Carol M. White Physical Education Program; Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.215F, 34892-34910 [2010-14730]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 117 (Friday, June 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34892-34910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14730]



[[Page 34891]]

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

Part III





Department of Education





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



Carol M. White Physical Education Program; Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 117 / Friday, June 18, 2010 / 
Notices

[[Page 34892]]


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

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 final priorities, requirements, and definitions.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
announces 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, to improve 
students' physical activity, and to improve students' ability to meet 
their State physical education standards.

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, and definitions 
are effective July 19, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlette Huntley, U.S. Department of 
Education, 550 12th Street, SW., Room 10071, PCP, Washington, DC, 
20202-6450. 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: 
    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.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register on March 16, 2010 (75 FR 
12522). That notice contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the particular priorities, requirements, and definitions.
    There are several differences between the NPP and this notice of 
final priorities, requirements, and definitions (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, 59 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
and definitions.
    We discuss substantive issues under the title of the item to which 
they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor 
changes, or suggested changes we are not authorized 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 or requirements.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since 
publication of the NPP follows.

Absolute Priority--Programs Designed To Create Quality Physical 
Education Programs

    Comment: One commenter suggested rewriting the absolute priority to 
include improving physical education as an educational outcome.
    Discussion: We consider an improvement in physical education to be 
an educational outcome and do not see the need to include additional 
outcomes. The absolute priority clearly requires applicants to propose 
projects that address physical education. More specifically, the 
absolute priority requires every applicant to develop, expand, or 
improve its physical education program and address its State's physical 
education standards. Additionally, an applicant must provide 
instruction in healthy eating habits and implement at least one of the 
other program elements as described in the program statute (see 
sections 5501-5507 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, as amended; 20 U.S.C. 7261-7261f). These 2010 program 
requirements will help applicants develop a strategic approach to 
improving physical education and nutrition instruction by requiring an 
assessment of local efforts to address identified deficiencies.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that encouraging students to 
engage in moderate to vigorous exercise should be the primary focus of 
PEP. Some commenters also suggested that increasing the proportion of 
time in which students in physical education classes are active should 
be a priority.
    Discussion: We agree that moderate to vigorous physical activity by 
students and increasing the proportion of time that students are active 
in physical education classes are important outcomes for physical 
education programs, but disagree with the commenters that these should 
be the exclusive or primary focus of PEP. Instead, we believe that a 
comprehensive approach, incorporating both high-quality physical 
education and nutrition instruction strategies, offers the best 
opportunity for students to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary 
to help them understand the complementary relationship between physical 
education and nutrition, and the role that both of these areas can play 
in improving their health.
    Further, we believe that the program requirements we are 
establishing will promote the types of programs that will improve the 
percentage of students who engage in moderate to vigorous physical 
activity during physical education classes and throughout the day. 
Through these requirements, we highlight the importance of initiatives 
that move students from being sedentary, often because of a lack of 
high-quality programming, to being more active, and towards a lifestyle 
that includes moderate to vigorous physical activity in various 
settings, including in physical education classes. The requirements 
reflect an approach that looks not just at student-level improvements, 
but at broad, systemic changes that will be sustained over time to 
continually improve opportunities for students to engage in moderate to 
vigorous physical activity. If grantees would like to assess the time 
that students engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity, we 
would encourage them to do so and have designed at least one of our 
required performance measures to support this type of assessment. For 
all of these reasons, we believe that improvements to physical 
education programs under PEP will result in more active time for 
students during physical education classes, resulting in improved 
student outcomes, and that there is no need to focus explicitly on 
moderate to vigorous physical activity and increased activity time in 
physical education classes as part of the absolute priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that all six of the PEP elements 
included in the program's authorizing statute be part of all quality 
physical education programs.
    Discussion: We agree that all six elements are important facets of 
a comprehensive program, and applicants may propose to include all six 
elements as part of their proposed project if desired. At this time, 
however, we are not requiring applicants to include in their projects 
all six of the PEP program elements, because we want to provide 
flexibility for applicants to select approaches and activities that are 
linked to the priority needs identified for their schools and 
communities. We believe the absolute priority appropriately balances 
the positive aspects of moving to a more comprehensive approach with

[[Page 34893]]

flexibility for applicants to design a project that effectively 
addresses their particular needs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the competitive 
preference priorities do not address the absolute priority.
    Discussion: The competitive preference priorities are designed to 
encourage applicants to develop proposals that will result in stronger 
PEP projects within the context of the absolute priority.
    We note that, in our judgment, the adoption of either, or both, of 
the approaches identified as competitive preference priorities is 
likely to produce superior results. Both competitive preference 
priorities are likely to enhance long-term sustainability by 
encouraging efforts to leverage community resources and to build 
community investment in the program (partnership), and also efforts to 
provide data to policymakers so that they can make informed decisions 
about budget and programming in the future. An effective PEP project 
could be implemented without a grantee engaging in either competitive 
preference priority, which is why we opted not to require either or 
both.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed a desire to increase 
accountability in PEP, and suggested that adding the term 
``assessment'' to each of the program elements in the absolute priority 
would emphasize the need for assessment to be part of activities 
implemented as part of a PEP grant.
    Discussion: We agree that PEP would be strengthened by increasing 
the emphasis on assessment, evaluation, and accountability, and have 
already incorporated requirements in the final priorities, 
requirements, and definitions to address this concern. For example, we 
are ensuring accountability in the program by requiring the use of 
assessment tools such as the Physical Education Curriculum Assessment, 
the Health Education Curriculum Assessment, and the School Health 
Index, all of which enhance program assessment. As a result, we do not 
believe that it is necessary to make the change suggested by the 
commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed a concern that requiring PEP 
grantees to address the program element related to nutrition 
instruction would weaken the focus on physical education and dilute 
limited funding available to support activities designed to improve 
physical education.
    Discussion: We believe that a PEP project that incorporates both 
high-quality physical education and nutrition instruction strategies 
offers the best opportunity for students to acquire the information and 
skills necessary to help them understand the complementary relationship 
between physical education and nutrition, and understand the role that 
physical activity and nutrition can play in improving and maintaining 
their health.
    Furthermore, the legislation authorizing PEP has always included 
nutrition instruction as a program element and a significant number of 
past PEP grantees have elected to incorporate nutrition instruction in 
their projects. Generally, costs associated with including nutrition 
instruction have represented a fairly modest proportion of project 
funds, especially when compared to the costs of purchasing fitness 
equipment.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters asked us to emphasize in the absolute 
priority the use of evidence-based approaches or established best 
practices in the field. For example, some commenters suggested that the 
Department focus the priority on research-based curriculum design, 
which is common in other subjects such as math, reading, and science, 
and encourage use of similar strategies for physical education, 
including alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; other 
commenters stated that the Department should emphasize a variety of 
evidence-based approaches for which information is readily available 
via the Internet. Another commenter suggested that we fund only 
programs that use evidence-based approaches.
    Discussion: We agree that use of research-based programs and 
established best practices strategies by PEP grantees would likely 
improve program outcomes. However, there is a limited research base of 
effective programs and strategies that would be applicable to the scope 
of PEP and relevant to all communities and applicants, and 
additionally, we want to encourage innovation in this area. We believe 
that the program requirements that require implementation of the School 
Health Index (SHI) assessment, as well as of the Physical Activity 
Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) and the Health Education Curriculum 
Analysis Tool (HECAT) curriculum assessments will help applicants 
compare their current activities to established best practices in the 
field.
    We provide examples of a range of resources for evidence-based 
practices in the application package, including some of those suggested 
by one commenter. We encourage applicants to refer to those resources, 
as well as other resources, to design an evidence-based program that 
addresses the applicant's greatest needs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that we more clearly define what 
we mean by the absolute priority elements concerning motor skills, 
physical activity, and the development of positive social and 
cooperative skills.
    Discussion: We believe that the statutory language is sufficiently 
clear; these are terms that are commonly understood in the field or may 
be specifically defined in State standards. Accordingly, we do not 
believe it is necessary to define them here.
    Changes: None.

Competitive Preference Priority 1--Collection of Body Mass Index 
Measurement

    Comment: One commenter suggested that PEP grantees secure BMI 
information from physicians' offices and that this approach would help 
address some of the issues related to collection of BMI data, including 
privacy concerns and the need to purchase equipment and provide 
training on collecting BMI data.
    Discussion: We believe that the approach suggested by the commenter 
would introduce different data collection and reporting challenges. For 
example, it is unlikely that all students have regular physicians that 
maintain wellness and other records. Also, physicians might not have 
collected BMI information and could not be compelled to furnish this 
information if it is available. Grantees and physicians would also need 
to be sure that requirements are satisfied concerning the non-
consensual sharing of any protected health-related information or 
personally identifiable information from education records, such as the 
requirements contained in Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, 
and policies regarding student level data collection and privacy.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter urged the Department to exercise caution in 
using measures such as BMI to measure progress for the program, and 
indicated that the measures required under the Government Performance 
and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) included in requirement 9 are more 
appropriate measures for short-term grant projects.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter. The competitive preference 
priority concerning BMI is designed to provide important aggregate 
information

[[Page 34894]]

about the health status of students generally, and should serve as a 
surveillance tool for grantees that elect to implement the priority, 
not as a measure of program performance. We believe that the 
performance measures included as part of requirement 9 will complement 
the collection of BMI data by providing a range of measures that will 
permit grantees to assess improvements in several key areas, and 
provide data that the Department can use to help assess the overall 
effectiveness of PEP.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the need to have 
appropriate supports in place for students and families when BMI data 
are reported. For example, one commenter expressed concern that the 
collection and reporting of BMI data to students and parents without 
appropriate information could be associated with an increase in eating 
disorders and urged the Department to provide technical assistance to 
PEP grantees to help address this concern. Another commenter suggested 
that grantees collecting BMI data have a system in place to refer 
students with weight concerns to qualified health professionals for 
additional assessment and intervention if that is needed.
    Discussion: We agree that careful consideration should be given to 
the complex policy and practice questions related to BMI data 
collection, particularly if BMI information is to be shared with both 
students and parents. The competitive preference priority requires that 
grantees who choose to address the priority ensure that their plan 
includes resources for safe and effective follow-up with trained 
medical care providers when BMI data suggest that such follow-up 
services are needed.
    We plan to include in the application package a reference to 
available resources to help applicants implement these kinds of 
activities in the safest and most effective way possible, including the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Children's BMI Tool 
for Schools; that information is available online at https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/bmi/. We will also offer technical 
assistance to applicants and grantees to ensure that students' privacy 
is protected and that procedures are carried out in a manner that is 
confidential and sensitive to all students' privacy.
    We note that recent research shows no increase in eating disorders 
or disordered eating behaviors following an increased focus on obesity 
prevention. Data from Arkansas, where schools have been collecting BMI 
from students for several years, show no increase in eating 
disorders.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Schwarz M. and Henderson K. Does obesity prevention cause 
eating disorders? J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 2009, 
48(8):784-786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that we use an additional or 
alternative measure to BMI to assess population health status and the 
impact of PEP, including measures collected by a commercial fitness 
assessment tool, bioelectric impedance, skin fold tests, or measures 
such as attendance and academic performance that may correlate with 
fitness and health.
    Discussion: BMI is relatively easy to measure, can be done quickly 
and non-invasively, and provides a standard tool for measuring and 
assessing student weight status across a site or between sites. We have 
opted to use the CDC's BMI-for-age growth charts as our standard for 
measurement and assessment because this approach represents the 
recommended method of reporting size and growth patterns among children 
in the United States. The CDC BMI-for-age growth charts provide a full 
array of percentile levels, which allows for greater interpretation of 
weight status in the population and among individuals. The CDC 2000 
growth charts provide the best reference data available for the growth 
of U.S. children. Additionally, using the same method for interpreting 
BMI data collection will allow for data comparisons across PEP sites.
    Applicants that opt to undertake BMI measurement and assessment as 
part of their project should describe their plan to obtain student-
level data, consistent with the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act 
(FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Act Amendment (PPRA), which 
may be done using commercial fitness testing products that applicants 
may already have in use. The raw height and weight data collected using 
this tool can be easily converted to correspond with the CDC BMI-for-
age growth charts, which must be used to be responsive to the 
competitive preference priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about BMI measurement and 
the lack of evidence that use of BMI measurements will lead to more 
physical activity or improved physical education programs.
    Discussion: The use of BMI assessment data under this competitive 
priority is intended to create a mechanism to understand trends at the 
population level, including in the context of the other required 
measures of this program, in fitness, physical activity, and nutrition, 
and how the combination of these measures can be used to improve 
physical education programming and policy, and potentially help 
students meet their State standards for physical education.
    The use of BMI assessment data would inform program planners about 
overall trends in the population's weight status, which may be used to 
inform decisions about programming and policy at the program site and 
in the broader community. BMI data are not intended to be used to 
measure a project's success; projects might not even reasonably expect 
to see major changes in BMI scores during the project period. Rather, 
applicants that choose to address the competitive preference priority 
for collecting and reporting BMI data should consider how BMI 
information would be used in the context of the required measures for 
PEP. We also encourage applicants who choose to address this priority 
to use this opportunity to create or enhance sustainable systems that 
can be used to make data-based decisions for continuous program 
improvement.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that some States permit 
the collection and use of BMI data, while other States might prohibit 
or have restrictions on the collection and use of such data. One 
commenter cited States that already require the use of BMI data, 
potentially providing an advantage to applicants from those States. 
Similarly, another commenter suggested that some States may prohibit 
BMI assessment and that including BMI assessment as a competitive 
preference priority would place applicants from those States at a 
disadvantage. These commenters suggested that if BMI assessment is 
included in the program, that applicants not receive any additional 
points for electing to implement a plan to use such data.
    Discussion: While applicants that are already collecting BMI data 
may be able to implement the competitive preference priority more 
quickly if their project is funded, they will not have any advantage 
over other applicants because the priority requires only that 
applicants demonstrate their commitment to addressing the elements of 
the priority by including an assurance with their application. Grantees 
will be able to use program funds to obtain equipment, training, and 
other resources necessary to assist them in effectively implementing 
this competitive preference priority, helping to level the playing 
field for all applicants.
    We do not believe that there are any States that prohibit BMI data 
collection,

[[Page 34895]]

but we encourage applicants to understand and follow Federal, State, 
and local laws, regulations, and policies regarding student-level data 
collection and privacy.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the complexity involved with 
BMI data collection could discourage smaller educational entities and 
communities from applying for a grant.
    Discussion: We understand that collecting and reporting BMI data 
might pose challenges for applicants. If small school districts or 
communities need additional assistance to implement the competitive 
preference priority, they should include costs associated with 
collecting and reporting BMI data in their proposed budget. Allowable 
costs might include, for example, additional staff time to facilitate 
collection and reporting, purchase of needed equipment, purchase of 
technical assistance services, professional development costs, or 
resources to develop and disseminate information to parents and the 
community about BMI data.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: We received several comments expressing concern that BMI 
data interpreted in isolation at the individual level might not provide 
an accurate assessment of health status, particularly for athletes, or 
at the program level to assess project goals.
    Discussion: The intent of the BMI data collection is to provide a 
population-level analysis of the weight status of the student 
population, at the school, site, or district level. Although applicants 
should consider whether and how individual assessments may be shared 
with students and their families, the intent of this priority is 
focused on population surveillance. BMI assessment is also not 
necessarily intended to serve as an assessment of the program's short- 
or long-term goals. Program planners should consider how they will use 
the data to assess the impact of the program on the population's weight 
patterns but we expect that the changes as a result of PEP 
implementation may take longer than the project period. We have 
measures to assess the project's goals, such as physical activity, that 
are, in theory, directly affected by the activities that grantees will 
implement.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department provide 
specific instructions on how to collect BMI data. The commenters stated 
that this information should be included on CDC's Web site.
    Discussion: We agree that careful planning and training should be 
undertaken for projects that elect to address the proposed competitive 
preference priority concerning BMI assessment. As a result, we plan to 
include in the application package a reference to examples of available 
resources, including CDC's Children's BMI Tool for Schools, to help 
implement these kinds of activities in the safest and most effective 
way possible. This information is available on the CDC's Web site at: 
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/bmi/ bmi/.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter questioned why parental permission would be 
necessary to collect BMI data since overall fitness testing or other 
assessments do not require parental permission.
    Discussion: The competitive preference priority requires that 
parents be given the opportunity to have their child opt out of the BMI 
assessment after they have been informed of this choice. Applicants who 
wish to address the competitive preference priority related to BMI 
assessment are required to sign a Program-Specific Assurance that they 
will include parents in the development and implementation of their 
protocols to collect and report BMI data.
    The final priorities, requirements, and definitions also reference 
the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Grantees that 
engage in BMI data collection could be subject to the U.S. Department 
of Education's Protection of Human Subjects regulations found in 34 CFR 
part 97 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.
    Grantees will need to review carefully the scope and design of 
their project to determine if parental permission for collecting and 
reporting BMI data is required by State or local laws, regulations, or 
policies, if applicable. We will provide technical assistance to 
grantees to help them make this determination.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter believed that by requiring the collection of 
BMI data, grantees would be compelled to purchase a commercial fitness 
assessment product.
    Discussion: The use of a commercial product is not necessary to 
collect BMI data. Grantees can effectively collect BMI data without a 
specific fitness assessment product. In fact, many districts are 
conducting population-based BMI assessments with fairly simple 
equipment and spending more time and resources developing protocols and 
engaging in professional development to ensure that the assessment is 
done accurately and with sensitivity to students.
    Grantees should design a program that is commensurate with their 
identified needs and propose a budget that is commensurate with that 
project design. Because BMI assessment is a competitive preference 
priority, applicants can opt not to undertake that collection. If, 
however, an applicant commits to undertaking BMI assessment, the 
applicant should determine the most appropriate methods and tools for 
undertaking this activity. While the grant does allow for costs 
associated with needed equipment, technical assistance, and resource 
products, the Department does not require, recommend, or endorse the 
purchase or use of any particular commercial product for meeting this 
priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters requested that we change the competitive 
preference priority to an invitational priority.
    Discussion: We believe the collection of BMI data has value in 
helping programs identify the percentage of students who might be 
obese, overweight, normal weight, and underweight, thus allowing them 
to better understand the needs of the population they serve. As such, 
we have opted to give competitive preference to applicants that choose 
to undertake this activity.
    Changes: None.

Competitive Preference Priority 2--Partnerships Between Applicants and 
Supporting Community Entities

    Comment: Several commenters expressed a concern about the 
requirement to include the ``head of local government,'' as a required 
partner in order to satisfy the proposed competitive preference 
priority concerning partnerships. Specifically, commenters doubted that 
the head of local government would have time to play a meaningful role 
in a PEP project and were also concerned about the difficulty of 
securing support from the head of local government, particularly in 
large urban areas. One commenter expressed concern that requiring 
involvement of the head of local government would inject a political 
element into the grant.
    Discussion: Although we believe that the head of local government 
can

[[Page 34896]]

provide a significant leadership role in community-wide efforts to 
improve physical education, increase levels of physical activity, and 
enhance knowledge about nutrition and healthy eating, we understand 
that in some communities it may be difficult or even impossible to 
secure support of the head of local government. We address this concern 
by providing a broader definition of the term ``head of local 
government'' in the final definitions.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of ``head of local 
government'' as follows: ``the head of, or an appropriate designee of, 
the party responsible for the civic functioning of the county, city, 
town, or municipality would be considered the head of local 
government.''
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the competitive 
preference priority for partnerships is far-reaching and detracts from 
PEP's basic purpose of helping students meet State standards for 
physical education. Commenters also expressed concern about the burden 
associated with creating and maintaining the kinds of partnerships 
envisioned in the competitive preference priority, and stated that work 
on partnerships would dilute efforts to improve the quality of physical 
education programs. In some instances, commenters stated that it might 
also be difficult for community based organizations (CBOs) to establish 
such partnerships and that the inability to do so might place them at a 
competitive disadvantage.
    Discussion: We believe that collaborative efforts between school 
and community entities will greatly enhance the ability of grantees to 
provide effective and comprehensive PEP programs that help students 
live and learn lifelong healthy habits. We believe that both schools 
and CBOs can contribute to partnerships that are designed specifically 
to meet the needs of their student population. Best practices in the 
field suggest that this type of community collaboration enhances the 
project's effectiveness and possibility for being sustained past the 
period of Federal assistance. Although all applicants who choose to 
address this competitive preference priority would be required to 
engage in additional work to create and maintain partnerships, we 
believe that the important outcomes that could be gained by doing the 
work outweigh the concerns about the potential burden imposed.
    We have designed a competitive preference priority to allow CBOs to 
identify community partners that would enhance their efforts and 
connect their programs to other community initiatives. Although the 
makeup of the partner groups will differ between LEAs and CBOs, we do 
not believe that there is a significant difference between the priority 
requirements for LEAs or CBOs or that the priority places CBOs at a 
competitive disadvantage because both LEAs and CBOs are equally able to 
create and maintain the partnerships required.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that partners provide significant 
help in implementing and sustaining programs and policies and suggested 
that we incorporate competitive preference priority 2 into the absolute 
priority for the program.
    Discussion: We agree that a coordinated, community-wide approach is 
likely to be the most powerful model for establishing and sustaining 
comprehensive efforts to provide physical education, nutrition 
education, and other activities and programs.
    However, we are concerned that some potential applicants for PEP 
might not be able to secure each of the required partners. We believe 
that inclusion of the competitive preference priority strikes an 
appropriate balance between encouraging the use of this approach and 
not creating a disadvantage for applicants that cannot secure each of 
the required partners.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that applicants be permitted to 
use the State public health entity rather than the local public health 
entity to satisfy the competitive preference priority concerning 
partnerships because responsibility for some issues related to PEP 
might rest with State officials.
    Discussion: The proposed definition of the term ``local public 
health entity'' included in the NPP provided an exception for 
applicants from Rhode Island and Hawaii because neither State has sub-
State public health units. While we believe that a local public health 
entity is likely to be more involved in implementing a PEP project, we 
have learned that some States that have local public health units may 
not assign responsibility for issues related to nutrition, physical 
education, or physical activity to those local units. Based on this new 
information, we have revised the definition of the term ``local public 
health entity'' to address this situation.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of the term ``local public 
health entity'' to permit applicants whose local public health entity 
does not have responsibility for issues related to physical education, 
nutrition, or physical activity to partner with the State public health 
entity instead.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we revise the language 
concerning partner contributions in item (2) of the competitive 
preference priority by removing the word ``if''. Because partners are 
signing the partnership agreement, the commenter stated that it is 
reasonable to assume that they will be contributing to the partnership 
in some way and that those contributions should be specified in the 
agreement.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter's suggestion and have 
revised the priority.
    Changes: We have revised item (2) in the competitive preference 
priority accordingly.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the time typically 
allowed to complete the application would not be sufficient to create a 
partnership as described in the competitive priority concerning 
partnerships.
    Discussion: The Department must obligate all FY 2010 PEP funds by 
September 30, 2010 or those funds will revert to the U.S. Treasury. We 
are providing as much time as possible for applicants to develop and 
submit their applications under the FY 2010 PEP grant competition. All 
applicants will be subject to the same deadline.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that public health entities be 
allowed to function as the required partner representing an 
organization supporting nutrition or healthy eating under competitive 
preference priority 2.
    Discussion: If the only entity in the community that can provide a 
perspective on nutrition to the advisory committee is the public health 
entity, we believe it would be an acceptable partner to satisfy the 
competitive priority and, therefore, have revised the priority.
    Changes: We have revised the language in the priority and added 
public health entities to the definition of ``organizations supporting 
nutrition and healthy eating.''

Requirement 1--Align Project Goals With Identified Needs Using the 
School Health Index

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department promote 
implementation of Coordinated School Health Programs in conjunction 
with the use of the School Health Index (SHI) as included in this 
requirement.
    Discussion: We agree that a Coordinated School Health Program model 
provides a strong framework and context in which physical education, 
nutrition, and other important health

[[Page 34897]]

topics can be addressed by schools. Proposed requirement 4, which 
concerns linkages with Federal, State, and local initiatives, is 
designed to encourage applicants to consider how their proposed PEP 
project could be implemented in ways that maximize coordination with 
other health-related activities being implemented in schools and 
communities, including with Coordinated School Health Program 
initiatives. However, because eligible applicants for PEP include 
entities that are not schools or school districts, it would not be 
appropriate to require that all PEP projects implement a Coordinated 
School Health Program.
    We believe that requirement 1, with its focus on SHI only, is an 
appropriate assessment tool because it can be used without requiring 
the use of the Coordinated School Health Program framework for 
programming and policy development.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department use the CDC's 
SHI as part of a competitive preference priority rather than as part of 
a program requirement so that applicants would be encouraged to conduct 
an assessment for each application cycle.
    Discussion: We agree that applicants should use the SHI assessment 
tool to plan their proposed PEP project. For that reason, we drafted 
this requirement to ensure that each applicant conducts the SHI 
assessment at the time of application and that funded grantees 
undertake the SHI at the end of their project period to assess their 
progress. With this structure, use of the SHI assessment is required, 
which we view as better than simply encouraging it.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested allowing applicants more 
flexibility in choosing a needs assessment tool rather than requiring 
that applicants use CDC's SHI. One commenter stated that any needs 
assessment should include a review of the legal and policy context in 
which the project would be implemented, and examine the incentives and 
enforcement mechanisms that are in place to ensure that students are 
receiving quality physical education.
    Discussion: In part, we included this requirement in the NPP to 
respond to language in the conference report accompanying the FY 2010 
appropriations statute that includes funding for PEP. In addition to 
Congressional interest in having PEP applicants complete the SHI, we 
believe that completing the questions concerning physical activity and 
nutrition required in Modules 1-4 of the SHI assessment tool will 
assist applicants in designing a project that is closely aligned with 
their needs and is consistent with best practices in the field.
    The SHI is a relatively easy and straightforward tool, designed 
specifically for a school to assess its current policies and practices 
based on evidence and best practices. Findings from the SHI are also 
tied to action plans, which should inform the project design. We do not 
believe there is another tool that is easy to use, free, publicly 
accessible, aligned with technical assistance opportunities, and 
broadly applies scientifically-based principles to program and policy 
in a national context. Moreover, by requiring LEA applicants to use a 
single assessment tool, we will be better able to understand how 
schools change over the course of their project.
    As set forth in the text of the requirement, CBO applicants that 
have not identified a school or LEA partner in their applications are 
not required to use the SHI. However, they must use an alternative 
needs assessment tool to assess the nutrition and physical activity 
environment in the community for the children to be served by the 
grant. There are no comparable tools for CBOs that embody all of the 
desirable attributes of the SHI for the community-based setting. We 
will include, in the application package, guidance to CBO applicants on 
what CBO applicants might consider if they select an alternative 
assessment tool to the SHI.
    Finally, while not required, we encourage all applicants to assess 
their policy and legal contexts if they determine it is appropriate and 
they are able to do so. We believe that the SHI will assess the policy 
context but because grantees cannot necessarily change the legal 
context in which they would implement their projects, we do not believe 
that we should require this type of assessment.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters offered suggestions about how CDC's 
SHI assessment should be used in the PEP program. One commenter 
recommended that the Department revise requirement 1 to make it clear 
that applicants must complete Modules 1-4 of the SHI, while another 
commenter recommended that we delete the requirement that applicants 
complete Module 1 because not all of the questions in that module 
relate to topics that are likely to be included in a PEP project. Other 
commenters recommended expanding the requirement to include Module 8 of 
the SHI (Family and Community Involvement) given the Department's 
increased focus on creating school-community partnerships, as evidenced 
by the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions in the NPP.
    Discussion: Applicants are only required to complete the physical 
activities and nutrition questions in Modules 1-4 of the SHI assessment 
tool. Applicants are not required to complete any other questions in 
those or other SHI modules. Applicants may choose to complete other 
questions (in addition to those physical activity and nutrition 
questions required) if they believe that doing so would be helpful in 
designing their proposed PEP projects.
    Changes: None.

Requirement 2--Nutrition- and Physical Activity-Related Policies

    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about the ability of an 
LEA or CBO to change or affect physical activity and nutrition policies 
in their respective settings. One commenter stated that it will be 
difficult for CBOs to change or affect policies because the scope of 
the policies subject to review and revision under this requirement is 
much broader than the scope of the policies that a CBO can adopt and 
implement. Another commenter discussed the challenges in writing and 
implementing specific policies in school districts, and stated that the 
focus of the requirement should be on reviewing and updating policies 
rather than developing new policies.
    Discussion: Requirement 2, which addresses the nutrition- and 
physical activity-related policies to be developed, updated, or 
enhanced by grantees during the PEP grant, does not specify particular 
policies that must be developed, reviewed, and potentially revised. 
Rather, applicants must describe their current policy framework and the 
process they plan to use to review, develop, implement, and monitor 
policies. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that PEP 
grantees carefully consider the role of policy development and 
implementation in creating comprehensive PEP projects, and that they 
commit to making policy changes that support improvements in the areas 
of physical activity and nutrition during the project period of the PEP 
grant. Policy changes are also likely key to institutionalizing and 
sustaining progress made during a PEP project.
    We believe that examining the policy framework in which projects 
are implemented will help grantees identify needed policy changes that 
can remove impediments to, or provide incentives

[[Page 34898]]

for, enhanced physical education or improved nutrition outcomes. We do 
not expect grantees to address policies that are outside their 
authorized mission or scope.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several comments expressed concern about the relationship 
between proposed requirements 2 (nutrition-and physical activity-
related policies), 3 (linkage with local wellness policies), and 4 
(linkages with Federal, State, and local initiatives). One commenter 
proposed that the Department offer applicants the option of meeting 
either requirement 2 or 3 stating that both requirements entail the 
same sort of analysis and action. Another commenter suggested that we 
combine the three requirements into a single requirement because the 
foci of the three requirements are related.
    Discussion: We acknowledge that requirements 2, 3, and 4 are 
related, but we elected not to combine them because the three 
requirements may apply differently depending on the applicant's 
organization and the context in which it operates. We believe that 
stating the three requirements separately enables us to address how 
each requirement applies in different contexts. We believe that this 
approach will help ensure that applicants understand the requirements 
and will be able to respond to them appropriately in their 
applications.
    For example, requirement 3 concerns linkages with local wellness 
policies. LEAs are typically the entities responsible for developing 
and implementing local wellness polices. For this reason, the 
requirement, as applied to LEAs, is straightforward. Given that we also 
expect non-LEA applicants to apply for PEP grants, we have included 
information in this requirement to address those applicants as well. 
Under this requirement, CBOs whose PEP applications include a 
partnership with LEAs must describe in their applications how the 
project will enhance or support the intent of the local wellness 
policies of participating LEAs, while CBOs not in partnerships with 
LEAs do not have to satisfy this requirement.
    Although we believe that the best approach to describing these 
three program requirements is to present them separately, applicants 
are encouraged to provide in their applications a comprehensive 
discussion of their policy framework and of linkages with other 
existing initiatives. Applicants need not repeat information that 
responds to more than one of the requirements.
    Changes: None.

Requirement 3--Linkage With Local Wellness Policies

    Comment: Some commenters raised concerns that proposed requirement 
3, which concerns the linkage with local wellness policies, will be 
challenging for CBOs to meet and that time spent by staff in managing 
activities related to the requirement would reduce an organization's 
ability to provide direct services to students.
    Discussion: As stated in this requirement, if an applicant or one 
its partners does not participate in the school programs authorized by 
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child 
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, it might not have a 
local wellness policy and, therefore, might not be required to meet 
this requirement or to adopt a local wellness policy. However, we 
encourage all applicants to consider developing a local wellness policy 
consistent with the policies required by the Richard B. Russell 
National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition and WIC 
Reauthorization Act of 2004 in conjunction with their PEP projects. If 
a CBO applicant has an LEA partner, it would be required to address 
that LEA's local wellness policy.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department revise this 
requirement concerning linkages to local wellness policies to 
accommodate any changes that might result from reauthorization of the 
Child Nutrition Act.
    Discussion: In future years before using the priorities, 
requirements, and definitions established in this NFP, we will 
carefully review program requirements to determine if legislative 
action or other changes require the Department to modify the 
priorities, requirements, or definitions in this NFP under this 
requirement.
    Changes: None.

Requirement 4--Linkages With Federal, State, and Local Initiatives

    Comment: Two commenters suggested that we include a reference to 
the Recovery Act Community Putting Prevention to Work Community 
Initiative (CPPW) grantees in the application package.
    Discussion: We agree that adding such a reference could be helpful 
to applicants. The link to the CPPW Web page (https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/recovery/community.htm), which includes a list of grant 
recipients and additional information on the initiative, will be 
provided in the application package. We believe that this program, 
which includes in its goals a focus on improving physical activity and 
nutrition habits of residents, has the potential to complement efforts 
undertaken as part of the PEP program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that having programs align 
with Coordinated School Health programs or CPPW grants, as required 
under Requirement 4, would place a significant burden on applicants.
    Discussion: We believe that applicants and PEP-funded projects must 
complement, rather than duplicate, existing, ongoing, or new efforts 
that promote physical activity and healthy eating, and help students 
meet their State standards for physical education. CDC's Coordinated 
School Health Program, USDA's Team Nutrition initiative, and HHS's CPPW 
grantees are working on projects directly related to one or more 
elements of PEP. Coordinating with these programs and initiatives will 
allow PEP grantees to maximize their resources, reduce duplication, 
provide more effective programming for their students, and increase 
chances for a PEP project's sustainability.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters requested that we add State associations 
for health, physical education, recreation, and dance to the list of 
linkages to Federal, State, and local initiatives that could be made by 
PEP grantees.
    Discussion: This requirement specifically requires applicants that 
are implementing CDC's Coordinated School Health Program, USDA's Team 
Nutrition Initiative, or CPPW, to align its proposed PEP project 
activities with these initiatives. Applicants that are implementing 
other Federal, State, or local initiatives are required to sign a 
Program-Specific Assurance that commits them to align their project 
with such initiatives.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we add language to proposed 
requirement 4 that would mandate that USDA's Team Nutrition 
coordinators be involved in planning and implementing the PEP project 
and that their involvement be verified by a signed assurance or other 
documentation.
    Discussion: We believe that it is important for PEP projects to 
complement rather than duplicate existing or new efforts to promote 
physical activity and healthy eating behaviors. For this reason, 
requirement 4 requires applicants that receive funding under the USDA's 
Team Nutrition initiative to describe how

[[Page 34899]]

their proposed PEP project supports the efforts of the USDA's Team 
Nutrition initiative.
    Although we agree that it is important for PEP-funded activities to 
be coordinated with other related activities such as those supported by 
Team Nutrition, we believe that the proposed requirement is sufficient 
to address this issue without imposing an additional requirement for a 
signed assurance from the Team Nutrition coordinator.
    Changes: None.

Requirement 5--Updates to Physical Education and Nutrition Instruction 
Curricula

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed 
requirement related to updating physical education and nutrition 
instruction curricula is not aligned with the absolute priority. The 
commenter stated that completion of the PECAT and analysis of PECAT 
results should guide applicants in choosing which of the absolute 
priority elements related to physical education they should include in 
their proposed PEP project.
    Discussion: We believe that each of the proposed requirements in 
the NPP (and adopted in this NFP) is closely linked to the components 
of the absolute priority in this notice and that each requirement 
supports the adoption of high-quality, evidence-based programming and 
curricula. As part of a general planning framework for a PEP grant, 
results from the PECAT and HECAT should be used as part of the needs 
assessment process that each applicant will undertake to be optimally 
responsive to the absolute priority or as part of a grantee's analysis 
of available curricula during the project period. Undertaking the SHI 
or another needs assessment leads an applicant to select elements of 
the absolute priority to be included in their proposed project. If one 
of the needs identified is a curricular need, the PECAT and HECAT are 
intended to guide applicants or grantees to identify a curriculum that 
fills that identified need. These tools, therefore, should help 
applicants or grantees to be responsive to the absolute priority and 
function as tools to help meet the absolute priority. The PECAT and 
HECAT can be done as part of the application process or after the grant 
is awarded, as appropriate.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about requiring the 
use of the HECAT and PECAT tools. Two commenters stated that use of 
these tools limits local flexibility and does not allow for alignment 
with State standards. Others contended that these tools have limited 
ability to assess cognitive components of physical education or that 
the tools are limited to secondary level curricula. Finally, one 
commenter expressed concerns that these tools do not assess 
implementation of curricula.
    Discussion: We believe that the PECAT and HECAT tools provide a 
low-cost and rapid way to assess existing curricula and identify needed 
enhancements in those curricula. These tools are designed to provide a 
complete, consistent, and objective assessment of a site's needs and 
resources and to provide feedback on curricula to best meet the 
identified needs. According to CDC, the PECAT and HECAT are appropriate 
for all grade levels and relate to national physical education and 
health education standards. Our goal in requiring the use of these 
tools is to help grantees make the best choices for curricula and, in 
turn, equipment, before funds are spent unnecessarily on items that do 
not meet the needs of the site. However, this requirement does not 
prohibit applicants or grantees from also using additional analysis or 
needs assessment tools if they so choose.
    We agree that the PECAT and HECAT are not designed to assess 
implementation of the curriculum or cognitive components of PE. For 
this reason, applicants must undertake the SHI or another comparable 
needs assessment tool to assess needs, which may include implementation 
issues. In addition, grantees must undertake the SHI at the end of 
their project period to assess their progress. The PECAT and HECAT 
complement the SHI in that the PECAT and HECAT address written 
curricula and the SHI addresses the implementation of those curricula. 
The SHI is a self-assessment and planning tool that schools use to 
assess their student health policies and programs and their school 
health environments. We also note that, in addition to requiring the 
use of these assessment and planning tools, we also are establishing 
performance measures for this program that are designed to help assess 
the effectiveness of the chosen program, including curricula, on 
changing student outcomes.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about tying PEP-related 
equipment purchases to the curricular components of the applicant's 
physical education and nutrition program. The commenter stated that 
there would not be sufficient opportunity during the grant to create an 
action plan related to a newly developed or adopted curriculum to help 
students meet their State standards for physical education.
    Discussion: The intent of this requirement is to ensure that 
grantees align equipment purchases using PEP-related funds to the PEP 
elements and curricula applicable to their PEP projects, as identified 
by the PECAT and HECAT. Grantees must tie equipment purchases to any 
curricula that will be implemented as part of a PEP project. Without 
this alignment, equipment purchased with PEP funds would not support 
the effective implementation of physical education or health curricula. 
For this reason, applicants must undertake the PECAT--either as part of 
the application process or during the grant's project period--to assess 
their needs and plan related equipment purchases accordingly. We do not 
intend to prohibit a grantee from changing its plans for equipment 
purchases during the project period so long as the grantee aligns the 
equipment purchases with the PEP elements applicable to their projects 
(identified in priority 1) and any applicable curricula, within the 
scope of the funded project.
    Changes: None.

Requirement 6--Equipment Purchases

    Comment: One commenter suggested that it would be appropriate for 
applicants to consider both the schools' and the community's physical 
activity needs when selecting equipment for purchase so that equipment 
purchased for schools could be used by community members under a 
shared-use agreement.
    Discussion: Grantees under this program may only purchase equipment 
with PEP-related funds (either Federal funds or funds used to satisfy 
the program's matching requirement) if the purchase is aligned with the 
curricular components of the physical education and nutrition program. 
We expect that applicants will describe in their application what 
equipment they expect to purchase with PEP funds, and how the equipment 
would address their curricular needs, including gaps and weaknesses in 
their current programming for the students served by the grant, and the 
specific curricular needs of the students to be served by the grant. 
However, it is important to note that during the project period, the 
equipment may be used only by students served by the grant in grades K-
12. Therefore, community members may not use the equipment during the 
project period.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that it was 
appropriate to clarify the first sentence in requirement

[[Page 34900]]

6. Specifically, we did not think the phrase ``purchases of equipment 
with PEP funds and related to grant activities'' was sufficiently clear 
for applicants.
    Changes: We revised the first sentence of requirement 6 to state 
that purchases of equipment with PEP funds or with funds used to meet 
the program's matching requirement must be aligned with the curricular 
components of the proposed physical education and nutrition program.

Requirement 7--Increasing Transparency and Accountability

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we require reports generated 
by a particular commercial fitness product to be sent home to parents 
so that this additional information can be used by parents and 
pediatricians to monitor growth and development.
    Discussion: The Department does not endorse specific commercial 
products. There are many mechanisms and reports that can provide 
information to parents and, if they so choose, parents may share this 
information with their child's pediatricians. We encourage applicants 
to consider plans to share student-level information with parents.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether reporting 
mechanisms required for grantees to increase transparency and 
accountability include making available to the public reports of 
students' progress towards meeting State physical education standards.
    Discussion: The new PEP design seeks to increase accountability and 
transparency by requiring grantees to report aggregate student data to 
the public on program indicators required under GPRA, as published in 
the performance measurement section of the notice inviting applications 
(NIA), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, and 
any unique project-level measures proposed in their applications. 
Grantees may elect to establish measures specific to their project, 
which may include student's progress towards meeting State standards 
for physical education. Because of the diversity not only in grantee 
sites, but also the quality of State physical education standards, it 
is not practical for us to require grantees to report on this issue as 
a performance measure for PEP. We have chosen performance measures that 
best balance the potential data collection burden, which we believe is 
low, with the value of providing grantees with practical and actionable 
student-level data and obtaining comparable data that can be aggregated 
across program sites, which we believe is high.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review of this requirement, we determined 
that the language in the final paragraph regarding the Program-Specific 
Assurance might be confusing. Specifically, we determined that the 
phrase ``including parents of students under 18 years old'' was not 
necessary, might cause readers to be confused as to what was required, 
and did not meaningfully add to the intent of the requirement.
    Changes: We revised the first sentence in the last paragraph of 
requirement 7 to clarify that applicants must commit to reporting 
information to the public by signing a Program-Specific Assurance, and 
deleting the phrase ``including parents of students under 18 years 
old.''

Requirement 8--Participation in a National Evaluation

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about how much time would 
be needed to collect data related to the national evaluation and PEP's 
performance measures.
    Discussion: Although we understand that the required performance 
measures and data collection methodology may be challenging for some 
grantees, they are similar to the measures and data collection 
methodology that many grantees currently collect and implement. 
Grantees are, and have always been, allowed to hire staff to assist in 
the collection and analysis of their site-specific data related to 
performance measurement. For the national evaluation, the Department 
will work directly with a contractor, who will use existing data, to 
the extent possible and minimize the data collection burden on 
grantees.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested information about the national 
evaluation of the PEP program.
    Discussion: The scope of the national evaluation is still being 
considered. If a grantee is selected to participate in the national 
evaluation, more specific information about the study will be shared 
prior to the initiation of the evaluation. We expect that the 
evaluation will broadly examine the performance measures, which focus 
on increases in the percentage of students meeting the recommended 
levels of physical activity (at least 60 minutes every day), and 
improvements in student fitness levels and nutritional intake. These 
measures will likely be examined at the PEP program level to illustrate 
the range of projects implemented and outcomes achieved by grantees 
funded under this program.
    Changes: None.

Requirement 9--Required Performance Measures and Data Collection 
Methodology

Additional or Alternative Measures

    Comment: One commenter suggested requiring applicants to gather 
data on the four CDC physical activity recommendations in addition to 
the GPRA measures already