Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Wednesday, January 7, 2004

Part VII

Department of Education

Smaller Learning Communities Program;Notice

VerDate jul<14>2003 11:07 Jan 06, 2004Jkt 203001PO 00000Frm 00001Fmt 4717Sfmt 4717E:\FR\FM\07JAN3.SGM07JAN3

1066

Federal Register

/Vol. 69, No. 4/Wednesday, January 7, 2004/Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1830 ZA04

Smaller Learning CommunitiesProgram

AGENCY

Office of Vocational and AdultEducation, Department of Education.

ACTION

Notice of proposedrequirements, priorities, and selectioncriteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 andsubsequent years funds.

SUMMARY

The Assistant Secretary forVocational and Adult Educationproposes requirements, priorities, andselection criteria under the SmallerLearning Communities (SLC) Program.The Assistant Secretary will use theserequirements, priorities, and selectioncriteria for a competition using fiscalyear (FY) 2003 funds and may use themin later years.

DATES

We must receive your commentson or before February 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES

Address all comments aboutthese proposed requirements, priorities,and selection criteria to DeborahWilliams, U.S. Department of Education, OVAE, MES Room 5518, 400Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC20202–7100. If you prefer to send yourcomments through the Internet, use thefollowing address:

deborah.williams@ed.gov.

You mustinclude the term ‘‘SLC ProposedRequirements’’ in the subject line of your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Deborah Williams. Telephone: (202)205–0242 or via Internet:

deborah.williams@ed.gov.

If you use a telecommunicationsdevice for the deaf (TDD), you may callthe Federal Information Relay Service(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.Individuals with disabilities mayobtain this document in an alternativeformat (

e.g.

, Braille, large print,audiotape, or computer diskette) onrequest to the contact person listedunder

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Invitation to Comment

We invite you to submit commentsregarding these proposed requirements,priorities, and selection criteria. Toensure that your comments havemaximum effect in developing thenotice of final requirements, priorities,and selection criteria, we urge you toidentify clearly the specific proposedrequirement, priority, or selectioncriterion that each comment addresses.We invite you to assist us incomplying with the specificrequirements of Executive Order 12866and its overall requirement of reducingregulatory burden that might result fromthese proposed requirements, priorities,and selection criteria. Please let usknow of any further opportunities weshould take to reduce potential costs orincrease potential benefits whilepreserving the effective and efficientadministration of the program.During and after the comment period,you may inspect all public commentsabout these proposed requirements,priorities, and selection criteria in Room5518, 330 C Street, SW., Washington,DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday throughFriday of each week except Federalholidays.

Assistance to Individuals WithDisabilities in Reviewing theRulemaking Record

On request, we will supply anappropriate aid, such as a reader orprint magnifier, to an individual with adisability who needs assistance toreview the comments or otherdocuments in the public rulemakingrecord for these proposed requirements,priorities, and selection criteria. If youwant to schedule an appointment forthis type of aid, please contact DeborahWilliams. Telephone: (202) 205–0242 orvia Internet:

deborah.williams@ed.gov.

Background

The Smaller Learning Communitiesprogram is authorized under Title V,Part D, Subpart 4 of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act of 1965(ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7249), as amended byPublic Law 107–110, the No Child LeftBehind Act of 2001.The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001is the most sweeping reform of Federaleducation policy in a generation. It isdesigned to implement the President’sagenda to improve America’s publicschools by: (1) Ensuring accountabilityfor results, (2) providing unprecedentedflexibility in the use of Federal funds inimplementing education programs, (3)focusing on proven educationalmethods, and (4) expanding educationalchoice for parents. Since the enactmentof the original ESEA in 1965, theFederal Government has spent morethan $130 billion to improve publicschools. Unfortunately, this investmentin education has not yet eliminated theachievement gap between affluent andlower-income students or betweenminority students and non-minoritystudents.The U.S. Department of Education(Department) has developed a strategicplan that serves as the roadmap for allDepartmental activities andinvestments. The plan specificallyfocuses on, among other areas,improving the performance of all highschool students and holding schoolsaccountable for raising the academicachievement level of all students. TheDepartment will work with States toensure that students attain the strongacademic knowledge and skillsnecessary for future success inpostsecondary education and adult life.The Department will encourage studentsto take more rigorous courses, especiallyin the areas of math and science. Inaddition, the Department is committedto ensuring that our Nation’s schools aresafe environments conducive tolearning.One strategy that holds promise forimproving the academic performance of our Nation’s young people is theestablishment of smaller learningcommunities as components of comprehensive high schoolimprovement plans. The problems of large high schools and the relatedquestion of optimal school size have been debated for the last 40 years andare of growing interest today.Approximately 50 percent of Americanhigh schools enroll 1,000 or morestudents; nearly 70 percent of highschool students attend schools enrollingmore than 1,500 students. Somestudents attend schools enrolling asmany as 4,000 to 5,000 students.While the research on school size todate has been largely non-experimental,there is a growing body of evidence thatsuggests that smaller schools may haveadvantages over larger schools. Researchsuggests that the positive outcomesassociated with smaller schools stemfrom the schools’ ability to create close,personal environments in whichteachers can work collaboratively, witheach other and with a small set of students, to challenge students andsupport learning. A variety of structuresand operational strategies are thought toprovide important supports for smallerlearning environments; some datasuggest that these approaches offersubstantial advantages to both teachersand students (Ziegler 1993; Caroll 1994).Structural changes for recasting largeschools as a set of smaller learningcommunities are described in theConference Report for the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106–113, H.R. Conference Report No. 106–479, at 1240 (1999)). Such methodsinclude establishing small learningclusters, ‘‘houses,’’ career academies,magnet programs, and schools-within-a-school. Other activities may include:Freshman transition activities, advisoryand adult advocate systems, academicteaming, multi-year groupings, ‘‘extra

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:53 Jan 06, 2004Jkt 203001PO 00000Frm 00002Fmt 4701Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\07JAN3.SGM07JAN3

1067

Federal Register

/Vol. 69, No. 4/Wednesday, January 7, 2004/Notices

help

’’

or accelerated learning options forstudents or groups of students entering below grade level, and otherinnovations designed to create a morepersonalized high school experience forstudents. These structural changes andpersonalization strategies, bythemselves, are not likely to improvestudent academic achievement. Theydo, however, create valuableopportunities to improve the quality of instruction and curriculum, and toprovide the individualized attentionand academic support that all studentsneed to excel academically. The SmallerLearning Communities programencourages Local Education Agencies(LEAs) to set higher academicexpectations for all of their students andprovides support for reforms that willprovide the effective instruction andpersonalized academic and socialsupport students need to meet thoseexpectations.

Proposed Application Requirements

These proposed requirements are inaddition to the content that all SmallerLearning Communities grant applicantsmust include in their applications asrequired by the program statute underTitle V, Part D, Subpart 4, Section5441(b) of the ESEA. Local educationalagencies (LEAs), including schoolsfunded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,applying on behalf of large public highschools, are eligible to apply for aplanning or implementation grant. Adiscussion of each proposed applicationrequirement follows:

A. Proof of Eligibility

We propose that, to be considered forfunding, LEAs must identify in theirapplications the name(s) of the eligibleschool(s) and the number of studentsenrolled in each school. Enrollmentfigures must be based upon data fromthe current school year or data from themost recently completed school year.We will not accept applications fromLEAs applying on behalf of schools thatare being constructed and do not havean active student enrollment at the timeof application.RationaleThe Department needs thisinformation to determine if each schoolidentified in an application meets theproposed definition of a large highschool and to ensure that an LEA is notapplying for more than 10 schools.Further, the Department requiresschools have an enrollment of over1,000 students in grades 9 through 12.Schools under construction do not haveactual enrollment data to be used todetermine eligibility.

B. School Report Cards

We propose to require that LEAsprovide, for each school included in theapplication, the most recent

‘‘

reportcard

’’

produced by the State or the LEAto inform the public about thecharacteristics of the school and itsstudents and student academicachievement and other studentoutcomes. These

‘‘

report cards

’’

mustinclude, at a minimum, the informationthat LEAs are required to report for eachschool under section 1111(h)(2)(B)(ii) of the ESEA: (1) Whether the school has been identified for school improvement;and (2) information that shows how theacademic assessments and otherindicators of adequate yearly progresscompare to students in the LEA and theState performance of the school

’

sstudents on the statewide assessment asa whole.RationaleThe Department needs the

‘‘

reportcards

’’

to verify the accuracy of information the LEA provides in itsapplication about student academicachievement and other studentoutcomes at each school.

C. Types of Grants

We propose awarding two types of grants in this competition: (1) Planninggrants, which will be awarded tosupport planning, design, and otherpreparatory activities that culminate inthe development of a detailed plan forthe implementation of a smallerlearning communities program in aschool; and (2) implementation grants,which will be awarded to applicants tosupport the implementation of a newsmaller learning community programwithin each targeted high school, or toexpand an existing smaller learningcommunity program.Planning grants will be awarded for aperiod up to 12 months, andimplementation grants will be awardedfor a period up to 36 months. Wepropose to require that applicants forimplementation grants provide detailed,yearly budget information for the totalgrant period requested. Understandingthe unique complexities of implementing a program that affects aschool

’

s organization, physical design,curriculum, instruction, and preparationof teachers, we anticipate awarding theentire grant amount for implementationprojects at the time of the initial award.RationaleEffectively implementing a smallerlearning community program requiressignificant prior planning andpreparation, as well as extensiveconsultation with, and participation by,school personnel, parents, students, andcommunity leaders. It requiresfundamentally rethinking how a schoolis organized and how instruction andother direct services to students aredelivered. It is not a discrete activitythat can be carried out by a handful of teachers and school personnel withoutthe involvement of the larger schoolcommunity. We are proposing to awardplanning grants to those LEAs that mayneed additional resources to carry outthese essential preparatory activities.Implementation grants would beavailable to those LEAs that haveengaged in extensive planning activitiesand developed plans for implementingor expanding a smaller learningcommunity program at one or more highschools.

D. Applications on Behalf of MultipleSchools

In an effort to encourage systemic,district-level reform efforts, we proposepermitting an individual LEA to submitonly one planning grant application andone implementation grant application ina competition, specifying in eachapplication which high schools the LEAintends to fund.We would not permit an LEA to applyon behalf of a high school for which itdoes not have governing authority, suchas a high school in a neighboring schooldistrict. An LEA, however, may form aconsortium with another LEA andsubmit a joint application for funds.They must follow the procedures forgroup applications described in 34 CFR75.127

–

75.129 in EDGAR.We further propose limiting an LEA toapplying for either a planning orimplementation grant on behalf of thesame high school. A single high schoolcould be included in either the LEA

’

splanning grant application or itsimplementation grant application, butnot both. An LEA is eligible for only onegrant whether the LEA appliesindependently or as part of aconsortium application.RationaleThis requirement is designed toensure that each LEA that receivesassistance under this program willmanage and coordinate school-levelplanning and implementation activitiesas part of a single, coherent, district-wide reform strategy. This will helpLEAs make the most effective andefficient use of SLC resources and assistthem in aligning SLC activities withother district-level initiatives, includingthe implementation of activities carriedout under other programs funded by theESEA and the Carl D. PerkinsVocational and Technical Education