the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of
1966 must describe in their applications
their school district’s established local
wellness policy and how the proposed
PEP project will align with and support,
complement, and enhance the
implementation of the applicant’s local
wellness policy. The LEA’s local
wellness policy should address all
requirements in the Child Nutrition Act
of 2004.
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
12528
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
We propose that CBO applicants
describe in their applications how their
proposed projects will enhance or
support the intent of the local wellness
policies of their LEA partner(s), if they
are working in a partnership.
If an applicant or a member of its
partnership does not participate in the
school lunch program authorized by the
Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of
1966, it would not necessarily have a
local wellness policy and, thus, would
not be required to meet this requirement
or adopt a local wellness policy.
However, we would encourage such
applicants to develop and adopt a local
wellness policy, consistent with the
provisions in the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act or the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 in conjunction
with its PEP project.
Applicants would be required to sign
a Program-Specific Assurance that
commits them to align their PEP project
with the district’s Local Wellness
Policy, if applicable. Applicants that do
not submit a Program Specific
Assurance signed by the applicant’s
Authorized Representative would be
ineligible for the competition.
Proposed Requirement 4—Linkages
With Federal, State, and Local
Initiatives
Background:
We believe that projects should
conduct their activities in a manner that
is coordinated, to the extent possible,
with other, similar ongoing or planned
State or local health and wellness
initiatives.
For example, PEP projects, through
their support of physical activity and
nutrition instruction initiatives,
complement the CDC’s Coordinated
School Health framework. This
framework is a systemic model that
integrates the basic, minimum
components necessary for promoting the
health and safety of students in schools.
There are eight components of the
Coordinated School Health Program: (1)
Health Education; (2) Physical
Education; (3) Health Services; (4)
Nutrition Services; (5) Counseling and
Psychological Services; (6) Healthy
School Environments; (7) Health
Promotion for Staff; and (8) Family and
Community Involvement.
PEP projects could also complement
the USDA’s Team Nutrition initiative,
which provides training and technical
assistance for food service professionals,
nutrition instruction for children and
their caregivers, and school and
community support for creating healthy
school environments that are conducive
to healthy eating and physical activity.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
More information on Team Nutrition
can be found at: https://
www.teamnutrition.usda.gov.
The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) will also be
providing funds to local public health
departments to create community-level
interventions to address obesity trends
in both adults and children. This
initiative funded under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
specifically the ‘‘Recovery Act
Communities Putting Prevention to
Work—Community Initiative,’’ focuses
on developing and promoting
partnerships, programmatic support,
community mentoring, and evaluation
to achieve the following prevention
outcomes: (1) Increased levels of
physical activity; (2) improved
nutrition; (3) decreased overweight/
obesity prevalence; (4) decreased
smoking prevalence and decreasing teen
smoking initiation; and (5) decreased
exposure to second-hand smoke. More
information on this program can be
found at: https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/
recovery/. Applications for grants under
this HHS program were due December
1, 2009, but grantees are not likely to be
announced until after PEP’s application
period would close. As such, PEP
applicants would only have to agree to
coordinate efforts funded under this
HHS program with activities funded by
PEP should their communities receive
both grants.
Many other Federal, State, and local
initiatives also work to promote healthy
nutrition and physical activity and, if
applicable, should be coordinated with
PEP project efforts. These other
programs include, but are not limited to,
Alliance for a Healthier Generation
(https://www.healthiergeneration.org/),
Farm-to-School initiatives (https://
www.farmtoschool.org/), the YMCA’s
Pioneering Healthier Communities
(https://www.ymca.net/
activateamerica/), Action for Healthy
Kids State or local teams (https://
www.actionforhealthykids.org/), and
USDA’s HealthierUS School Challenge
(https://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/
healthierus/).
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that if an applicant is
implementing the CDC’s Coordinated
School Health program, it be required to
coordinate project activities with that
initiative and describe in its application
how the proposed PEP project will be
coordinated and integrated with the
program.
We propose that if an applicant
receives funding under the USDA’s
Team Nutrition initiative (Team
Nutrition Training Grants), the
applicant must describe in its
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
application how the proposed PEP
project supports the efforts of this
initiative.
We propose that an applicant for a
PEP project in a community that
receives a grant under the Recovery Act
Communities Putting Prevention to
Work—Community Initiative must agree
to coordinate its PEP project efforts with
those under the Recovery Act
Communities Putting Prevention to
Work-Community Initiative.
We propose that applicants and PEPfunding projects must complement,
rather than duplicate, existing, ongoing
or new efforts whose goals and
objectives are to promote physical
activity and healthy eating or help
students meet their State standards for
physical education.
Applicants would be required to sign
a Program-Specific Assurance that
commits them to align their PEP project
with the Coordinated School Health
program, Team Nutrition Training
Grant, Recovery Act Communities
Putting Prevention to Work- Community
Initiative, or any other similar Federal,
State, or local initiatives. Applicants
that do not submit a Program Specific
Assurance signed by the applicant’s
Authorized Representative would be
ineligible for the competition.
Proposed Requirement 5—Updates to
Physical Education and Nutrition
Instruction Curricula
Background:
Having a strong and appropriate
curriculum is critical to ensuring that
students develop and practice new
skills. Historically, many PEP grantees
purchased or designed new curricula
before they had fully assessed the needs
of their population or the capacity of
their staff to implement that curriculum.
In our experience, most PEP grantees do
not implement a systematic, sequential
nutrition instruction curriculum, but,
rather, rely on one-time nutrition
modules to provide instruction on
healthy eating.
The CDC’s Physical Education
Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT)
helps LEAs and others conduct a clear,
complete, and consistent analysis of
written physical education curricula,
based upon national physical education
standards. This free tool helps LEAs
analyze written physical education
curricula and can serve as a guide in
developing or identifying a curriculum
aligned with the LEA’s goals and
objectives for physical education
programs that help them make progress
toward meeting State standards for
physical education.
The CDC’s Health Education
Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT) is a
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
similar free tool, comparable to the
PECAT, used to assess health education
curricula, and is intended to help LEAs,
schools, and others conduct a clear,
complete, and consistent analysis of
health education curricula based on the
National Health Education Standards
and CDC’s Characteristics of Effective
Health Education Curricula. The
HECAT results can help LEAs or CBOs
select or develop appropriate and
effective health education curricula and
improve the delivery of health
education. The HECAT can be
customized to meet local needs and
conform to the State or LEA curriculum
requirements. The HECAT’s healthy
eating module can be used to determine
the extent to which curricula are likely
to enable students to master the
essential concepts and skills that
promote healthy eating.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that applicants that plan
to use grant-related funds, including
Federal and non-Federal matching
funds, to create, update, or enhance
their physical education or nutrition
education curricula be required to use
the Physical Education Curriculum
Analysis Tool (PECAT) and submit their
overall PECAT scorecard, and the
curriculum improvement plan from
PECAT. We also propose that applicants
that plan to use grant-related funds,
including Federal and non-Federal
matching funds to create, update, or
enhance their nutrition instruction in
health education be required to
complete the healthy eating module of
the Health Education Curriculum
Analysis Tool (HECAT). Applicants
must use the curriculum improvement
plan from the PECAT to identify
curricular changes to be addressed
during the funding period. Applicants
must also describe how the HECAT
assessment would be used to guide
nutrition instruction curricular changes.
If an applicant is not proposing to use
grant-related funds for physical
education or nutrition instruction
curricula, it would not need to use these
tools.
Proposed Requirement 6—Equipment
Purchases
Background:
We have found that some PEP
grantees have used a significant portion
of their PEP funds to purchase physical
education equipment but that the use of
this equipment is not always tied to a
quality physical education program.
Although equipment purchases may be
essential to the project, these purchases
alone do not constitute a comprehensive
program. We have also found that PEP
grantees have not always tied the use of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
that equipment to their physical
education curriculum or physical
education State standards. Because the
needs of students or staff may not have
been considered before equipment was
purchased, we have found that
equipment purchased under this
program did not always complement
ongoing instructional efforts, was not
part of a sustainable program, and was
sometimes used neither throughout the
duration of the PEP program nor after
the grant period ended.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that purchases of
equipment with PEP funds or related to
grant activities (including equipment
purchased with funds offered to meet
the program’s matching requirement)
must be aligned with the curricular
components of the applicant’s physical
education and nutrition program.
Applicants must commit to aligning the
students’ use of the equipment with PEP
elements applicable to their projects,
identified in priority 1, and any
applicable curricula by signing a
Program Specific Assurance. Applicants
that do not submit a Program Specific
Assurance signed by the applicant’s
Authorized Representative would be
ineligible for the competition.
Proposed Requirement 7—Increasing
Transparency and Accountability
Background:
Another critical component to
program success is ensuring that
projects are meeting their desired goals
by increasing ‘‘transparency’’ and
accountability to parents, students,
policy-makers, and the community.
Regularly sharing information with
parents about the work of the grantee
would help them understand and
reinforce lessons learned before, during,
and after school, and would encourage
students to make healthy choices.
Sharing information with local policymakers should result in increased
accountability and help policy-makers
understand the challenges children face
in making healthy choices. This
increased level of accountability, in
turn, would encourage local policymakers to invest in promising programs
and make budget and policy decisions
that would complement, support, and
enhance each project’s efforts.
Program information provided to the
community would include programrelated measures related to the changes
made by the LEAs or CBOs and could
potentially be compared to those made
in other communities. Additionally,
reports to parents of students under 18
years old would include information on
the progress of their child on measures
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12529
related to that child’s fitness and
nutrition.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that grantees create or use
existing reporting mechanisms to
provide information on students’
progress, in the aggregate, on the key
program indicators, as described in this
notice and required under the
Government Performance and Results
Act, as well as on any unique projectlevel measures proposed in the
application. Grantees that are
educational agencies or institutions
would be subject to applicable Federal,
State, and local privacy provisions,
including the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act—a law that generally
prohibits the non-consensual disclosure
of personally identifiable information in
a student’s education record. All
grantees must comply with applicable
Federal, State, and local privacy
provisions. The aggregate-level
information should be easily accessible
by the public, such as posted on the
grantee’s or a partner’s Web site.
Applicants would be required to
describe in their application the
planned method for reporting.
Applicants would be required to
commit to reporting information to the
public, including parents of students
under 18 years old, by signing a
Program Specific Assurance. Applicants
that do not submit a Program Specific
Assurance signed by the applicant’s
Authorized Representative would be
ineligible for the competition.
Proposed Requirement 8—Participation
in a National Evaluation
Background:
We have funded nine cohorts under
the PEP program but have not yet
undertaken a national evaluation to
assess how the program has been
implemented across sites. In 2008, the
Department initiated a national
evaluation effort to assess the PEP’s
processes and outcomes. The evaluation
will use the grantees funded in FY 2010
for a national evaluation, and will
follow this cohort through at least two
years of implementation. We continue
to collaborate with the contractor to
identify an appropriate study design,
which will be developed based on the
final priorities and design of the FY
2010 PEP competition.
Proposed Requirement:
The applicant must provide
documentation of its commitment to
participate in the U.S. Department of
Education’s evaluation. An LEA
applicant must include a letter from the
research office or research board
approving its participation in the
evaluation (if approval is needed), and
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
12530
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
a letter from the Authorized
Representative agreeing to participate in
the evaluation.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Requirement 9—Required
Performance Measures and Data
Collection Methodology
Background:
Since 2006, PEP grantees have been
required to report on two performance
measures, established under the
Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA). The PEP GPRA measures
have been: (1) The percentage of
elementary school students who engage
in 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous
physical activity per week; and (2) The
percentage of middle and/or high school
students who engage in 225 minutes of
moderate to vigorous physical activity
per week.
Although these GPRA measures are a
marked improvement from past GPRA
measures under this program, they are
not consistent with the physical activity
guidelines that recommend 60 minutes
of daily physical activity for children
and adolescents.23 In addition, we have
also found that grantees collect and
report their data in a variety of ways,
which makes data aggregation and
comparability across and between
cohorts difficult.
The proposed changes to the PEP
program, as described in this notice,
would require a broader set of indicators
to reflect the full range of activities to
be undertaken. Therefore, we propose
new GPRA measures that would provide
comprehensive data on the following: 1.
Physical activity levels; 2. Fitness
levels; and 3. Nutritional habits of
students involved in the PEP program.
The proposed measures would require
that districts aggregate data at the
district and school level to facilitate
program evaluation, rather than the
assessment of individual students.
In addition to proposing new GPRA
performance measures, this notice
proposes a standard data collection
methodology for each new proposed
GPRA measure. The data collection
methodologies proposed here are
considered valid by researchers in the
fields of physical activity and nutrition.
The first new GPRA measure is the
extent to which grantees increase the
number of students who are physically
active for at least 60 minutes a day. The
proposed methods for assessing this
proposed GPRA measure are pedometry
for students in grades K–12 and an
additional self-report questionnaire for
23 Department
of Health and Human Services.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
Washington, DC, 2008.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:53 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
students in grades 5–12. Students would
wear pedometers all day for four
consecutive days (K–6), and eight
consecutive days for students in 7th–
12th grades.24 One of the measurement
days must be a weekend day. This data
collection methodology is a valid and
reliable protocol for assessing children’s
physical activity throughout the day,
and has been used for many years in
many settings with large numbers of
students.25 26 27 Using pedometers
would provide the number of steps
students accumulate during the day and
the number of minutes of students’
activity during the day, using specific
formulas to convert steps counts into
minutes of physical activity. In
addition, students in grades 5–12 would
complete the three-day physical activity
recall. This self-report would ask
students to evaluate their activity based
on each 30-minute period between 7:00
a.m. and 10:30 p.m. based on activity
type, intensity, and length of time. A
self-report measure is a reliable, costeffective means of gathering information
from participants in this age range and
provides important qualitative
information that can be used to inform
or modify the physical activity program.
The second proposed GPRA
performance measure is student fitness
levels. We propose that grantees
measure fitness levels by assessing a
student’s cardiorespiratory or aerobic
capacity fitness using the 20-meter
shuttle run. Specifically, grantees would
assess the number of students in middle
and high school who achieve ageappropriate cardiovascular fitness levels
using the 20-meter shuttle run.
Researchers have determined that this
type of assessment reliably measures a
student’s cardiovascular fitness, a key
health and fitness measure.
24 Students will be instructed on how to wear the
pedometer and will be asked to place the pedometer
on in the morning and remove the pedometer in the
evening, during bathing/showering, or when they
are swimming. Students can be introduced to
pedometers and provided an orientation to
pedometers during physical education. This phase
exposes them to how pedometers work, allows
them to explore moving with a pedometer, provides
them the opportunity to put the pedometer on, and
allows the PE teacher or physical activity leader to
emphasize that pedometers are like any PE
equipment that must be returned.
25 Craig C, Tudor-Locke C, Cragg S, Cameron C.
Process and treatment of pedometer data collection
for youth: The Canadian Physical Activity Levels
among Youth Study. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010;
42(3): 430–435.
26 Tudor-Locke C, Lee S, Morgan C, Beighle A,
Pangrazi R. Children’s pedometer-determined
physical activity during the segmented school day.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2006; 38(10): 1732–1738.
27 LeMasurier G, Beighle A, Corbin C, Barst P,
Morgan C, Pangrazi R, Wilde B, Vincent S.
Pedometer-determined physical activity levels of
youth. Journal of Physical Activity and Health.
2005; 2: 159–168.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The third proposed GPRA measure
would focus on students’ nutritional
habits by assessing daily fruit and
vegetable consumption. This measure
would not only reflect changes in
students’ behaviors and their
internalization of lessons learned, but
potentially also changes to the offerings
available to students as a result of the
PEP program’s focus on changes to
nutrition policies.
We propose that grantees assess
nutritional habits for high school
students by administering five
designated fruit and vegetable questions
from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey.28
We are seeking comment on how
grantees could accurately assess
nutritional habits of elementary and
middle school students.
We propose that all grantees use the
methodologies described so that we can
collect consistent data from all grantees
about program success and improve the
quality of the PEP program evaluation.
In addition, Department staff would be
more easily able to provide technical
assistance to grantees on the proposed
data collection methodologies.
Many districts are already using these
indicators and methodologies. If LEAs
or communities are using the
methodologies described, they may use
their existing systems to capture and
report on these indicators for their
proposed PEP project.
Proposed Requirement:
Grantees would be required to collect
and report data on three GPRA measures
using uniform data collection methods.
Measure one would assess physical
activity levels: The number of students
that engage in 60 minutes of daily
physical activity. Grantees would be
required to use pedometers for students
in grades K–12 and an additional 3-Day
Physical Activity Recall (3DPAR)
instrument to collect data on students in
grades 5–12.
Measure two would focus on student
fitness levels: The number of students
who achieve age-appropriate
cardiovascular fitness levels. Grantees
would be required to use the 20-meter
shuttle run to assess cardiovascular
fitness in middle and high school
students.
Measure three would require grantees
to measure the percentage of students
28 The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
More information on the YRBS can be found at
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth.
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
served by the grant who consumed fruit
two or more times per day and
vegetables three or more times per day.
Programs serving high school students
would be required to use the nutritionrelated questions from the Youth Risk
Behavior Survey to determine the
number of students who meet these
goals. We request comment on how
grantees serving elementary and/or
middle students might assess nutritional
intake by, for example, using a set of
questions similar to those in the Youth
Risk Behavior Survey, to assess
nutritional intake of these students.
Depending on the comments received,
we may recommend or require a specific
methodology to be used with
elementary and middle school students
to assess nutritional intake for these
students.
For each measure, grantees would be
required to collect and aggregate data
from four discrete data collection
periods throughout each year. During
the first year, grantees would have an
additional data collection period prior
to program implementation to collect
baseline data.
Proposed Definitions:
Background:
We are proposing the following
definitions to describe the specific and
appropriate partners whose
participation would be most likely to
result in enhanced program
implementation and sustainability and
that applicants will designate in their
applications.
Proposed Definitions:
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for
Safe and Drug-Free Schools proposes
the following definition for this
program.
We may apply one or more of these
definitions in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Organization supporting nutrition or
healthy eating means a local public or
private non-profit school, health-related
professional organization, or local
business that has demonstrated interest
and efforts in promoting student health
or nutrition. This term would include,
but not be limited to LEAs (particularly
an LEA’s school food or child nutrition
director), grocery stores, supermarkets,
restaurants, corner stores, farmers’
markets, farms, other private businesses,
hospitals, institutions of higher
education, Cooperative Extension
Service and 4H Clubs, and community
gardening organizations, when such
entities have demonstrated a clear intent
to promote student health and nutrition
or have made tangible efforts to do so.
This definition would not include
representatives from trade associations
or representatives from any organization
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
representing any producers or marketers
of food or beverage product(s).
Head of local government means the
party responsible for the civic
functioning of the county, city, town, or
municipality and includes, but is not
limited to, the mayor, city manager, or
county executive.
Local public health entity means an
administrative or service unit of local or
State government concerned with health
and carrying some responsibility for the
health of a jurisdiction smaller than the
State (except that for Rhode Island and
Hawaii, because these States’ health
departments operate on behalf of local
public health and have no sub-State
units, the definition would apply to the
State health department).
Final Priorities, Requirements, and
Definitions:
We will announce the final priorities,
requirements, and definitions in a
notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities,
requirements, and definitions after
considering responses to this notice and
other information available to the
Department. This notice does not
preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, and definitions, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Executive Order 12866: This notice
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
proposed regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with
this proposed regulatory action 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 proposed regulatory
action, we have determined that the
benefits of the proposed priorities,
requirements, and definitions justify the
costs.
We have determined, also, that this
proposed regulatory action does not
unduly interfere with State, local, and
tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The
potential costs associated with the
proposed priorities and requirements
are minimal while the potential benefits
are significant.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12531
Grantees may anticipate costs in
developing their partnerships and time
spent in developing infrastructure for
supporting integrated, comprehensive
programming and policies, and building
data and accountability systems and
processes. Additional costs associated
with developing a structure and system
for conducting and analyzing BMI
include identifying staff who can
conduct the assessment, creating and
implementing processes, and
identifying methods for dissemination.
The benefits include creating a
comprehensive, coordinated program
that is likely to be sustained after the
end of the project period. Creating and
leveraging community partners will
allow grantees to amplify their project
efforts and to increase the likelihood
that the activities will become
institutionalized. Grantees and the
Department will also benefit from the
improved focus on outcomes and
accountability by uniformly tracking
student-level indicators over time.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this
proposed regulatory action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this proposed
regulatory action will affect are small
LEAs or nonprofit organizations
applying for and receiving funds under
this program. The Secretary believes
that the costs imposed on applicants by
the proposed priorities, requirements,
and definitions would be limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing
an application and that the benefits of
implementing these proposals would
outweigh any costs incurred by
applicants.
Participation in this program is
voluntary. For this reason, the proposed
priorities, requirements, and definitions
would impose no burden on small
entities in general. Eligible applicants
would determine whether to apply for
funds, and have the opportunity to
weigh the requirements for preparing
applications, and any associated costs,
against the likelihood of receiving
funding and the requirements for
implementing projects under the
program. Eligible applicants most likely
would apply only if they determine that
the likely benefits exceed the costs of
preparing an application. The likely
benefits include the potential receipt of
a grant as well as other benefits that may
accrue to an entity through its
development of an application, such as
the use of that application to spur
improvement in physical education
planning without additional Federal
funding.
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
12532
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
The U.S. Small Business
Administration Size Standards defines
as ‘‘small entities’’ for-profit or nonprofit
institutions with total annual revenue
below $7,000,000 or, if they are
institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions (that are
comprised of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts), with a population of
less than 50,000. The Urban Institute’s
National Center for Charitable Statistics
reported that of 203,635 nonprofit
organizations that had an educational
mission and reported revenue to the IRS
by July 2009, 200,342 (or about 98
percent) had revenues of less than $5
million. In addition, there are 12,484
LEAs in the country that meet the
definition of small entity. However,
given program history, the Secretary
believes that only a small number of
these entities would be interested in
applying for funds under this program,
thus reducing the likelihood that the
proposals contained in this notice
would have a significant economic
impact on small entities.
Further, the proposed action may help
small entities determine whether they
have the interest, need, or capacity to
implement activities under the program
and, thus, prevent small entities that do
not have such an interest, need, and
capacity from absorbing the burden of
applying.
This proposed regulatory action
would not have a significant economic
impact on small entities once they
receive a grant because they would be
able to meet the costs of compliance
using the funds provided under this
program and with any funds they might
obtain from external parties to fulfill the
matching requirements of the program.
The Secretary invites comments from
small nonprofit organizations and small
LEAs as to whether they believe this
proposed regulatory action would have
a significant economic impact on them
and, if so, requests evidence to support
that belief.
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.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
print, audiotape, or computer diskette)
on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
You can view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department
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.
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.
Dated: March 11, 2010.
Kevin Jennings,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools.
[FR Doc. 2010–5736 Filed 3–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9124–3]
FY2010 Supplemental Funding for
Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund
(RLF) Grantees
Correction
In notice document 2010–4965
beginning on page 10793 in the issue of
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, make the
following correction:
On page 10793, in the second column,
under SUMMARY, in the second
paragraph, in the sixth line ‘‘insert date
30 days from date of publication’’
should read ‘‘April 8, 2010’’.
[FR Doc. C1–2010–4965 Filed 3–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
International Energy Agency Meetings
Department of Energy.
Notice of meetings.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Industry Advisory Board
(IAB) to the International Energy
Agency (IEA) will meet on March 23,
2010, at the headquarters of the IEA in
Paris, France, in connection with a joint
meeting of the IEA’s Standing Group on
Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the
IEA’s Standing Group on the Oil Market
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on March 23, and on March 24 in
connection with a meeting of the SEQ
on March 24.
DATES: March 23–24, 2010.
´ ´
ADDRESSES: 9, rue de la Federation,
Paris, France.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diana D. Clark, Assistant General for
International and National Security
Programs, Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, 202–586–3417.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i)
of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA),
the following notice of meeting is
provided:
Meetings of the Industry Advisory
Board (IAB) to the International Energy
Agency (IEA) will be held at the
headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la
´ ´
Federation, Paris, France, on March 23,
2010, beginning at 9:30 a.m. and on
March 24 beginning at 9:30 a.m. The
purpose of this notice is to permit
attendance by representatives of U.S.
company members of the IAB at a joint
meeting of the IEA’s Standing Group on
Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the
IEA’s Standing Group on the Oil Market
(SOM) on March 23 beginning at 9:30
a.m. at the same location, and at a
meeting of the SEQ on March 24
beginning at 9:30 a.m. The IAB will also
hold a preparatory meeting among
company representatives at the same
location at 8:30 a.m. on March 24. The
agenda for this preparatory meeting is to
review the agenda for the SEQ meeting
commencing at 9:30 a.m. on March 24
and to discuss the possibility of
disbanding the Industry Supply
Advisory Group (ISAG).
The agenda of the joint SEQ/SOM
meeting on March 23 is under the
control of the SEQ and the SOM. It is
expected that the SEQ and the SOM will
adopt the following agenda:
1. Adoption of the Agenda.
2. The 2011–2012 Program of Work
for the SOM and SEQ.
3. The Current Oil Market Situation.
4. Preparation for the International
Energy Forum Meeting (Cancun,
Mexico).
5. Update on the Gas Market.
6. Reports on Workshops Held
Abroad.
—Workshop on Price Formation (Tokyo,
February 2010)
—Global Oil and Gas Market Dynamics
and Outlook (Beijing, October 2009)
—Global Oil Markets and Security (New
Delhi, October 2009)
7. Report on Study on Fuel Switching.
8. Report on Study on Natural Gas
Liquids.
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12522-12532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5736]
[[Page 12522]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Carol M. White Physical Education Program
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.215F.
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
proposes priorities, requirements, and definitions for the Carol M.
White Physical Education Program (PEP). The Assistant Deputy Secretary
may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, and definitions
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and later years. We take this
action to align PEP projects more closely with best practices and
research related to improving children's health and fitness. Under the
proposed requirements, new projects would be required to address a
variety of mechanisms and approaches for improving students' physical
activity and eating habits and improve students' ability to meet their
State physical education standards.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 15, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Carlette Huntley,
U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street, SW., Room 10071,
Washington, DC 20202-6450. If you prefer to send your comments through
e-mail, use the following address: carlette.huntley@ed.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlette Huntley.
Telephone: (202) 245-7871 or by e-mail: carlette.huntley@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, and
definitions, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed
priority, requirement, or definition 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 these proposed
priorities, requirements, and definitions. Please let us know of any
further ways we could 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 this notice in room 10096, 550 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of PEP is to initiate, expand, and
improve physical education for students in grades K-12.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7261-7261f.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 299.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General: We propose a new direction to strengthen and enhance PEP
and to support a broader, strategic vision for (a) encouraging the
development of lifelong healthy habits, and (b) improving nutrition and
physical education programming and policies in schools and communities
to prevent obesity and to decrease the number of children who are
overweight or obese. This new direction will focus on increasing
opportunities for students to be physically active and practice good
nutritional habits in and out of school. PEP's new direction would
apply lessons learned and best practices based on research and program
evaluation that were not available during PEP's earlier years. With
this new direction, we seek to provide funding to districts and
community-based organizations in communities that plan to implement
comprehensive, integrated physical activity and nutrition programs and
policies that are reinforced in and by the community. By promoting
sequential, research-based physical education and instruction in
healthy eating and implementing policies to encourage physical activity
and healthy eating, we expect PEP projects to result in students
developing important skills, knowledge, and behaviors that will
translate into healthy habits that will carry into adulthood. Research
demonstrates that active, healthy youth are more likely to become
active, healthy adults.
Proposed Priorities:
This notice contains three proposed priorities. One is proposed as
an absolute priority and two are proposed as competitive priorities.
Proposed Absolute Priority--Programs Designed To Create Quality
Physical Education Programs
Background:
Over the last decade, health and education professionals, as well
as States and communities, have been increasingly concerned about
changing health and behavior patterns related to physical activity,
nutrition, and weight status. While a healthy lifestyle can help
prevent a host of serious health outcomes, including heart disease and
diabetes, data show that a large percentage of youth are sedentary and
neither active enough nor have a healthy diet. Only about 17 percent of
high school students meet the current recommendations for physical
activity.\1\ In a recent study, about one-quarter of high school
students reported that they used a computer or played computer or video
games more than three hours a day and about 35 percent of high school
students reported watching television three or more hours per day on an
average school day. Only 21 percent of high school students reported
eating five or more fruits or vegetables each day in the previous
week.\2\ These behaviors have contributed to a rise in overweight and
obese youth, with recent studies indicating that 17 percent of 6-11
year-olds and 17.6 percent of 12-19 year-olds are considered obese.
Furthermore, 33 percent of 6-11 year olds and 34 percent of 12-19 year
olds
[[Page 12523]]
are overweight; \3\ these rates have roughly doubled since 1980.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion. 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines
for Americans. Washington, DC, 2008. The 2008 Physical Activity
Guidelines for Americans recommends 60 minutes of physical activity
per day for children and adolescents, which should include moderate
to vigorous aerobic activity, as well as age-appropriate muscle and
bone strengthening activities.
\2\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk
Behavior Survey, 2007. Accessed online at https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth. The question on physical activity asks about doing any
kind of physical activity that increased their heart rate and made
them breathe hard some of the time for a total of at least 60
minutes per day on five or more of the seven days before the survey.
The question on nutritional intake asks students to report if the
student ate fruits and vegetables (100 percent fruit juices, fruit,
green salad, potatoes [excluding French fries, fried potatoes, or
potato chips], carrots, or other vegetables) five or more times per
day during the seven days before the survey.
\3\ ``Overweight'' is defined as at or above the 85th percentile
and ``obese'' is defined as at or above the 95th percentile on BMI-
for-age growth charts.
\4\ Ogden C, Carroll M, Flegal K. High body mass index for age
among US children and adolescents, 2003-2006. JAMA. 2008;299(20):
2410-2405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schools are most likely to have an impact on student physical
activity and dietary behaviors when they provide students with a
quality physical education program, nutrition instruction and a healthy
nutrition environment, and multiple opportunities and settings that
promote and practice physical activity and healthy eating.\5\ PEP's
authorizing statute identifies six program elements that may be
included in funded projects, and that, when undertaken together,
characterize a quality program in physical education and nutrition
education. The six program elements are designed to provide the
cognitive, instructional, and experiential components that promote the
adoption of lifelong healthy habits, as well as enhanced cooperative
and social skills for students, and ongoing professional development
for teachers and staff. The program elements are: (1) Fitness education
and assessment to help students understand, improve, or maintain their
physical well-being; (2) instruction in a variety of motor skills and
physical activities designed to enhance the physical, mental, and
social or emotional development of every student; (3) development of,
and instruction in, cognitive concepts about motor skills and physical
fitness that support a lifelong healthy lifestyle; (4) opportunities to
develop positive social and cooperative skills through physical
activity participation; (5) instruction in healthy eating habits and
good nutrition; and (6) opportunities for professional development for
teachers of physical education to stay abreast of the latest research,
issues, and trends in the field of physical education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health
in the Balance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, the Department has required applicants for PEP grants
to address at least one of the six elements. Beginning in 2004, we
sought to re-focus the program to include efforts that strategically
support the promotion of lifelong healthy habits. We have funded six
cohorts of grantees under this particular framework and, through our
observations, reviews of project reports, work with grantees, and
consultation with other Federal agencies and non-governmental partners,
have concluded that additional changes are necessary to strengthen the
program, better align it with the latest research and best practices in
the field, and fund programs that are most likely to be sustainable
following the period of Federal funding.
We believe that requiring applicants to create programs and
policies that address element 5, regarding nutrition instruction, plus
at least one of the other elements related to physical activity will
result in the development and implementation of approaches that go
beyond instruction in physical education or fulfillment of physical
education equipment needs, which have been the historical foci of PEP-
funded projects. A combined focus on both nutrition and physical
activity and physical education programming, curricula, and related
equipment necessary for implementation, along with changes to related
physical activity and nutrition policies, provide the basis for an
initiative that goes beyond implementing a specific curriculum or using
a particular piece or set of physical education equipment. Instead,
this requirement will encourage applicants to consider the range of
approaches necessary to promoting healthy habits within two broad
categories, instruction in healthy eating and physical activity or
physical education, while allowing applicants to design programs that
best meet their identified gaps and needs and enhance their identified
assets in as comprehensive a manner as possible.
Proposed Absolute Priority:
Under this proposed priority, an applicant would be required to
develop, expand, or improve its physical education program and address
its State's physical education standards \6\ by undertaking the
following activities: (1) Instruction in healthy eating habits and good
nutrition and (2) physical fitness activities that must include at
least one of the following: (a) Fitness education and assessment to
help students understand, improve, or maintain their physical well-
being; (b) instruction in a variety of motor skills and physical
activities designed to enhance the physical, mental, and social or
emotional development of every student; (c) development of, and
instruction in, cognitive concepts about motor skills and physical
fitness that support a lifelong healthy lifestyle; (d) opportunities to
develop positive social and cooperative skills through physical
activity participation; or (e) opportunities for professional
development for teachers of physical education to stay abreast of the
latest research, issues, and trends in the field of physical education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ States that do not have their own physical education
standards may use another State's standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 1--Collection of Body Mass
Index Measurement Background:
Over the last several years, with increasing attention focused on
the childhood obesity epidemic, several States and municipalities have
begun using the Body Mass Index (BMI) to create awareness of the extent
of weight problems in their State or municipality. Collecting data on
BMI can identify the percentages of students in the population who are
obese, overweight, normal weight, and underweight. Childhood obesity is
associated with cardiovascular disease risk factors, including high
blood pressure, high cholesterol, and impaired fasting glucose.\7\
Obese young people are more likely than children of normal weight to
become overweight or obese adults and, therefore, more at risk for
associated health problems during adulthood, including heart disease,
type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and
osteoarthritis.\8\ Additionally, researchers estimate that medical
costs of the obesity epidemic may total as much as $147 billion
annually.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Freedman D, Zuguo M, Srinivasan S, Berenson G, Dietz W.
Cardiovascular risk factors and excess adiposity among overweight
children and adolescents: The Bogalusa Heart Study. J Pediatr.
2007;150(1): 12-17.
\8\ U.S. Surgeon General. Overweight and obesity: Health
consequences. Rockville, MD, 2001. Accessed at https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/on October 14, 2009.
\9\ Finkelstein E, Trogdon J, Cohen J, and Dietz W. Annual
medical spending attributable to obesity: Payer-and service-specific
estimates. Health Affairs. 2009; 28(5): w822-w831.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several States and municipalities have started using BMI as an
approach to identifying the percentage of youth in the population who
are obese, overweight, normal weight, and underweight. These data, in
the aggregate, can be used to describe the weight status over time in
the student population; monitor progress toward achieving national
health objectives \10\; and monitor the effects of school-based
physical activity and nutrition policies and programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ National health objectives can be found in Healthy People,
2010, accessed at https://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/html/uih/uih_bw/uih_4.htm#overandobese on October 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMI is a tool for assessing weight status that is relatively easy
to use and correlates with body fat. The BMI is based on a calculation
using weight and height (kg/m \2\). Although the same formula is used
for adults, children, and adolescents, weight status for children
[[Page 12524]]
and adolescents is determined by plotting BMI by age on a sex-specific
growth chart, created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), and presented as a BMI-for-age percentile (https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts). For children and adolescents, the weight status
categories are ``underweight'' (BMI less than the 5th percentile),
``healthy weight'' (BMI is greater than the 5th percentile but less
than the 85th percentile), ``overweight'' (BMI is greater than the 85th
percentile and less than the 95th percentile) and ``obese'' (BMI is
greater than the 95th percentile). The BMI-for-age percentiles
identified by the CDC are the recommended method of reporting size and
growth patterns among children in the United States.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Krebs NF et al. Assessment of child and adolescent
overweight and obesity. Pediatrics. 2007;120:S193-S228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As BMI is a measure of weight status at only one point in time, it
is important for students, families, and policy-makers to consider
trends in BMI data rather than taking action based on one measurement
point. For children and teens, BMI is used as a screening tool, not a
diagnostic tool, which means that it can suggest that a child may have
a weight concern but it is not a tool that will determine that the
child's weight status is a problem.\12\ A trained medical care provider
would need to perform other follow-up assessments and tests \13\ to
determine if the student actually has excess body fat or other health
risks related to obesity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Freedman D, Wang, J, Thornton J, Mei Z, Sopher A, Pierson
R, Dietz W, and Horlick M. Classification of Body Mass Index-for-Age
Categories Among Children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine. 2009;163(9):805-811.
\13\ Additional assessments and tests could include a patient's
medical history, family history, diet, physical activity habits, and
blood pressure and laboratory tests, such as cholesterol levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To understand a BMI score more accurately, practitioners often also
look at other measures, such as assessments of fitness levels, physical
activity levels, and nutritional intake. For policy-makers, looking at
prevalence and trends in obesity among youth at the school, district,
and/or community levels (as measured by the BMI) can create awareness
of the overall population's health and fitness, and provide an impetus
to improve policies, practices, and services.
Program planners should carefully consider the issues related to
undertaking a BMI assessment program in a school or a school-related
setting, and should first define the intent of their assessment program
and the desired outcomes they wish to achieve by undertaking BMI
assessment. Program planners should consider how these efforts would be
understood and accepted by the community. Planners should also consider
how the information would be used in the context of the other required
measures for this program (see the REQUIREMENTS section of this notice)
and as part of the fitness assessments that applicants may propose in
response to this program element in Proposed Absolute Priority 1. When
presented with complementary measures of fitness, physical activity,
nutritional habits, and behaviors to be addressed through PEP, these
measures provide not only a means for assessing the health and fitness
of the student population, but also ideas about program and policy
components that require improvement and the ability to monitor changes
to these indicators over time.
Grantees that receive funds under this priority would be required
to provide parents with the choice to have their child opt out of this
assessment as part of the development and implementation of their BMI
measurement practice, and to inform parents of this choice.
Additionally, unless the BMI assessment is permitted or required by
State law, local educational agency (LEA) applicants must develop
policies in consultation with parents that provide reasonable notice of
the applicant's plan to collect BMI data, in compliance with the
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), 20 U.S.C. 1232h.
Planners should also consider the timing and flow of students into
the assessment site to have their BMI measured, how the measurement
would be performed, the equipment needed to carry out the assessment,
who would perform the assessment, and how data would be calculated,
recorded, and protected. These procedures should adhere to the best
available scientific practices and procedures.
If program planners intend to provide information to parents about
their children, planners should consider if and how they would be able
to access follow-up testing or treatment by a heath care provider, and
might create a referral system for youth who are identified as obese,
overweight, or underweight. If the information will be shared with
parents, planners should provide a clear and respectful explanation of
the BMI results and a list of the appropriate actions. Resources are
available to help schools implement these kinds of activities in the
safest and most effective way possible, including CDC's Children's BMI
Tool for Schools, which can be accessed at: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/childrens_bmi/tool_for_schools.html.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority:
We propose giving a competitive preference priority to applicants
that agree to implement aggregate BMI data collection, and use it as
part of a comprehensive assessment of health and fitness for the
purposes of monitoring the weight status of their student population
across time. Applicants would be required to sign a Program-Specific
Assurance that would commit them to:
(a) Use the CDC's BMI-for-age growth charts to interpret BMI
results (https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts);
(b) Create a plan to develop and implement a protocol that would
include parents in the development of their BMI assessment and data
collection policies, including a mechanism to allow parents to provide
feedback on the policy. Applicants would be required to detail the
following required components in their aggregate BMI data collection
protocol: The proposed method for measuring BMI, who would perform the
BMI assessment (i.e., staff members trained to obtain accurate and
reliable height and weight measurements), the frequency of reporting,
the planned equipment to be used, methods for calculating the planned
sampling frame (if the applicant would use sampling), the policies used
to ensure student privacy during measurement, how the data would be
secured to protect student confidentiality, who would have access to
the data, how long the data will be kept, and what will happen to the
data after that time. Applicants that intend to inform parents of their
student's weight status must include plans for notifying parents of
that status, and must include their plan for ensuring that resources
are available for safe and effective follow-up with trained medical
care providers;
(c) Create a plan to notify parents of the BMI assessment and to
allow parents to opt out of the BMI assessment and reasonable
notification of their choice to opt out. Unless the BMI assessment is
permitted or required by State law, LEA applicants would be required to
detail their policies for providing reasonable notice of the adoption
or continued use of such policies directly to the parents of the
students enrolled in the LEA's schools served by the agency. At a
minimum, the LEA would have to provide such notice at least annually,
at the beginning of the school year and within a reasonable period of
time after any
[[Page 12525]]
substantive change in such policies, pursuant to the Protection of
Pupil Rights Amendment, 20 U.S.C. Section 1232h(c)(2)(A); and
(d) De-identify the student information (such as by removing the
student's name and any identifying information from the record and
assigning a record code \14\), aggregate the BMI data to the school or
district level, and make the aggregate data publicly available and
easily accessible to the public annually. Applicants would need to
describe their plan for the level of reporting they plan to use,
depending on the size of the population, such as at the district level
or the school level. Applicants would also be required to detail in
their application their plan for how these data will be used in
coordination with other required data for the program, such as fitness,
physical activity, and nutritional intake measures, and how the
combination of these measures will be used to improve physical
education programming and policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ LEAs are subject to the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act and must de-identify education records based on
regulations issued by the Department of Education in December, 2008.
More information can be found at: https://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ferparegs.pdf. CBO applicants should follow all applicable
Federal, State, and local privacy laws and regulations regarding the
de-identification of personal data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 18, 1991, 17 Federal Departments and Agencies, including
the Department of Education, adopted a common set of regulations known
as the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects or ``Common
Rule.'' See 34 CFR Part 97. Applicants that engage in BMI data
collection may be subject to the U.S. Department of Education's
Protection of Human Subjects regulations if the data are used in
research funded by the Federal government or for any future research
conducted by an institution that has adopted the Federal policy for all
research of that institution. The regulations define research as ``a
systematic investigation, including research development, testing and
evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable
knowledge. Activities which meet this definition constitute research
for purposes of this policy, whether or not they are conducted or
supported under a program which is considered research for other
purposes. For example, some demonstration and service programs may
include research activities.'' 34 CFR 97.102(d). Information on Human
Subjects requirements is found at: https://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/humansub.html.
Applications that do not provide a Program-Specific Assurance
signed by an Authorized Representative committing the applicant to
completing the tasks above during their project period would not be
eligible for competitive preference points.
In implementing this proposed priority, we would encourage
applicants to consult with their partners to determine if and how any
of the partners could contribute to the data collection, reporting, or
potential referral processes.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 2--Partnerships Between
Applicants and Supporting Community Entities
Background:
Most research demonstrates that to effectively change social norms
and behaviors, coordinated, multi-component approaches and policies are
necessary.\15\ As part of a comprehensive approach to encouraging youth
to be more physically active and eat healthier foods, schools and
communities should have common and consistent policies, practices, and
expectations for healthy eating and physical activity and provide the
opportunity for healthy lifestyle choices in all settings in which a
child spends time, throughout the student's day, including before,
during, and after school, as well as on weekends, holidays, and
vacations.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health
in the Balance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.
\16\ IOM (Institute of Medicine) and National Research Council.
2009. Local Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This type of community effort requires a sustained commitment from
LEAs and schools, local government, community-based organizations
(CBOs), the health sector, businesses, parents, and community members.
Schools have a critical role to play in teaching students about
physical activity, fitness, and healthy choices, and providing
opportunities to practice making healthy choices throughout the day.
But students spend a significant amount of time outside of school,
which makes it important to implement a consistent community approach
that reinforces and supports lessons and messages that are taught and
learned in schools. For example, CBOs, particularly those CBOs that
provide before- or after-school or summer programs, can play an
important role in supplementing the skills and concepts that students
learn in school. CBOs can also help LEAs target specific populations of
students who may be underserved or at higher risk of becoming
overweight or obese, or provide additional expertise in such areas as
nutrition instruction.
We have found that CBOs that have received PEP grants function
optimally when they work collaboratively with one or more schools in
the area served by the project. Grantees that conduct their projects
separately from a school's or an LEA's efforts are often less familiar
with State standards for physical education and, as a result, struggle
to develop projects that help students meet or exceed these standards.
Some CBOs also find it challenging to attract students to their
programs, maintain the students' attendance at their programs, and
deliver services that complement those that schools are already
providing. A partnership between a CBO and an LEA or school should help
ensure that these challenges will be addressed.
Although some current grantees' communities may be engaged in
efforts to improve physical activity and nutrition, these efforts are
not always coordinated with the PEP grant, often resulting in
disjointed and inconsistent efforts to improve physical activity and
nutrition policy and programs in schools and communities. Thus, a more
coordinated effort would improve the community's ability to positively
affect youth physical activity participation, childhood nutrition, and
fitness, and prevent and reduce the trends of overweight and obese
youth by fundamentally changing the policies and practices of the
settings where children spend their time before, during, and after
school.
We also believe that a formal partnership agreement will
institutionalize this collaboration and ensure that local leadership is
committed to investing in these efforts. Applicants might leverage
these formal partnerships to secure the required matching funds for a
PEP grant, such as through donated time, expertise, and other
resources. Further, partners from public health agencies might also
increase applicants' awareness of best practices and research-based
approaches in the public health field, as well as connect applicants to
other related efforts in the community and to potential funding
streams, which could increase the likelihood of the PEP project being
sustained after the end of Federal funding.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority:
We propose giving a competitive preference priority to an applicant
that includes in its application an agreement that details the
participation of required partners, as defined in this notice. The
agreement would have to include a
[[Page 12526]]
description of: (1) Each partner's roles and responsibilities in the
project; (2) if and how each partner will contribute to the project,
including any contribution to the local match; (3) an assurance that
the application was developed after timely and meaningful consultation
between the required parties, as defined in this notice; and (4) a
commitment to work together to reach the desired goals and outcomes of
the project. The partner agreement would be required to be signed by
the Authorized Representative of each of the required partners and by
other partners as available and appropriate.
For an LEA applicant, we propose that this partnership agreement
must include: (1) The LEA; (2) at least one CBO; (3) a local public
health entity, as defined in this notice; (4) the LEA's food service or
child nutrition director; and (5) the head of the local government, as
defined in this notice.
For a CBO applicant, we propose that the partnership agreement must
include: (1) The CBO; (2) a local public health entity, as defined in
this notice; (3) a local organization supporting nutrition or healthy
eating, as defined in this notice; (4) the head of the local
government, as defined in this notice; and (5) the LEA from which the
largest number of students expected to participate in the CBO's project
attend. If the CBO applicant is a school, such as a parochial or other
private school, the applicant would need to describe its school as part
of the partnership agreement but would not be required to provide an
additional signature from a different LEA or school. A CBO applicant
that is a school and serves its own population of students would be
required also to include another community CBO as part of its
partnership and include the head of that CBO as a signatory on the
partnership agreement.
Although partnerships with other parties are required, the eligible
applicant would have to retain the administrative and fiscal control of
the project.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. 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 (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the 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 priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirements:
Background:
The Department believes that the following proposed requirements
will result in PEP projects that are more likely to have an impact on
children's health, fitness levels, and dietary habits.
Proposed Requirements:
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
proposes the following requirements for this program. We may apply one
or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in
effect.
Proposed Requirement 1--Align Project Goals With Identified Needs Using
the School Health Index
Background:
In order to ensure that PEP projects meet the needs of the schools
and communities they are intended to serve, it is critical that the
nutrition and physical education program needs, as well as the policies
that support them, be assessed. The CDC's Division of Adolescent and
School Health has developed the School Health Index (SHI), a self-
assessment and planning tool that schools can use to assess their
student health policies and programs and their ``school health
environment.'' The SHI includes eight self-assessment modules: (1)
School Health and Safety Policies and Environment; (2) Health
Education; (3) Physical Education and Other Physical Activity Programs;
(4) Nutrition Services; (5) Health Services; (6) Counseling,
Psychological, and Social Services; (7) Health Promotion for Staff; and
(8) Family and Community Involvement. The SHI enables schools to
develop an action plan for improving student health, which can be
incorporated into the School Health Improvement Plan.
CDC has developed two forms of the SHI, one for elementary schools
and one for middle and high schools. Although much of the content is
identical on each, there are some differences that reflect the
developmental differences between elementary school students and middle
and high school students.
Completing the SHI allows a school to assess its health policies
and practices and to compare those policies and practices with national
standards and recommendations. The CDC estimates that undertaking the
Physical Education and Other Physical Activity Programs and Nutrition
Services SHI modules will take approximately one to three hours. For
more information about the SHI, please see https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/SHI.
In the context of PEP, we believe that the SHI will provide
applicants with a framework for assessing their strengths and
weaknesses, which can then be used to design programs based on
identified gaps and plans to address these gaps. We have found that
many PEP applicants have not undertaken this type of self-assessment
prior to submitting their grant applications and, not having done so,
have created programs and policies that are not responsive to their
site's needs or aligned with best practices in the field.
Because the SHI must be done at the school-building level, CBOs
cannot undertake the SHI without the support and participation of a
school or LEA. Therefore, we suggest that CBO applicants collaborate
with an identified school or LEA partner to complete the physical
activity and nutrition questions in modules 1-4 of the SHI.
To meet this requirement, CBO applicants that do not collaborate
with an LEA or school may propose and use a local needs assessment tool
that analyzes the physical activity and nutrition environments at the
community level and, ideally, at the CBO site itself. The CBO applicant
would need to specify the local needs assessment tool used, as well as
the results of the assessment. The applicant's program must be designed
to address the needs and gaps identified through the needs assessment.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that applicants be required to complete the physical
activity and nutrition questions in Modules 1-4 of the CDC's SHI self-
assessment tool and to develop project goals and plans that address the
identified needs. Modules 1-4 are School Health and Safety Policies and
Environment, Health Education, Physical Activity and Other Physical
Activity Programs, and Nutrition Services. The applicant would use the
SHI self-assessment to develop a School Health Improvement Plan focused
on improving these issues, and design an initiative that addresses
their identified gaps and weaknesses. Applicants would be required to
include their Overall Score Card for the questions answered
[[Page 12527]]
in modules 1-4 in their application, and correlate their School Health
Improvement Plan to their project design. Grantees would also be
required to complete the same modules of the SHI at the end of the
project period and submit the Overall Score Card from the second
assessment in their final reports to demonstrate SHI completion and
program improvement as a result of PEP funding.
If a CBO applicant (unless the CBO is a school) is in a partner
agreement with an LEA or school, it would be required to collaborate
with its partner or partners to complete modules 1-4 of the SHI.
Alternatively, if the CBO has not identified a school or LEA
partner, the CBO would be required to use an alternative needs
assessment tool to assess the nutrition and physical activity
environment in the community for children. CBO applicants would be
required to include their overall findings from the community needs
assessment and correlate their findings with their project design.
Grantees would also be required to complete the same needs assessment
at the end of their project and submit their findings in their final
reports to demonstrate the completion of the assessment and program
involvement as a result of PEP funding.
Proposed Requirement 2--Nutrition- and Physical Activity-Related
Policies
Background:
In recent years, research has shown that interventions to change
behaviors and develop healthy habits, including physical activity and
healthy eating, cannot rely on instruction alone.\17\ Although
interventions that focus on a single element of PEP may produce
positive behavior changes, they typically result in smaller effects
than those produced by comprehensive, multi-sector interventions that
include changes to programs and curricula and create or enhance
policies encouraging physical activity and healthy eating choices.\18\
Applicants can identify physical activity and nutrition policies to
address using their State's standards for physical education and the
results from their SHI assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health
in the Balance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.
\18\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research also shows that policy interventions and environmental
changes can promote desirable behaviors and discourage negative
behaviors.\19\ \20\ To encourage students to eat more healthy foods in
and out of school, policies might include those governing the sale of
``competitive foods'' \21\ at school, and food placement and pricing in
cafeterias; policies on vending machines and on food sold as
fundraisers; developing partnerships with farms or farmers' markets;
adopting the recent Institute of Medicine recommendations for school
meals that include more fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and low-
fat dairy products ; \22\ or creating school or community gardens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Peterson D, Zeger S, Remington P, Anderson P. The effect of
state cigarette tax increases on cigarette sales, 1985-1988.
American Journal of Public Health. 82(1): 94-96.
\20\ French S, Story M, Breitlow K, Baxter J, Hannan P, Snyder
M. Pricing and promotion effects on low-fat vending and snack
purchases: The CHIPS study. American Journal of Public Health.
91(1): 112-117.
\21\ ``Competitive foods'' are defined as any foods and
beverages sold at a school separately from the US Department of
Agriculture's school meal programs.
\22\ Institute of Medicine. 2010, School Meals: Building Blocks
for Healthy Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical activity-related policy improvements that might enhance
the applicant's programs include, but are not limited to: staffing
policies that enable a physical educator to coordinate, plan, and
direct the comprehensive program related to all physical activity
efforts in the school, including those related to policy; integrating
physical activity into the classroom to foster learning and increase
children's physical activity; removing barriers to enable children to
walk or bike to school or in the community; encouraging time for
recess; developing and implementing joint-use agreements for use of
facilities or equipment between schools and communities or community
groups; providing supervision of play areas during out-of-school time;
altering bus schedules to facilitate after-school program
participation; establishing time requirements for physical education;
requiring certification and professional development for physical
education teachers; setting class size limits; and reviewing the use of
waivers that allow students to opt out of physical education class.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that grantees be required to develop, update, or enhance
physical activity policies and food- and nutrition-related policies
that promote healthy eating and physical activity throughout students'
everyday lives, as part of their PEP projects. Applicants would
describe in their application their current policy framework, areas of
focus, and the planned process for policy development, implementation,
review, and monitoring. Grantees would be required to detail at the end
of their project period in their final reports the physical activity
and nutrition policies selected and how the policies improved through
the course of the project.
Applicants would be required to sign a Program-Specific Assurance
that commits them to developing, updating, or enhancing these policies
during the project period. Applicants that do not submit such a
Program-Specific Assurance signed by the applicant's Authorized
Representative would be ineligible for the competition.
Proposed Requirement 3--Linkage With Local Wellness Policies
Background:
The local wellness policy provision of the Child Nutrition Act of
2004 (Pub. L. 108-265) requires that each LEA participating in a
program authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
(42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
1771 et seq.) have a local wellness policy beginning in school year
2006-2007.
Under these provisions, a local wellness policy, at a minimum,
includes goals for nutrition education, physical activity, and other
school-based activities designed to promote student wellness; nutrition
guidelines for all foods available on each school campus; guidelines
for reimbursable school meals that are no less restrictive than the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations and guidelines; and a
plan for measuring implementation, including designation of one or more
persons at the LEA or school level charged with operational
responsibility for ensuring that the school meets the local wellness
policies. In addition, parents, students, and various other
``stakeholders'' must be involved in the development of the local
wellness policy.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that applicants that are participating in a program
authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 must describe in their applications their
school district's established local wellness policy and how the
proposed PEP project will align with and support, complement, and
enhance the implementation of the applicant's local wellness policy.
The LEA's local wellness policy should address all requirements in the
Child Nutrition Act of 2004.
[[Page 12528]]
We propose that CBO applicants describe in their applications how
their proposed projects will enhance or support the intent of the local
wellness policies of their LEA partner(s), if they are working in a
partnership.
If an applicant or a member of its partnership does not participate
in the school lunch program authorized by the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, it would
not necessarily have a local wellness policy and, thus, would not be
required to meet this requirement or adopt a local wellness policy.
However, we would encourage such applicants to develop and adopt a
local wellness policy, consistent with the provisions in the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 in
conjunction with its PEP project.
Applicants would be required to sign a Program-Specific Assurance
that commits them to align their PEP project with the district's Local
Wellness Policy, if applicable. Applicants that do not submit a Program
Specific Assurance signed by the applicant's Authorized Representative
would be ineligible for the competition.
Proposed Requirement 4--Linkages With Federal, State, and Local
Initiatives
Background:
We believe that projects should conduct their activities in a
manner that is coordinated, to the extent possible, with other, similar
ongoing or planned State or local health and wellness initiatives.
For example, PEP projects, through their support of physical
activity and nutrition instruction initiatives, complement the CDC's
Coordinated School Health framework. This framework is a systemic model
that integrates the basic, minimum components necessary for promoting
the health and safety of students in schools. There are eight
components of the Coordinated School Health Program: (1) Health
Education; (2) Physical Education; (3) Health Services; (4) Nutrition
Services; (5) Counseling and Psychological Services; (6) Healthy School
Environments; (7) Health Promotion for Staff; and (8) Family and
Community Involvement.
PEP projects could also complement the USDA's Team Nutrition
initiative, which provides training and technical assistance for food
service professionals, nutrition instruction for children and their
caregivers, and school and community support for creating healthy
school environments that are conducive to healthy eating and physical
activity. More information on Team Nutrition can be found at: https://www.teamnutrition.usda.gov.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will also be
providing funds to local public health departments to create community-
level interventions to address obesity trends in both adults and
children. This initiative funded under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, specifically the ``Recovery Act Communities Putting
Prevention to Work--Community Initiative,'' focuses on developing and
promoting partnerships, programmatic support, community mentoring, and
evaluation to achieve the following prevention outcomes: (1) Increased
levels of physical activity; (2) improved nutrition; (3) decreased
overweight/obesity prevalence; (4) decreased smoking prevalence and
decreasing teen smoking initiation; and (5) decreased exposure to
second-hand smoke. More information on this program can be found at:
https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/recovery/. Applications for grants under
this HHS program were due December 1, 2009, but grantees are not likely
to be announced until after PEP's application period would close. As
such, PEP applicants would only have to agree to coordinate efforts
funded under this HHS program with activities funded by PEP should
their communities receive both grants.
Many other Federal, State, and local initiatives also work to
promote healthy nutrition and physical activity and, if applicable,
should be coordinated with PEP project efforts. These other programs
include, but are not limited to, Alliance for a Healthier Generation
(https://www.healthiergeneration.org/), Farm-to-School initiatives
(https://www.farmtoschool.org/), the YMCA's Pioneering Healthier
Communities (https://www.ymca.net/activateamerica/ activateamerica/), Action for Healthy
Kids State or local teams (https://www.actionforhealthykids.org/), and
USDA's HealthierUS School Challenge (https://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/healthierus/).
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that if an applicant is implementing the CDC's
Coordinated School Health program, it be required to coordinate project
activities with that initiative and describe in its application how the
proposed PEP project will be coordinated and integrated with the
program.
We propose that if an applicant receives funding under the USDA's
Team Nutrition initiative (Team Nutrition Training Grants), the
applicant must describe in its application how the proposed PEP project
supports the efforts of this initiative.
We propose that an applicant for a PEP project in a community that
receives a grant under the Recovery Act Communities Putting Prevention
to Work--Community Initiative must agree to coordinate its PEP project
efforts with those under the Recovery Act Communities Putting
Prevention to Work-Community Initiative.
We propose that applicants and PEP-funding projects must
complement, rather than duplicate, existing, ongoing or new efforts
whose goals and objectives are to promote physical activity and healthy
eating or help students meet their State standards for physical
education.
Applicants would be required to sign a Program-Specific Assurance
that commits them to align their PEP project with the Coordinated
School Health program, Team Nutrition Training Grant, Recovery Act
Communities Putting Prevention to Work- Community Initiative, or any
other similar Federal, State, or local initiatives. Applicants that do
not submit a Program Specific Assurance signed by the applicant's
Authorized Representative would be ineligible for the competition.
Proposed Requirement 5--Updates to Physical Education and Nutrition
Instruction Curricula
Background:
Having a strong and appropriate curriculum is critical to ensuring
that students develop and practice new skills. Historically, many PEP
grantees purchased or designed new curricula before they had fully
assessed the needs of their population or the capacity of their staff
to implement that curriculum. In our experience, most PEP grantees do
not implement a systematic, sequential nutrition instruction
curriculum, but, rather, rely on one-time nutrition modules to provide
instruction on healthy eating.
The CDC's Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) helps
LEAs and others conduct a clear, complete, and consistent analysis of
written physical education curricula, based upon national physical
education standards. This free tool helps LEAs analyze written physical
education curricula and can serve as a guide in developing or
identifying a curriculum aligned with the LEA's goals and objectives
for physical education programs that help them make progress toward
meeting State standards for physical education.
The CDC's Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT) is a
[[Page 12529]]
similar free tool, comparable to the PECAT, used to assess health
education curricula, and is intended to help LEAs, schools, and others
conduct a clear, complete, and consistent analysis of health education
curricula based on the National Health Education Standards and CDC's
Characteristics of Effective Health Education Curricula. The HECAT
results can help LEAs or CBOs select or develop appropriate and
effective health education curricula and improve the delivery of health
education. The HECAT can be customized to meet local needs and conform
to the State or LEA curriculum requirements. The HECAT's healthy eating
module can be used to determine the extent to which curricula are
likely to enable students to master the essential concepts and skills
that promote healthy eating.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that applicants that plan to use grant-related funds,
including Federal and non-Federal matching funds, to create, update, or
enhance their physical education or nutrition education curricula be
required to use the Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT)
and submit their overall PECAT scorecard, and the curriculum
improvement plan from PECAT. We also propose that applicants that plan
to use grant-related funds, including Federal and non-Federal matching
funds to create, update, or enhance their nutrition instruction in
health education be required to complete the healthy eating module of
the Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT). Applicants must
use the curriculum improvement plan from the PECAT to identify
curricular changes to be addressed during the funding period.
Applicants must also describe how the HECAT assessment would be used to
guide nutrition instruction curricular changes. If an applicant is not
proposing to use grant-related funds for physical education or
nutrition instruction curricula, it would not need to use these tools.
Proposed Requirement 6--Equipment Purchases
Background:
We have found that some PEP grantees have used a significant
portion of their PEP funds to purchase physical education equipment but
that the use of this equipment is not always tied to a quality physical
education program. Although equipment purchases may be essential to the
project, these purchases alone do not constitute a comprehensive
program. We have also found that PEP grantees have not always tied the
use of that equipment to their physical education curriculum or
physical education State standards. Because the needs of students or
staff may not have been considered before equipment was purchased, we
have found that equipment purchased under this program did not always
complement ongoing instructional efforts, was not part of a sustainable
program, and was sometimes used neither throughout the duration of the
PEP program nor after the grant period ended.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that purchases of equipment with PEP funds or related to
grant activities (including equipment purchased with funds offered to
meet the program's matching requirement) must be aligned with the
curricular components of the applicant's physical education and
nutrition program. Applicants must commit to aligning the students' use
of the equipment with PEP elements applicable to their projects,
identified in priority 1, and any applicable curricula by signing a
Program Specific Assurance. Applicants that do not submit a Program
Specific Assurance signed by the applicant's Authorized Representative
would be ineligible for the competition.
Proposed Requirement 7--Increasing Transparency and Accountability
Background:
Another critical component to program success is ensuring that
projects are meeting their desired goals by increasing ``transparency''
and accountability to parents, students, policy-makers, and the
community. Regularly sharing information with parents about the work of
the grantee would help them understand and reinforce lessons learned
before, during, and after school, and would encourage students to make
healthy choices.
Sharing information with local policy-makers should result in
increased accountability and help policy-makers understand the
challenges children face in making healthy choices. This increased
level of accountability, in turn, would encourage local policy-makers
to invest in promising programs and make budget and policy decisions
that would complement, support, and enhance each project's efforts.
Program information provided to the community would include
program-related measures related to the changes made by the LEAs or
CBOs and could potentially be compared to those made in other
communities. Additionally, reports to parents of students under 18
years old would include information on the progress of their child on
measures related to that child's fitness and nutrition.
Proposed Requirement:
We propose that grantees create or use existing reporting
mechanisms to provide information on students' progress, in the
aggregate, on the key program indicators, as described in this notice
and required under the Government Performance and Results Act, as well
as on any unique project-level measures proposed in the application.
Grantees that are educational agencies or institutions would be subject
to applicable Federal, State, and local privacy provisions, including
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act--a law that generally
prohibits the non-consensual disclosure of personally identifiable
information in a student's education record. All grantees must comply
with applicable Federal, State, and local privacy provisions. The
aggregate-level information should be easily accessible by the public,
such as posted on the grantee's or a partner's Web site. Applicants
would be required to describe in their application the planned method
for reporting.
Applicants would be required to commit to reporting information to
the public, including parents of students under 18 years old, by
signing a Program Specific Assurance. Applicants that do not submit a
Program Specific Assurance signed by the applicant's Authorized
Representative would be ineligible for the competition.
Proposed Requirement 8--Participation in a National Evaluation
Background:
We have funded nine cohorts under the PEP program but have not yet
undertaken a national evaluation to assess how the program has been
implemented across sites. In 2008, the Department initiated a national
evaluation effort to assess the PEP's processes and outcomes. The
evaluation will use the grantees funded in FY 2010 for a national
evaluation, and will follow this cohort through at least two years of
implementation. We continue to collaborate with the contractor to
identify an appropriate study design, which will be developed based on
the final priorities and design of the FY 2010 PEP competition.
Proposed Requirement:
The applicant must provide documentation of its commitment to
participate in the U.S. Department of Education's evaluation. An LEA
applicant must include a letter from the research office or research
board approving its participation in the evaluation (if approval is
needed), and
[[Page 12530]]
a letter from the Authorized Representative agreeing to participate in
the evaluation.
Proposed Requirement 9--Required Performance Measures and Data
Collection Methodology
Background:
Since 2006, PEP grantees have been required to report on two
performance measures, established under the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA). The PEP GPRA measures have been: (1) The percentage
of elementary school students who engage in 150 minutes of moderate to
vigorous physical activity per week; and (2) The percentage of middle
and/or high school students who engage in 225 minutes of moderate to
vigorous physical activity per week.
Although these GPRA measures are a marked improvement from past
GPRA measures under this program, they are not consistent with the
physical activity guidelines that recommend 60 minutes of daily
physical activity for children and adolescents.\23\ In addition, we
have also found that grantees collect and report their data in a
variety of ways, which makes data aggregation and comparability across
and between cohorts difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion. 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines
for Americans. Washington, DC, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes to the PEP program, as described in this
notice, would require a broader set of indicators to reflect the full
range of activities to be undertaken. Therefore, we propose new GPRA
measures that would provide comprehensive data on the following: 1.
Physical activity levels; 2. Fitness levels; and 3. Nutritional habits