Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.215J, 32440-32449 [2010-13775]

Agencies

• Full-Service Community Schools
• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32440-32449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13775]



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



DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION



Full-Service Community Schools




Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.215J



AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.



ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria.



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



SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education announces priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the Full-Service Community 

Schools (FSCS) program. The Secretary may use these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2010 and later years. We take this action to focus 

Federal assistance on supporting collaboration among schools and 

entities within a community in the provision of comprehensive academic, 

social, and health services for students, students' family members, and 

community members. We intend the priorities to support the improvement 

of student outcomes through their promotion of strong school-community 

partnerships that support effective resource coordination and service 

delivery. The FSCS program is a ``place-based'' program that can 

leverage investments by focusing resources in targeted places, drawing 

on the compounding effects of well-coordinated actions. Place-based 

approaches can also streamline otherwise redundant and disconnected 

programs.



DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria are effective July 8, 2010.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Staton, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W245, Washington, DC 20202-

5970. Telephone (202) 401-2091 or by e-mail: FSCS@ed.gov.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

    Purpose of Program: The Fund for the Improvement of Education 

(FIE), which is authorized by section 5411 of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), supports nationally 

significant programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary 

education at the State and local levels and help all children meet 

challenging academic content and academic achievement standards. The 

FSCS program, which is funded under FIE, encourages coordination of 

academic, social, and health services through partnerships among (1) 

public elementary and secondary schools; (2) the schools' local 

educational agencies (LEAs); and (3) community-based organizations, 

non-profit organizations, and other public or private entities. The 

purpose of this collaboration is to provide comprehensive academic, 

social, and health services for students, students' family members, and 

community members that will result in improved educational outcomes for 

children.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7243-7243b.

    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for this program in the Federal 

Register on February 8, 2010 (75 FR 6188-6192). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons for proposing the particular 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

    There are differences between the notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions and selection criteria (NPP) and this notice 

of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 

(NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section 

elsewhere in this notice.

    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 11 

parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria.

    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 

suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 

applicable statutory authority. In addition we do not address general 

comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 

of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria since publication of the notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria follows. 

We discuss substantive issues under the title of the item to which they 

pertain.



Absolute Priority--Eligible Services



    Comment: Two commenters suggested that services provided under the 

FSCS program include strong alignment of academic supports and 

enrichment activities with existing resources for remedial programming. 

In addition, one commenter noted the importance of aligning remedial 

education and academic enrichment activities with State standards, 

curricula, and academic achievement data to ensure stronger connections 

between school day and after-school activities.

    Discussion: We agree that remedial education, academic supports, 

and enrichment activities should be clearly and deliberately aligned 

with other key components of successful schools (e.g., a State's high 

academic standards; rigorous curricula; effective teachers; effective 

school leadership; well-designed assessments and accountability 

systems; positive school climates; and strong professional development) 

and are modifying the absolute priority accordingly. We believe that 

such coordination and alignment are likely to support student academic 

success by promoting cost-effective school-community partnerships that 

are tailored to the needs of students and schools.

    Changes: We have revised the service category regarding remedial 

education in the absolute priority. This category now reads ``Remedial 

education, aligned with academic supports and other enrichment 

activities, providing students with a comprehensive academic program.''



[[Page 32441]]



    Comment: One commenter suggested that the FSCS program require the 

use of a standardized social-emotional curriculum for grades K-12 and 

require grantees to implement the resiliency-based after-school 

activities based on the 40 developmental assets from the Search 

Institute's Healthy Communities/Healthy Students program.

    Discussion: We decline to adopt the changes suggested by the 

commenter because we believe that mandating the use of specific 

curricula or frameworks would unduly restrict the flexibility of 

applicants to develop FSCS projects that are most appropriately suited 

to their particular circumstances. Applicants are free to select 

models, which may include those suggested by the commenter, that they 

deem most appropriate to address the needs of their proposed project.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that while family literacy and 

parental involvement are related activities, they are distinct in scope 

and execution and therefore, should not be grouped into a single 

service category. The commenter further stated that parent education 

and parent leadership programs are related, yet distinct, and should be 

listed separately in the final notice.

    Discussion: We decline to adopt the changes suggested by the 

commenter because we believe that family literacy, parental 

involvement, parent education, and parent leadership are related in 

that they seek to meaningfully engage parents in ways that support 

their children's learning. Services and activities coordinated or 

provided by the FSCS should be based on identified needs and aligned 

with clearly articulated outcomes, regardless of the comprehensive 

nature of the service category itself. Because we believe these 

services are so inter-related, we are revising the absolute priority to 

consolidate them under one broad service category of family engagement.

    Changes: In the absolute priority, we have combined the parental 

involvement, family literacy activities, parent education, and parent 

leadership program service categories into one service category, which 

now reads ``Family engagement, including parental involvement, parent 

leadership, family literacy, and parent education programs.''

    Comment: Some commenters recommended that in addition to parental 

involvement and family literacy activities, family services include 

linking families to a wide range of supports, including public health 

insurance options, social service programs (e.g., food stamps, 

Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), and programs 

that encourage family financial stability (e.g., benefit screenings, 

assistance in claiming eligible tax credits and income supports, 

financial literacy programs, employment services, and asset-building 

programs).

    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that the receipt of 

information about health insurance options, social service programs, 

and programs that promote family financial stability can contribute to 

the overall well-being of a family. Providing information about health 

insurance options is an eligible activity under the primary health care 

service category in the absolute priority. We believe that using FSCS 

grant funds for activities that improve access to and use of social 

services programs and programs that promote family financial stability 

is also consistent with the purpose of the FSCS program, and are adding 

these activities to the absolute priority. It is important to note, 

however, that FSCS Federal grant funds are of greatest benefit when 

used to coordinate existing resources and services. Community schools 

cannot be sustained if administrators rely entirely on Federal FSCS 

funds to provide services.

    Changes: We have added a new service category to the absolute 

priority that provides for activities that improve access to and use of 

social service programs and programs that promote family financial 

stability.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the needs of students who 

have been chronically absent from school should receive greater 

prominence in the list of eligible services in the absolute priority. 

The commenter noted that chronic absenteeism during the early 

elementary school years can significantly affect a student's future 

academic success.

    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that chronic absenteeism 

can significantly affect academic success. We note that there is a 

growing body of national research linking chronic absence (missing 10 

percent or more of school due to excused or unexcused absences) to poor 

academic achievement, dropping out of school, and other negative 

outcomes. A report conducted by the National Center for Children in 

Poverty in 2008 examined the prevalence, consequences, and potential 

contributing factors associated with chronic absence in grades K-3 and 

noted that one in ten kindergarten and first-grade students is 

chronically absent nationally.\1\ The effects of chronic absence can be 

magnified for children living in poverty because they tend to have 

access to fewer resources at home to make up for lost time in school. 

We will, therefore, add to the service category in the absolute 

priority, programs that provide assistance to students who have been 

chronically absent.

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



    \1\ Chang, Hedy; Romero, Mariajose. Present, Engaged and 

Accounted For: The Critical Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence 

in the Early Grades. The Annie E. Casey Foundation; National Center 

for Children in Poverty (2008).

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



    Changes: We have revised the service category regarding programs 

that provide assistance to students who have been truant, suspended, or 

expelled, to include students who have been chronically absent.

    Comment: One commenter recommended modifying the service category 

regarding nutrition services to include a reference to physical 

education classes. The commenter asserted that nutrition, physical 

activity, and physical education are equally important in ensuring the 

healthy physical development of a child and his or her academic 

success.

    Discussion: We agree that physical activity and physical education 

are important to the healthy development of a child. An underlying goal 

of the FSCS program, however, is to supplement the in-school curriculum 

with additional services, supports, and opportunities, not to supplant 

it. We consider physical education to be a component of the in-school 

curriculum that, and as such, should not be supported using FSCS grant 

funds. Physical activities, however, are allowable if carried out in 

association with nutrition services or with mentoring and youth 

development services. We will, therefore, add physical activities to 

the nutrition services category in the absolute priority.

    Changes: We have revised the nutrition services category to include 

physical activities.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that while primary health care and 

dental care are related to each other, they should be listed as 

separate eligible activities and that the need for and delivery of one 

or both of these services should be based on the results of a needs 

assessment.

    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the provision of 

primary health care or dental care should be based on the needs of 

students, students' family members, and community members. We decline, 

however, to adopt the changes suggested by the commenter. Listing 

primary health care and dental care in one service category is unlikely 

to affect the



[[Page 32442]]



coordination or delivery of these services by grantees under this 

program. All services and activities coordinated or provided by the 

FSCS should be based on identified needs and aligned with clearly 

articulated outcomes, regardless of the comprehensive nature of the 

service category itself.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that vision care and the 

provision of corrective eyewear be explicitly included as an element of 

the primary health and dental care service category since vision 

problems can interfere with students' academic attainment. The 

commenter noted that undiagnosed and untreated vision problems are 

especially problematic among low-income and minority children.

    Discussion: We agree that access to vision care can affect 

students' success in school. Vision screening and vision care, 

including the provision of corrective eyewear, are allowable activities 

under the primary health care and dental care service category. 

Therefore, it is unnecessary to make the changes suggested by the 

commenter.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that in addition to counseling 

services, clinical mental health services should be included as an 

eligible service because many students in low-performing schools also 

live in high-poverty neighborhoods with increased rates of trauma due 

to violence, drug use, and other environmental stressors.

    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that addressing the mental 

health needs of students and their family members supports social and 

academic development and that these services may be broader than the 

proposed ``mental health counseling services.'' We recognize that 

mental health services encompass a broad range of school- and 

community-based services, including but not limited to clinical mental 

health services, and that the types of interventions may vary and 

should be based on the needs of the service recipient. We are, 

therefore, modifying the service category for mental health counseling 

services to be more general, which will allow applicants to define the 

appropriate range of mental health interventions needed to meet the 

needs of their target population.

    Change: We have revised the mental health counseling services 

service category to read ``Mental health services.''



Competitive Preference Priority--Strategies That Support Turning Around 

Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools



    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the competitive 

preference priority for Strategies that Support Turning Around 

Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools may result in the Department 

making awards to a cohort of grantees that is limited to only those 

Title I schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving. Some 

commenters stated that the competitive preference priority should not 

be limited only to the persistently lowest-achieving schools but, 

instead, be more broadly defined to include all schools that are 

eligible for Title I funding. Several commenters contended that it 

takes significantly more time, effort, and resources for persistently 

lowest-achieving schools to move through the developmental stages of a 

community school and to demonstrate results. In order to select 

projects with the greatest potential for success, one commenter 

suggested that the Department select a subset of applicants with 

schools that are persistently lowest-achieving from among the overall 

applicant pool in order to provide a more balanced portfolio of 

grantees.

    Another commenter stated that the Department's School Improvement 

Grants (SIG) program already prioritizes persistently lowest-achieving 

schools and provides a significant amount of financial resources to 

support implementation of the school intervention models. Other 

commenters stated that the competitive preference priority should be 

eliminated and that the FSCS program should support the development of 

the highest-quality full-service community schools, regardless of Title 

I funding status.

    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns. This 

competitive preference priority is aligned with the Department's reform 

goal of improving achievement in low-performing schools through 

intensive support and effective interventions. Persistently lowest-

achieving schools are most vulnerable and in need of a well-coordinated 

and integrated set of services to support their turnaround efforts.

    With respect to the SIG program, we note that FSCS program funds 

can be used to strengthen implementation of the intervention models 

authorized under the SIG program by leveraging resources that support a 

comprehensive academic program and qualify as one or more of the 

allowable FSCS services. FSCS funds cannot be used for direct 

implementation of the SIG interventions.

    In response to commenters' concerns that establishing a competitive 

preference priority for these schools would prevent support for the 

development of the highest quality full-service community schools, we 

note that including this competitive preference priority will not 

restrict funding only to those applications that are eligible to 

receive competitive preference. All applications will be evaluated and 

awarded points based on a number of selection criteria. Further, 

applications will be assessed under this competitive preference 

priority depending on how well an application meets the priority. We 

believe the inclusion of this competitive preference priority will 

allow for a balanced portfolio of funded applicants, including but not 

limited to, our most educationally disadvantaged, persistently lowest-

achieving schools. For these reasons we have concluded that no changes 

to the competitive preference priority should be made.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter asked whether a school that used to be a 

persistently lowest-achieving school but is no longer a persistently 

lowest-achieving school is eligible to receive the competitive 

preference. The commenter suggested that a school that was formerly 

identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school should be eligible 

for the competitive preference if it can demonstrate that it has taken 

steps within the last five years to become a full-service community 

school.

    Discussion: Applications that include schools that are not 

persistently lowest-achieving may still apply for funds under the FSCS 

program, but would not be eligible for the competitive preference. In 

order to meet the competitive preference applicants must propose to 

serve schools currently identified by the State as persistently lowest-

achieving schools that are currently implementing or plan to implement 

one of three school intervention models (as defined in this notice) to 

become full-service community schools.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter asked if one of the three school 

intervention models must be in place for an entity to be eligible to 

apply for a grant under the FSCS program.

    Discussion: Applications that propose to serve persistently lowest-

achieving schools that are planning to implement or are currently 

implementing one of the three school intervention models are



[[Page 32443]]



eligible for the competitive preference. Applications that do not 

propose to serve persistently lowest-achieving schools implementing or 

planning to implement one of the three school intervention models may 

still apply for an FSCS grant; however, such applications will not be 

eligible to receive the competitive preference.

    Change: None.

    Comment: Two commenters recommended adding other priorities. One 

commenter suggested adding a competitive preference for applicants that 

demonstrate an intention or plan to use site-based work and experience 

to catalyze district-wide change. The commenter noted that the presence 

of systems-level support and strong infrastructure is likely to result 

in the institutionalization of community school strategies. Another 

commenter recommended adding a competitive preference priority for 

applicants that collaborate with State educational agencies (SEAs) to 

develop mutually agreed upon performance measures for demonstrating the 

impact of community school interventions.

    Discussion: We agree that there is greater potential impact when 

full-service community schools have a strong infrastructure in place to 

sustain the overall effort and expand the number of FSCS program sites 

throughout an LEA or State. Applicants have the flexibility to develop 

projects most appropriately suited to the needs and context of their 

target population. Accordingly, applicants are free to select models--

including site-based management--they deem most appropriate to the 

needs of their proposed projects. Rather than adding a separate 

priority to address systemic support and infrastructure, we will revise 

the application requirements to focus on the importance of strong 

infrastructures to support full-service community schools.

    In response to the commenter's recommendation that we add a 

competitive preference priority for applicants that collaborate with 

SEAs to develop mutually agreed upon community school performance 

measures, we decline to add this priority because applicants have the 

flexibility to partner with SEAs to develop a set of mutually defined 

performance measures but we do not believe this should be a priority.

    Changes: We have revised application requirement (4), regarding 

organizational capacity, to require applicants to include a description 

of the existing or proposed infrastructure that will support the 

implementation and sustainability of the full-service community school.



Application Requirements



    Comment: None.

    Discussion: In the course of reviewing application requirement (1), 

regarding a description of the needs of students, students' family 

members, and community members to be served, we determined that 

requiring information about basic demographic characteristics of the 

target population would strengthen our understanding of the service 

recipients beyond their status as students, students' family members, 

and community members. Therefore, we have revised requirement (1) to 

require applicants to provide information about basic demographic 

characteristics of the population to be served.

    Changes: We have revised application requirement (1) to require 

applicants to describe the needs of the students, students' family 

members, and community members to be served, including basic 

demographic characteristics of the students, students' family members, 

and community members.

    Comment: Two commenters recommended strengthening the language in 

application requirement (2), which would require an applicant to 

provide a list of partner entities, to underscore the importance of 

realigning existing services and resources in support of the full-

service community school. The commenters noted that community schools 

cannot be sustained if administrators rely entirely on the Federal FSCS 

program or any single funding stream.

    Discussion: We agree that applicants should describe how they will 

realign existing resources to sustain the efforts of a full-service 

community school. We further believe that an applicant's primary 

emphasis should be on coordinating and integrating existing services 

and leveraged resources.

    Change: We have revised application requirement (2), to provide 

that an applicant must describe how existing resources and services 

will be coordinated and integrated with new resources and services.

    Comment: Two commenters recommended that we revise application 

requirement (3), regarding the memorandum of understanding, to provide 

that the memorandum of understanding include information about the 

services to be provided by partner entities and the results they will 

work toward, in addition to the role each partner entity will assume.

    Discussion: We agree that the memorandum of understanding should 

include information about the role of each partner entity and the 

resources and services it will provide. This will help ensure that 

applicants have agreements in place to coordinate existing resources 

and leverage other resources. Such agreements contribute to the long-

term sustainability of a community school effort. We will change the 

language in the final requirements accordingly.

    Changes: We have revised application requirement (3) to require 

applicants to provide in their applications the memorandum of 

understanding between the applicant and all partner entities, 

describing the role each partner will assume, the services or resources 

it will provide, and the desired results and outcomes.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department revise 

application requirement (4), regarding organizational capacity, to 

require applicants to include in their applications a description of 

the existence of an infrastructure to support community schools at the 

LEA level. The commenter asserted that system-wide support promotes 

institutionalization of community schools as a strategy that will be 

sustained by the LEA over time.

    Discussion: As discussed earlier, we agree that system-level 

support for community schools can promote better alignment of LEA 

policies, practices, and resources with the activities and intended 

outcomes of community schools. We also agree that requiring applicants 

to address this aspect of organizational capacity would enhance our 

ability to identify high-quality applications that are capable of 

achieving the desired results and outcomes. We are therefore modifying 

this requirement to require applicants to describe the existing or 

proposed infrastructure as part of an overall description of the 

applicant's experience partnering with the target school(s) and other 

partner entities, including the LEA.

    Changes: We have revised application requirement (4) to provide 

that applicants must include in their applications a description of the 

existing or proposed infrastructure to support implementation and 

sustainability of the full service community school.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require 

applicants to include a ``logic model'' in their applications. The 

commenter asserted that inclusion of a logic model promotes strong 

alignment of the goals, activities, objectives, performance measures, 

and



[[Page 32444]]



outcomes of the project, resulting in a more coherent evaluation plan.

    Discussion: We agree that clearly articulated and well-aligned 

goals, activities, objectives, performance measures, and project 

outcomes are critical to the design of an effective community school 

and are modifying the application requirements to make this clear. 

Applicants have the flexibility to select a logic model or use an 

alternative approach of their choice to describe their projects' well-

aligned goals, activities, objectives, performance measures, and 

project outcomes.

    Changes: We have revised application requirement (5), regarding a 

comprehensive plan, to require that applicants submit a comprehensive 

plan that includes a description of well-aligned goals, services, 

activities, objectives, performance measures, and project results and 

outcomes.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that application requirement (6), 

which requires applicants to provide a list and description of eligible 

services to be provided, be revised. The commenter recommended that we 

require applicants to include a description of the applicant's approach 

to integrating the existing and new programs and services with the 

school's core instructional program.

    Discussion: We agree that there should be intentional alignment 

among key components of a full-service community school, including the 

school's core instructional program, and are revising this requirement 

accordingly. A full-service community school should work with its 

partners to provide a coordinated, integrated, and results-focused set 

of programs and services in response to the needs of its students, 

students' family members, and community members. Such alignment is 

needed for a full-service community school to be successful in 

achieving a range of results and outcomes, including student academic 

success.

    Changes: We have revised application requirement (6) to require 

applicants to include a description of the applicant's approach to 

integrating new and existing programs and services with the school's 

(or schools') core instructional program and identification of the 

intended results and outcomes.

    Comment: One commenter suggested revising application requirement 

(7), which requires applicants to provide a description of how the 

applicant will use data to drive decision-making and measure success. 

The commenter recommended that we expand the data collection rubric to 

require applicants to track results of health, social, and family 

support indicators, in addition to the proposed academic and community 

support indicators.

    Discussion: We agree that applicants should collect data for a 

range of project and program indicators to monitor and assess progress 

toward achieving project results and outcomes and that those indicators 

should align with the proposed project's goals, objectives, services, 

and outcomes. As noted in the NIA, published elsewhere in this issue of 

the Federal Register, all grantees are required to collect and report 

on a program-level performance measure relevant to the individuals 

served by the project. However, we also believe that it is important 

for an applicant's data plan to include information related to project 

services as well as the recipients of those services and are revising 

the requirement accordingly. Applicants may design their plans based on 

the design of their projects. We further believe that it is important 

to emphasize in this requirement the need for applicants to ensure that 

their data collections and use of data comply with applicable Federal, 

State, and other privacy laws and requirements.

    Changes: We have revised application requirement (7) to require 

applicants to include a description in their applications of their 

plans to monitor and assess outcomes of the eligible services provided 

and coordinated by the FCSC project as well as the number of 

individuals served. We also have revised this requirement to specify 

that an applicant's plan must provide for compliance with Federal, 

State, and other privacy laws and requirements.

    Comment: Two commenters suggested revising application requirement 

(8), regarding the role and responsibilities of the full-service 

community school coordinator. The commenter recommended that we 

emphasize the need for the FSCS coordinator to be an active member of a 

joint planning effort consisting of key stakeholders from the school 

and community to guide the overall community school strategy and 

promote a sense of shared responsibility among all partners. Another 

commenter suggested requiring the FSCS coordinator to be a full-time 

position.

    Discussion: We agree that the FSCS coordinator should work closely 

with school leadership and community stakeholders to plan and implement 

a community school strategy that aligns with and strengthens core 

instruction. Further, the role of the FSCS coordinator should be 

closely linked to the leadership and management of the school, beyond 

simply coordinating additional programs and services. Such joint 

planning encourages (1) identification of and support for mutually 

defined results and outcomes that are responsive to students' needs, 

(2) alignment of services with those needs, and (3) shared 

accountability for achieving intended outcomes and results. We also 

agree that performing the duties of an FSCS coordinator entails a full-

time commitment and are revising the requirement accordingly.

    Changes: We have revised application requirement (8) to require 

that the FSCS coordinator be employed full-time in that position at the 

full-service community school and that the applicant include a 

description of its proposed approach to ensuring that the FSCS 

coordinator engages in joint planning with the principal and key 

community stakeholders to guide the proposed full-service community 

school.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that all full-service community 

schools be required to be open from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. so as to 

expand community access to the facilities in order to achieve maximum 

utilization of available resources.

    Discussion: We agree that full-service community schools should 

consider creative ways to expand learning opportunities and access to 

services and supports, including by extending hours of building 

facilities. However, we believe that such decisions are best left to 

applicants to determine based on the unique circumstances in their 

schools and communities.

    Changes: None.



Eligible Applicants



    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department broaden the 

definition of Eligible Applicants to include a consortium of schools or 

an LEA because, as the requirement is currently written, a consortium 

of schools in a particular LEA could not apply without the approval of 

its LEA.

    Discussion: Eligible applicants under the FSCS program are 

consortia consisting of an LEA and one or more community-based 

organizations, non-profit organizations, or other public or private 

entities. A public elementary or secondary school that has the 

independent authority to apply for a grant from the Department may do 

so. Generally, however, an individual school does not have independent 

authority to apply for a grant from the Department, or make the 

commitments required of a consortium partner. Consequently, in most 

cases, public elementary and secondary schools, while they can serve as 

FSCS sites, cannot be consortium partners or lead applicants and will 

need their LEA to



[[Page 32445]]



form a consortium and submit an application to the Department.

    Changes: None.



Planning



    Comment: Some commenters suggested amending the language for the 

optional planning year to direct applicants to devote adequate funding 

for comprehensive planning, capacity building, technical assistance, 

and evaluation. One commenter stated that grantees implementing one of 

the three school intervention models should be required to devote 

adequate funding for the first year of the project period to plan and 

obtain intensive technical assistance to build capacity for 

implementing a full-service community school. The commenter noted that 

schools undergoing significant restructuring tend to require intensive 

support for planning and implementation.

    Discussion: We agree that including capacity-building activities as 

an allowable use of funds during the planning year will help address 

some of the technical assistance needs of projects that are in various 

stages of readiness and are modifying the requirement to provide this 

clarification. We believe that including comprehensive program planning 

and capacity-building as allowable activities in the first year of the 

project period will make those activities sufficiently broad in scope 

to cover the diverse needs of FSCS applicants, including the need for 

intensive technical assistance.

    Changes: We have revised the requirement regarding the optional 

planning year to allow applicants to use FSCS funds for capacity 

building and establishing results-focused partnerships, as well as 

comprehensive program planning.



Definitions



    Comment: One commenter suggested adding definitions to describe the 

concepts of ``results-focused partnerships'' and ``conditions for 

learning'' to provide greater context for the FSCS program.

    Discussion: We agree that defining ``results-focused partnerships'' 

would highlight the importance of partners working collaboratively to 

achieve shared results and outcomes. In this regard, we believe that it 

is important for school-community partnerships to be based on 

identified needs and organized around a set of mutually defined results 

and outcomes. We are adding a definition of results-focused 

partnerships that reflects these key concepts.

    In terms of defining ``conditions for learning,'' we acknowledge 

that in order for students and the members of the communities in which 

they reside to thrive, their schools must be effective. Effective 

schools create learning environments that support student academic 

success and other outcomes. When characterized by stable leadership and 

a strong instructional program, full-service community schools have 

been associated with improved attendance and student achievement,\2\ 

increased family and community engagement,\3\ and improved student 

behavior and youth development.\4\ However, we decline to add a 

definition of this term because we believe there are numerous factors 

that contribute to effective learning and defining the term might limit 

applicants' flexibility in developing their proposals.

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



    \2\ Krenichyn, Kira, Helene Clark, and Lymari Benitez (2008). 

Children's Aid Society 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

After-School Programs at Six Middle Schools: Final Report of a 

Three-Year Evaluation, 2004-2007. New York: ActKnowledge.

    \3\ Quinn, Jane, and Joy Dryfoos (2009). Freeing teachers to 

teach: Students in full-service community schools are ready to 

learn. American Educator, Summer 2009:16-21.

    \4\ Whalen, Samuel (2007). Three Years Into Chicago's Community 

Schools Initiative (CSI): Progress, Challenges, and Emerging 

Lessons. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved April 

9, 2010, from https://www.aypf.org/documents/CSI_ThreeYearStudy.pdf.

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



    Changes: We have added the term results-focused partnerships to the 

Definitions section of this notice and defined it to mean collaboration 

between a full-service community school and one or more nonprofit 

organizations (including community-based organizations) based on 

identified needs and organized around a set of mutually defined results 

and outcomes for increasing student success and improving access to 

family and community services. We have added this term throughout this 

notice, where appropriate.

    Comment: One commenter suggested revising the definition of a full-

service community school to highlight the importance of providing 

integrated services in response to identified needs. The commenter also 

recommended revising the definition of full-service community school 

coordinator to underscore the FSCS coordinator's role in planning 

jointly with the school principal.

    Discussion: We agree that the commenter's suggested edits 

strengthen and clarify the meaning of full-service community school and 

FSCS coordinator and are revising the definitions accordingly.

    Changes: We have revised the first sentence of the definition of 

full-service community school to indicate that services must be 

integrated as well as coordinated. We have also revised the definition 

of full-service community school coordinator to provide that the FSCS 

coordinator works closely and plans jointly with the school principal 

to drive the development and implementation of the full-service 

community school.

    Comment: One commenter suggested revising the definition of student 

to include all children eligible to attend the school served by the 

FSCS grant, not just those enrolled.

    Discussion: We believe it is unnecessary to revise the definition 

of student because a child residing in the community served by the 

full-service community school could be eligible for services under the 

definitions of either student's family member or community member. A 

student means a child enrolled in a public elementary or secondary 

school served by the FSCS grant. A child who lives in the community and 

has a sibling or any other related individual living in the same 

household as the student would fall under the definition of student's 

family member and, therefore, would be eligible for services under that 

definition. A child who does not meet the definition of student or 

student's family member, but who lives in the community served by the 

FSCS grant, would be eligible for services under the definition of 

community member.

    Changes: None.



Selection Criteria--Quality of Management Plan



    Comment: One commenter suggested revising selection criterion 

(c)(ii), Quality of the Management Plan, to include consideration of 

the applicant's plan to obtain technical assistance for community 

school planning and implementation.

    Discussion: We do not believe applicants should be required to 

obtain technical assistance, but if an applicant were to propose using 

FSCS funds to obtain technical assistance, then that would be evaluated 

along with other proposed uses of funds. Applicants should determine 

for themselves their need for technical assistance in planning and 

implementing their proposed project.

    Changes: None.



Selection Criteria--Quality of Project Services



    Comment: One commenter suggested that we revise selection criterion 

(d)(2)(ii), Quality of Project Services, to



[[Page 32446]]



provide for consideration of the likelihood that the services to be 

provided will lead to improvements in children's social and emotional 

outcomes in addition to outcomes related to student achievement.

    Discussion: We agree that a child's academic, social, and emotional 

development can contribute to the child's long-term economic and social 

success. We decline, however, to revise selection criterion (d)(2)(ii), 

Quality of Project Services, in order to maintain focus on the 

Department's reform goal of improving the academic achievement of 

students. We also believe that consideration of the complete range of 

supports and the desired results and outcomes of a proposed project is 

best addressed in other selection criteria, such as Quality of the 

Project Design.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter recommended adding a selection criterion 

that would be used to judge the extent to which applicants create and 

expand technology infrastructure to support the work of community 

schools.

    Discussion: We agree that use of technology infrastructure can 

support attainment of student outcomes as well as support program 

management by enhancing a grantee's ability to use data to drive 

decision-making and measure success. However, we do not believe it is 

necessary to add a selection criterion specifically focused on 

technology infrastructure because technology infrastructure may be 

addressed in an applicant's responses to other selection criteria, such 

as Quality of the Project Design, Adequacy of Resources, and Quality of 

the Management Plan.

    Changes: None.



Final Priorities



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.

    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34 

CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet the priority.

    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: With an invitational priority, we signal our 

interest in receiving applications that meet the priority; however, 

consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that 

meets an invitational priority preference over other applications.

    Final Priorities: The Secretary establishes the following 

priorities for the Full-Service Community Schools program. We may apply 

these priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.

Absolute Priority--Projects That Establish or Expand Full-Service 

Community Schools

    This absolute priority supports projects that propose to establish 

or expand (through collaborative efforts among local educational 

agencies, community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and 

other public and private entities) full-service community schools, as 

defined in this notice, offering a range of services. To meet this 

priority, an applicant must propose a project that is based on 

scientifically based research--as defined in section 9101(37) of the 

ESEA--and that establishes or expands a full-service community school. 

Each applicant must propose to provide at least three of the following 

eligible services at each participating full-service community school 

included in its proposed project:

    1. High-quality early learning programs or services.

    2. Remedial education, aligned with academic supports and other 

enrichment activities, providing students with a comprehensive academic 

program.

    3. Family engagement, including parental involvement, parent 

leadership, family literacy, and parent education programs.

    4. Mentoring and other youth development programs;

    5. Community service and service learning opportunities.

    6. Programs that provide assistance to students who have been 

chronically absent, truant, suspended, or expelled.

    7. Job training and career counseling services.

    8. Nutrition services and physical activities.

    9. Primary health and dental care.

    10. Activities that improve access to and use of social service 

programs and programs that promote family financial stability.

    11. Mental health services.

    12. Adult education, including instruction of adults in English as 

a second language.



Competitive Preference Priority--Strategies That Support Turning Around 

Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools



    We give competitive preference to applications that propose to 

serve persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined in this notice, 

and are currently implementing or plan to implement one of three school 

intervention models, as defined in this notice, to enable these schools 

to become full-service community schools. Applicants seeking to receive 

this priority must describe (a) the school intervention model that 

would be or is being implemented to improve academic outcomes for 

students; (b) the academic, social, and/or health services that would 

be provided and why; and (c) how the academic, social and/or health 

services provided would align with and support the school intervention 

model implemented.



Requirements



    Requirements: The Secretary establishes the following requirements 

for the FSCS program. We may apply these requirements in any year in 

which this program is in effect.

    In order to receive funding, an applicant must include the 

following in its application:

    1. A description of the needs of the students, students' family 

members, and community members to be served, including information 

about (a) the basic demographic characteristics of the students, 

students' family members, and community members; (b) the magnitude or 

severity of the needs to be addressed by the project; and (c) the 

extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, 

infrastructures, or opportunities have been identified and will be 

addressed by the proposed project.

    2. A list of entities that will partner with the applicant to 

coordinate existing services or to provide additional services that 

promote successful student, family, and community results and outcomes. 

The applicant must describe how existing resources and services will be 

coordinated and integrated with new resources and services.

    3. A memorandum of understanding between the applicant and all 

partner entities, describing the role each partner will assume, the 

services or resources each one will provide, and the desired results 

and outcomes.

    4. A description of the organizational capacity of the applicant to 

provide and coordinate eligible services at a full-service community 

school that will



[[Page 32447]]



support increased student achievement. The description must include the 

applicant's experience partnering with the target school(s) and other 

partner entities; examples of how the applicant has responded to 

challenges working with these schools and entities; lessons learned 

from similar work or previous community-school efforts, and a 

description of the existing or proposed infrastructure to support the 

implementation and sustainability of the full-service community school. 

Applicants must also describe their past experience (a) building 

relationships and community support to achieve results; and (b) 

collecting and using data for decision-making and continuous 

improvement.

    5. A comprehensive plan based on results-focused partnerships, as 

defined in this notice, that includes a description of well-aligned 

goals, services, activities, objectives, performance measures, and 

project results and outcomes. In addition, the plan must include the 

estimated total number of individuals to be served, disaggregated by 

the number of students, students' family members, and community 

members, and the type and frequency of services to be provided to each 

group.

    6. A list and description of the eligible services to be provided 

or coordinated by the applicant and the partner entities; a description 

of the applicant's approach to integrating new and existing programs 

and services with the school's (or schools') core instructional 

program; and identification of the intended results and outcomes.

    7. A description of how the applicant will use data to drive 

decision-making and measure success. This includes a description of the 

applicant's plans to monitor and assess outcomes of the eligible 

services provided and coordinated by the FSCS project, as well as the 

number of individuals served, while complying with Federal, State, and 

other privacy laws and requirements.

    8. A description of the roles and responsibilities of a full-time 

FSCS coordinator and the proposed approach to ensuring that the FSCS 

coordinator engages in joint planning with the principal and key 

community stakeholders to guide the proposed full-service community 

school.



Eligible Applicants



    To be eligible for a grant under this competition, an applicant 

must be a consortium consisting of a local educational agency and one 

or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or 

other public or private entities.



Cost-Sharing or Matching



    To be eligible for an award, a portion of the services provided by 

the applicant must be supported through non-Federal contributions, 

either in cash or in-kind donations. The applicant must propose the 

amount of cash or in-kind resources to be contributed for each year of 

the grant.



Planning



    Interagency collaborative efforts are highly complex undertakings 

that require extensive planning and communication among partners and 

key stakeholders. Partnerships should be based on identified needs and 

organized around a set of mutually-defined results and outcomes. As a 

result, applicants under this program may devote funds received during 

the first year of the project period to comprehensive program planning, 

establishing results-focused partnerships, and capacity building. 

Funding received by grantees during the remainder of the project period 

must be devoted to program implementation.



Definitions



    The Secretary uses the following definitions for this program. We 

may apply these definitions in any year in which this program is in 

effect.

    Community member means an individual who is not a student or a 

student's family member, as defined in this notice, but who lives in 

the community served by the FSCS grant.

    Full-service community school means a public elementary or 

secondary school that works with its local educational agency and 

community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and other 

public or private entities to provide a coordinated and integrated set 

of comprehensive academic, social, and health services that respond to 

the needs of its students, students' family members, and community 

members. In addition, a full-service community school promotes family 

engagement by bringing together many partners in order to offer a range 

of supports and opportunities for students, students' family members, 

and community members.

    Full-service community school coordinator means an individual who 

works closely and plans jointly with the school's principal to drive 

the development and implementation of the FSCS effort and who, in that 

capacity, facilitates the partnerships and coordination and integration 

of service delivery.

    Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the 

State under the School Improvement Grants program (pursuant to the 

final requirements for the School Improvement Grants program, 74 FR 

65618, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2009)--

    (1) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that--

    (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-

achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or

    (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 

34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; 

and

    (2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not 

receive, Title I funds that--

    (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools 

or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are 

eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of 

schools is greater; or

    (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 

34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.

    Results-focused partnership means a partnership between a full-

service community school and one or more nonprofit organizations 

(including community-based organizations) that is based on identified 

needs and organized around a set of mutually defined results and 

outcomes for increasing student success and improving access to family 

and community services.

    School intervention model means one of the following three specific 

interventions described in the final requirements for the School 

Improvement Grants program, 74 FR 65618, published in the Federal 

Register on December 10, 2009 and summarized as follows:

    (1) Turnaround model, which includes, among other actions, 

replacing the principal and rehiring no more than 50 percent of the 

school's staff, adopting a new governance structure, and implementing 

an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned 

from one grade to the next as well as aligned with a State's academic 

standards.

    (2) Restart model, in which a local educational agency converts the 

school or closes and reopens it under the management of a charter 

school operator, a charter management



[[Page 32448]]



organization, or an education management organization that has been 

selected through a rigorous review process.

    (3) Transformation model, which addresses four specific areas 

critical to transforming persistently lowest-achieving schools: (i) 

Replace the principal and take steps to increase teacher and school 

effectiveness; (ii) institute comprehensive instructional reforms; 

(iii) increase learning time and create community-oriented schools; 

(iv) provide operational flexibility and sustained support.

    Student means a child enrolled in a public elementary or secondary 

school served by the FSCS grant.

    Student's family member means the student's parents/guardians, 

siblings, and any other related individuals living in the same 

household as the student and not enrolled in the school served by the 

FSCS grant.



Selection Criteria



Final Selection Criteria



    The Secretary establishes the following selection criteria for 

evaluating an application under the FSCS program. We may apply one or 

more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. 

In the notice inviting applications, the application package, or both, 

we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each 

criterion.

    (a) Quality of the Project Design.

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 

proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed 

project consists of a comprehensive plan that includes a description 

of--

    (i) The project objectives;

    (ii) The students, students' family members, and community to be 

served, including information about the demographic characteristics and 

needs of the students, students' family members, and other community 

members and the estimated number of individuals to be served; and

    (iii) The eligible services (as listed in the Absolute Priority 

described elsewhere in this notice) to be provided or coordinated by 

the applicant and its partner entities, how those services will meet 

the needs of students, students' family members, and other community 

members, and the frequency with which those services will be provided 

to students, students' family members, and community members.

    (b) Adequacy of Resources.

    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the 

proposed project.

    (2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 

supplies, and other resources to be provided by the applicant and 

consortium partners;

    (ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in 

the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project; 

and

    (iii) The extent to which costs are reasonable in relation to the 

number of persons to be served and services to be provided.

    (c) Quality of the Management Plan.

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for 

the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the 

proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the proposed project consists of a 

comprehensive plan that includes a description of planning, 

coordination, management, and oversight of the eligible services (as 

listed in the Absolute Priority described elsewhere in this notice) to 

be provided at each school to be served, including the role of the 

school principal, the FSCS coordinator, partner entities, parents, and 

community members;

    (ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 

experience, of the FSCS coordinator and other key project personnel 

including prior performance of the applicant on similar or related 

efforts; and

    (iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project 

director, the FSCS coordinator, and other key project personnel are 

appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed 

project.

    (d) Quality of Project Services.

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be 

provided by the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the project services, the 

Secretary considers the following:

    (i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed 

project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective 

practice; and

    (ii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the 

proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of 

students as measured against rigorous academic standards.

    (e) Quality of the Project Evaluation.

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 

conducted of the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 

considers the extent to which the proposed evaluation--

    (i) Sets out methods of evaluation that include the use of 

objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended 

outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative 

data to the extent possible;

    (ii) Will provide timely and valid information on the management, 

implementation, or efficiency of the project; and

    (iii) Will provide guidance on or strategies for replicating or 

testing the project intervention in multiple settings.



Factors Applicants May Wish to Consider in Developing an Evaluation 

Plan.



    The quality of the evaluation plan is one of the selection criteria 

by which applications in this competition will be judged. A strong 

evaluation plan should be included in the application narrative and 

should be used, as appropriate, to shape the development of the project 

from the beginning of the project period. The plan should include 

benchmarks to monitor progress toward specific project objectives and 

also outcome measures to assess the impact on teaching and learning or 

other important outcomes for project participants. More specifically, 

the plan should identify the individual or organization that has agreed 

to serve as evaluator for the project and describe the qualifications 

of that evaluator. The plan should describe the evaluation design, 

indicating: (1) What types of data will be collected; (2) when various 

types of data will be collected; (3) what methods will be used; (4) 

what instruments will be developed and when; (5) how the data will be 

analyzed; (6) when reports of results and outcomes will be available; 

and (7) how the applicant will