Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Monday,March 15, 2004

Part VI

Department of Education

Smaller Learning Communities Program;Notices

VerDate jul<14>2003 19:54 Mar 12, 2004Jkt 203001PO 00000Frm 00001Fmt 4717Sfmt 4717E:\FR\FM\15MRN5.SGM15MRN5

12254

Federal Register

/Vol. 69, No. 50/Monday, March 15, 2004/Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1830 ZA04

Smaller Learning CommunitiesProgram

AGENCY

Office of Vocational and AdultEducation, Department of Education.

ACTION

Notice of final requirements,priorities, and selection criteria forFiscal Year (FY) 2003 and subsequentyears funds.

SUMMARY

The Assistant Secretary forVocational and Adult Educationannounces final requirements,priorities, and selection criteria underthe Smaller Learning Communities(SLC) Program. The Assistant Secretarywill use these requirements, priorities,and selection criteria for a competitionusing fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds andmay use them in later years.We intend these final requirements,priorities and selection criteria tofurther the purpose of the SLC program,which is to promote academicachievement through the planning,implementation or expansion of small,safe and successful learningenvironments in large public highschools.

EFFECTIVE DATE

These finalrequirements, priorities and selectioncriteria are effective April 14, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Deborah Williams, U.S. Department of Education, OVAE MES room 5518, 400Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington,DC 20202–7120. Telephone: (202) 205–0242 or via Internet at

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

Background

The Smaller Learning Communitiesprogram is authorized under title V, partD, 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.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)). These methods andstrategies include establishing smalllearning clusters, ‘‘houses,’’ careeracademies, magnet programs, andschools-within-a-school. Other activitiesmay include: Freshman transitionactivities, advisory and adult advocatesystems, academic teaming, multi-yeargroupings, ‘‘extra help’’ or acceleratedlearning options for students or groupsof students entering below grade level,and other innovations designed to createa more personalized high schoolexperience for students. Thesestructural changes and personalizationstrategies, by themselves, are not likelyto improve student academicachievement. They do, however, createvaluable opportunities to improve thequality of instruction and curriculum,and to provide the individualizedattention and academic support that allstudents need to excel academically.The SLC program encourages LocalEducation Agencies (LEAs) to set higheracademic expectations for all of theirstudents and to use these strategies toprovide students with the effectiveinstruction and personalized academicand social support they need to meetthose expectations.We published a notice of proposedrequirements, priorities, and selectioncriteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 andsubsequent years funds in the

FederalRegister

on January 7, 2004 (69 FR1066). This notice of final requirements,priorities, and selection criteria containsseveral significant changes from thenotice of proposed requirements,priorities, and selection criteria. Wefully explain these changes in theAnalysis of Comments and Changessection elsewhere in this notice.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

In response to our invitation in thenotice of proposed requirements,priorities, and selection criteria 16parties submitted comments. Ananalysis of the comments and of anychanges in the requirements, priorities,or selection criteria since publication of the notice of proposed requirements,priorities, and selection criteria follows.

Comments:

Several commenterssuggested we make clear under

Types of Grants

that Implementation Grantawardees are expected to begin programimplementation in the first year of funding. The commenters suggested werequire some actual outcomes in thefirst year of the grant and not allowgrantees to use the first year forplanning purposes.

Discussion:

We agree that therequirement would be clearer with thechange recommended by thecommenters. The Implementation Grantis awarded to applicants who areexpected to have the capacity toimplement new smaller learningcommunities or expand an existingprogram. The first year is not to be usedfor planning purposes.

Changes:

We have changed thetimeframe for determining whether anImplementation Grant should beclassified as High Risk as a result of

VerDate jul<14>2003 19:54 Mar 12, 2004Jkt 203001PO 00000Frm 00002Fmt 4701Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\15MRN5.SGM15MRN5

12255

Federal Register

/Vol. 69, No. 50/Monday, March 15, 2004/Notices

several factors, including not makingsubstantial progress in specific goals set by the applicant.

Comments:

Several commenterssuggested the award ranges forImplementation Grants, especially thosewith larger high schools, be increased.

Discussion:

We agree that the schoolswith larger student populations requirehigher funding levels to carry out thecomplex reform activities of thisprogram, support the additional staff needed to provide the morepersonalized education that will resultfrom implementing smaller learningcommunities, and procure the servicesof a qualified third party for an externalevaluation of the project.

Changes:

We have increased theaward ranges for schools with studentenrollments of more than 1,000 throughmore than 3,000 in this notice.

Comments:

Several commentersrequested clarification regarding an LEAapplying for a grant on behalf of aconsortium of districts. The commentersasked whether an intermediate schooldistrict could apply on behalf of aconsortium of schools.

Discussion:

If an entity is an LEA, hasgoverning authority over eligibleschools, and meets other eligibilityrequirements, the LEA may apply for aplanning grant and/or animplementation grant as the fiscal agentfor a consortium of two or more districtson behalf of their eligible schools.

Changes:

None.

Comments:

Several commenterssought clarification regarding whetheradequate yearly progress would be theonly indicator for review of the progressof SLCs.

Discussion:

Adequate yearly progresswill not be the only factor used todetermine progress. Several factors will be used to review the progress of SLCs,including progress in achieving plannedobjectives, data submitted in response toperformance indicators, the annualperformance reports from the projects,the evaluation reports from the projects,and site visits to the projects.

Changes:

None.

Comments:

Several commenterssought clarification regarding placementof students and whether magnetprograms are eligible as an SLCprogram.

Discussion:

Magnet programs may beeligible as SLCs. This notice requiresthat students be placed at random or bystudent/parent choice to participate inan SLC program. They cannot be placedas a result of testing, any form of competition, or any other judgment.Magnet programs are eligible as SLCprograms if they do not use any form of testing or selection process other thanrandom selection or student/parentchoice for placement of students.

Changes:

None.

Comments:

Several commenterssought clarification and severalcommenters requested a change in therequirement regarding funding schoolsthat have benefited from previousplanning and implementation grants.

Discussion:

We are seeking to provideaccess to SLC grant funds to moredistricts across the country. Thereforeschools that received funds throughplanning grants in a prior year

’

scompetition will not be eligible to applyfor additional planning grants andschools that received funds throughimplementation grants in a prior year

’

scompetition will not be eligible to applyfor additional implementation grants.Grantees are expected to work towardsustainability of funding to supportprograms after the federal fundingperiod.

Changes:

None.

Note:

This notice of finalrequirements, priorities and selectioncriteria does

not

solicit applications. Inany year in which we choose to usethese requirements, priorities andselection criteria, we invite applicationsthrough a notice in the

Federal Register

Application Requirements

The Assistant Secretary announcesthe following application requirementsfor the SLC program. Theserequirements are in addition to thecontent that all Smaller LearningCommunities grant applicants mustinclude in their applications as required by the program statute under title V,part D, subpart 4, section 5441(b) of theESEA. A discussion of each applicationrequirement follows:

A. Proof of Eligibility

To be considered for funding, LEAsmust identify in their applications thename(s) of the eligible school(s) and thenumber of students enrolled in eachschool. Enrollment figures must be based upon data from the current schoolyear or data from the most recentlycompleted school year. We will notaccept applications from LEAs applyingon behalf of schools that are beingconstructed and do not have an activestudent enrollment at the time of application.

B. School Report Cards

We require that LEAs provide, foreach school included in the application,the most recent

‘‘

report card

’’

produced by the State or the LEA to inform thepublic about the characteristics of theschool and its students and studentacademic achievement and otherstudent outcomes. These

‘‘

report cards

’’

must include, at a minimum, theinformation that LEAs are required toreport for each school under section1111(h)(2)(B)(ii) of the ESEA: (1)Whether the school has been identifiedfor 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.

C. Types of Grants

The Secretary will award 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 of up to 12 months, andimplementation grants will be awardedfor a period of up to 36 months. Werequire 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 amount for implementation grantsat the time of the initial award.Applicants pursuing planning grantfunds must not yet have developed aviable plan for creating smaller learningcommunities in the school(s) that will be served by the grant. To apply forimplementation grant funds, applicantsmust be prepared to implement a newsmaller learning communities programwithin each targeted high school, or toexpand an existing smaller learningcommunities program. The first year of implementation grant funds is not to beused for planning purposes.

D. Applications on Behalf of MultipleSchools

In an effort to encourage systemic,district-level reform efforts, theSecretary is permitting an individualLEA to submit only one planning grantapplication and one implementationgrant application in a competition,