[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65570-65575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31273]



[[Page 65569]]

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

Part III





Department of Education





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



Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of 
Vocational and Adult Education; Smaller Learning Communities Program; 
Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 65570]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of 
Vocational and Adult Education; Smaller Learning Communities Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, application requirements, and 
selection criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
and the Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education announce 
final priorities, application requirements, and selection criteria for 
the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) program for fiscal year (FY) 
2001.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities, application requirements and 
selection criteria are effective January 18, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the program and to 
download an application, you may access the SLC program web site at 
www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SLCP/. If you have questions pertaining to the 
application, you may send an e-mail to 
[email protected]. If you need further assistance and 
need to speak with someone in the SLC program, you may contact Andrew 
Abrams, (202) 260-7430, 330 C Street, SW., MES Bldg., Room 5512, 
Washington, DC 20202. You may also contact Diane Austin (202) 260-1280, 
400 Maryland Ave., SW., Room 5C149, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Requests 
for applications may also be sent by fax to (202) 260-8969.
    Individuals who use the telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-
877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact persons listed above.

    Note: This notice of final priorities, application requirements, 
and selection criteria does not solicit applications. A notice 
inviting applications under this competition is published elsewhere 
in this issue of the Federal Register. The notice inviting 
applications will specify the deadline date by which applications 
for an award must be mailed or hand-delivered to the Department.

Background

    Research suggests that the positive outcomes associated with 
smaller schools stem from the schools' ability to create close, 
personal environments in which teachers can work collaboratively, with 
each other and with a small set of students, to challenge students and 
support learning. A variety of structures and complementary strategies 
are thought to provide important supports for smaller learning 
environments; some data suggest these approaches offer substantial 
advantages to both teachers and students (Ziegler 1993; Caroll 1994).
    The Smaller Learning Communities program is authorized under 
section 10105 of part A of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 8005). Title X, Part A 
authorizes the Secretary to support nationally significant programs and 
projects to: (1) Improve the quality of education; (2) assist all 
students in meeting challenging State content standards; and (3) 
contribute to achieving National Education Goals.
    The purpose of the Smaller Learning Communities program is to 
support the planning, implementation, or expansion of small, safe, and 
successful learning environments in large public high schools through 
competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs). LEAs may apply 
on behalf of large high schools including large high schools funded by 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA schools). For the purposes of this 
program, a large high school is defined as a school that includes 
grades 11 and 12 and enrolls at least 1,000 students in grades 9 and 
above.
    Methods for recasting large schools as a set of smaller learning 
communities are included in the Conference Report for the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2000 [Pub. L. 106-113, H.R. Conference Report No. 
106-479, at 1240 (1999)]. Such restructuring methods include 
establishing small learning clusters, ``houses,'' career academies, 
magnet programs, or schools-within-a-school. Strategies that complement 
a restructured large high school include block scheduling, freshman 
transition activities, advisory or adult advocate systems, academic 
teaming, multi-year groupings, and other innovations designed to create 
a more personalized high school experience for students and thus, 
improve student achievement.
    In FY 2000, Congress appropriated $45 million, of which the 
Department awarded $42.3 million in support of 149 grants to local 
educational agencies. The Secretary awarded 84 one-year planning grants 
and 65 three-year implementation grants. A total of 349 schools, 
serving over 450,000 students, benefited during the first year of the 
program. The Secretary reserved the remaining $2,250,000 to fund 
national leadership activities.
    Congress appropriated $125 million for this program in FY 2001. The 
Administration is not requesting funds for the Smaller Learning 
Communities program in FY 2002. Rather, the Administration is proposing 
a new Choice and Innovation State Grants program under which States and 
LEAs would have greater flexibility in using funds for activities, such 
as the creation of smaller learning communities, that will support 
educational reform and improvement.
    Prospective applicants are encouraged to review the Program Web 
site for non-regulatory guidance, information about current grantees, 
and to review successful applications at: www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SLCP. 
Written questions may be submitted through the Internet at: 
[email protected].
    Public Comments: The Department published a notice of proposed 
priorities, application requirements, and selection criteria for this 
competition in the Federal Register on July 19, 2001, (66 FR 37871-
37876).
    In response to the Assistant Secretaries' invitation to comment, 
five parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, application 
requirements, and selection criteria. An analysis of the comments and 
of the changes in the priorities, application requirements, and 
selection criteria since publication of the July 19, 2001, notice 
follows.
    We discuss substantive issues under the priority, requirement, or 
criterion to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical 
changes, minor changes, and suggested changes the law does not 
authorize the Assistant Secretaries to make under the applicable 
statutory authority.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

Competitive Priorities

    Comment: A commenter suggested that giving competitive preference 
to existing Smaller Learning Communities planning grantees is unfair to 
schools that have had to progress through the planning process on their 
own, without additional federal funds to do so.
    Discussion: We agree that current Smaller Learning Communities 
planning grantees should not receive a competitive priority when they 
apply for implementation grants, based solely on their status as a 
current planning grantee.
    Changes: This notice of final priorities, application requirements, 
and selection criteria does not include the proposed competitive 
priority for current planning grantees.
    Comment: A commenter proposed that schools already in the process 
of

[[Page 65571]]

institutionalizing reform strategies aimed toward the creation of 
smaller learning communities should receive priority points.
    Discussion: The Program is designed to help schools plan, 
implement, or expand smaller learning communities. Schools that are 
already in the implementation stage should be in a position to submit a 
strong application for an implementation grant. The Department does not 
believe a priority for these schools is necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that we expand the proposed priority 
for low-performing schools to include schools that may have groups of 
low-performing students with respect to gaps among diverse groups of 
students.
    Discussion: The intent of this program is to improve student 
achievement for all students; therefore, the Assistant Secretaries 
believe that the competitive priority, as written, provides the 
appropriate level of targeting for low-performing schools under this 
program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that we give competitive priority 
points to schools based on the size of their student body over 1,000 
students.
    Discussion: At this time there is not sufficient research evidence 
to support priority points for high schools that exceed a specific 
size.
    Changes: None.

Application Requirements

    Comment: A commenter disagreed with eliminating planning grants 
from the SLC competition stating that smaller learning communities are 
a new concept for many schools and local educational agencies (LEAs), 
and that LEAs need time to research best practices and plan before 
implementing.
    Discussion: We are in agreement that planning grants should remain 
a part of the Smaller Learning Communities program. LEAs and their 
cooperating schools need time to decide on the best strategies to use 
at their sites, to develop support for those strategies among all 
stakeholders, and to plan for the implementation of those strategies.
    Changes: The Department will invite applications for planning 
grants as well as for implementation grants in the FY 2001 competition.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that the Department allow consortia 
of LEAs with ten or more districts to apply under a single grant 
application.
    Discussion: The Department proposed that LEAs may include a maximum 
of ten schools within one application submitted by an LEA or consortium 
of LEAs. This proposal was based on a maximum award per application of 
$250,000 for planning grants and $2,500,000 for implementation grants. 
LEAs or consortia of LEAs may submit multiple applications requesting 
funds for up to ten schools within each application. We believe that an 
LEA or consortium applying for a single grant on behalf of more than 
ten schools will not have sufficient funds to carry out their proposed 
tasks, based on the funding scale.
    Changes: None.

Selection Criteria

    Comment: A commenter suggested that the program recognize efforts 
that support nationally recognized issues such as the disparity in 
performance for minority students, teacher shortages, and varying 
levels of teacher preparedness.
    Discussion: The Smaller Learning Communities program statute 
focuses on increasing student academic achievement through the creation 
of smaller learning environments, as a strategy in and of itself. Many 
schools, particularly low-performing schools, are likely to exhibit the 
problems identified by the commenter, and individual applicants are 
encouraged to address these problems in their applications for funding.
    Changes: None.

General Comments

    Comment: A commenter proposed that applicants be required to 
address State content and performance standards as well as the role of 
the district in implementing the Smaller Learning Communities program.
    Discussion: In accordance with section 10105(a)7 of the Program 
statute, the Department requires that applicants describe how the goals 
and objectives of the activities for which they are requesting funding 
are geared to meeting high State content standards and performance 
standards. Also, under section 10105(10), the application must include 
a description of the administrative and managerial relationship between 
the local educational agency and the smaller learning community or 
communities, including how such agency will demonstrate a commitment to 
the continuity of the smaller learning community or communities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that the Department encourage adult 
education and career education as a resource for low-performing schools 
as well as partnerships between secondary and adult programs.
    Discussion: While we agree that grantees should have a variety of 
strategies from which to choose, the focus of this program is to 
provide resources for LEAs that have large high schools. Schools have 
the flexibility to focus on career-specific curricula if that is what 
they choose to do.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A commenter proposed that reducing school violence be an 
explicit program goal.
    Discussion: We agree that creating smaller high schools holds great 
potential for improving school safety, and encourage applicants to 
include reducing school violence as a goal of their grant. In the 
selection criteria for implementation grants, incidents of violence and 
disciplinary actions are included among the factors peer reviewers will 
consider under the criterion of need for the project, and designing an 
effective method for describing progress toward the implementation of 
safe and successful smaller learning communities is included among the 
factors under the criterion for quality of the project evaluation.
    Changes: None.

Competitive Priority

    Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), the Secretary gives a competitive 
priority to applications that request funding to support smaller 
learning communities in low-performing high schools that meet all other 
eligibility requirements for the competition. Applicants will receive 
up to five additional points based on the proportion of participating 
schools included in the application that are identified as low-
performing. These points are in addition to any points the applicant 
earns under the selection criteria of the program. Low-performing 
schools can be identified by local and State educational agencies using 
the criteria in Title I, Part A, section 1116(c) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, which identifies for improvement any Title I 
school that has not made continuous and sustained progress over two 
years. In addition, for the purposes of this program, States and LEAs 
that have their own established criteria for identifying low-performing 
schools may use those criteria to provide evidence for the competitive 
priority. Applicants must specify the method used to identify schools 
as low-performing.

Application Requirements

    The Secretary announces the following application requirements for 
the Smaller Learning Communities program. These are in addition to the

[[Page 65572]]

content that all Smaller Learning Communities grant applicants must 
include in their applications as required by the program statute under 
section 10105(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. A 
discussion of each requirement follows:

A. Proof of Eligibility

    To be considered for funding, LEAs must include the name(s) of the 
eligible school(s) and the number of students enrolled in each school. 
Enrollment must be based upon data from the current school year or data 
from the most recently completed school year. LEAs applying on behalf 
of schools that are being constructed and do not have an active student 
enrollment at the time of application are not eligible under this 
program.

B. Types and Ranges of Awards

    The Secretary will award both planning and implementation grants 
under this year's competition. Applicants pursuing planning grants must 
not yet have developed a viable plan for creating smaller learning 
communities. To apply for implementation funds, applicants must be 
prepared either to implement a new smaller learning community program 
within each targeted high school, or to expand an existing smaller 
learning community program.
    For a one-year planning grant, LEAs may receive, on behalf of a 
single school, $25,000 to $50,000 per project. LEAs applying on behalf 
of a group of eligible schools may receive up to $250,000 per planning 
grant. As this program is designed to finance direct student services 
and local redesign and improvement efforts, districts should stay 
within the minimum and maximum school allocations when determining 
their group award request. Therefore, in order to ensure sufficient 
planning funds at the local level, LEAs may not request funds for more 
than 10 schools under a single application.
    The chart below provides eligible ranges for awards under the 
planning grant:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Number of schools in LEA application             Award ranges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One School.....................................          $25,000-$50,000
Two Schools....................................         $50,000-$100,000
Three Schools..................................         $75,000-$150,000
Four Schools...................................        $100,000-$200,000
Five Schools...................................        $125,000-$250,000
Six Schools....................................        $150,000-$250,000
Seven Schools..................................        $175,000-$250,000
Eight Schools..................................        $200,000-$250,000
Nine Schools...................................        $225,000-$250,000
Ten Schools....................................                 $250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure maximum flexibility and competitiveness, LEAs may submit 
multiple applications targeting distinct schools within each funding 
category. However, LEAs may not apply on behalf of a single high school 
in more than one application. Schools that received support through 
planning grants in the 2000 competition are not eligible to receive 
additional planning grants under the 2001 competition.
    For a three-year implementation grant, LEAs may receive, on behalf 
of a single school, $250,000 to $500,000 per project. LEAs applying on 
behalf of a group of eligible schools may request up to $2,500,000 per 
implementation grant. As this program is designed to finance direct 
student services and local redesign and improvement efforts, districts 
should stay within the minimum and maximum school allocations when 
determining their group award request. Therefore, in order to ensure 
sufficient implementation funds at the local level, LEAs may not 
request funds for more than 10 schools under a single application.
    The chart below provides eligible ranges for awards under the 
implementation grant:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Number of schools in LEA application             Award ranges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One School.....................................        $250,000-$500,000
Two Schools....................................      $500,000-$1,000,000
Three Schools..................................      $750,000-$1,500,000
Four Schools...................................    $1,000,000-$2,000,000
Five Schools...................................    $1,250,000-$2,500,000
Six Schools....................................    $1,500,000-$2,500,000
Seven Schools..................................    $1,750,000-$2,500,000
Eight Schools..................................    $2,000,000-$2,500,000
Nine Schools...................................    $2,250,000-$2,500,000
Ten Schools....................................               $2,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure maximum flexibility and competitiveness, LEAs may submit 
multiple applications targeting distinct schools within each 
application. However, LEAs may not apply on behalf of a single high 
school in more than one application. Schools that benefited from FY 
2000 implementation awards are not eligible to receive additional 
support under this competition. The total amount an LEA may receive, in 
any fiscal year under this program, may not exceed $5 million.

C. Project Period

    Planning grants will fund activities up to 12 months. 
Implementation grants will fund activities up to 36 months.

    Note: Applicants for multi-year awards must provide detailed, 
yearly budget information for the total grant period requested. 
Understanding the unique complexities of implementing a program that 
affects a school's organization, physical design, curriculum, 
instruction, and preparation of teachers, the Secretary anticipates 
awarding the entire grant amount for implementation projects at the 
time of the initial award. This will provide the applicant with the 
capacity to effectively carry out the comprehensive long-term 
activities involved in model development, documentation, evaluation, 
and dissemination of products and practices developed through the 
federal grant. Uninterrupted access to funds will depend upon a 
grantee's close adherence to its yearly budget projections as well 
as submission of an annual performance report, showing adequate 
progress, during the three-year period of the grant.

D. Page Limits

    Applicants should limit the application narrative to no more than 
25 double-spaced pages using the following standards:
    (1) A page is 8.5" x 11", on one side only;
    (2) The page limit includes all narrative, titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as charts, 
tables, figures, and graphs. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs may be 
single-spaced;
    (3) The font should be 11-point or larger;
    (4) The page limit does not apply to the Application for Federal 
Education Assistance Form (424); the SLC cover page; the Budget 
Information Form (ED 524) and attached itemization of costs; any other 
required or supplementary application forms and attachments to those 
forms; the assurances and certifications; the table of contents; the 
one-page abstract (which should precede the narrative section and 
provide enrollment data for each eligible high school and a short 
description of the project); documentation of the extent to which the 
applicant meets the competitive priority for the competition; or 
appendices. Appendices used should relate directly to the selection 
criteria and project activities. Pages should be numbered.

E. Reporting Requirements and Expected Outcomes

    For both planning and implementation grants, applicants must 
describe their:
    (a) Project objectives;
    (b) Measures of student outcomes and performance; and
    (c) Indicators to gauge progress toward meeting project objectives.
    In addition, the Secretary requires implementation grantees to 
collect data that address the performance indicators for this program 
in order to produce annual performance reports. These reports will 
document the grantees' yearly progress toward expected project

[[Page 65573]]

objectives. The Secretary will use these reports to measure the success 
of each grantee's project, as well as the effects of the Department of 
Education's Smaller Learning Communities program nationwide. A copy of 
the Smaller Learning Communities Annual Performance Report for 
implementation grantees is included in the application package. 
Planning grantees will be required to submit a performance report, 
including their implementation plan, at the end of their project.
    Applicants must submit initial baseline data for each student 
outcome measure described below. Baseline data should come from either 
the current or previous school year. Applicants must report this data 
as an appendix. Upon notification of award, grantees will be required 
to submit student outcome data for three years preceding the baseline 
year.
    Required student outcome measures include:
I. Student Achievement
    (a) The number of students scoring at each proficiency level for 
each subject measured by a State assessment (district assessments may 
substitute where State assessments do not yet exist) in grades 9-12;
    (b) The number of students taking the SAT and ACT, and their 
average scores;
II. Academic Rigor and Student Retention
    (a) The number of students who take courses for which they receive 
both high school and college credit;
    (b) The number of students completing high school;
    (c) The overall reported average daily attendance for October.
III. School Climate
    (a) The number of incidents of student violence, alcohol and drug 
use;
    (b) The number of expulsions, suspensions, or other serious 
disciplinary actions; and
    (c) The number of students involved in extracurricular activities.

    Note: Percentages may be used in place of number of students 
where appropriate.

F. Definitions

    (a) Definitions in EDGAR--Definitions defined in 34 CFR 77.1 are 
applicable to this program.
    (b) Other definitions--The following definitions also apply to this 
program:
    BIA school is a school operated or supported by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
    A group of schools is two or more schools that each meet the 
definition of a large high school.
    A large high school is an entity that includes grades 11 and 12 and 
has an enrollment of 1,000 or more students in grades 9 and above.
    A low-performing school is a school identified by local and State 
educational agencies under section 1116(c) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. Under current law, any Title I school that has 
not made ``adequate yearly progress'' over two years is identified by 
its LEA for improvement. In addition, for the purpose of this program, 
States and LEAs that have established criteria for identifying such 
schools may use their criteria to meet the competitive priority 
preference.

Selection Criteria

    Under the Smaller Learning Communities program competition, a peer 
review panel will make a careful evaluation of applications. Each 
panelist will evaluate the applications against the criteria listed 
below. The panel results are advisory in nature and not binding on the 
Secretary. The Secretary will use the following selection criteria and 
associated point values in evaluating applications for planning and 
implementation grants:
    (a) The maximum score for all of these criteria is 100 points. 
Applicants that meet the competitive priority eligibility requirements 
may receive up to 105 points.
    (b) The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in 
parentheses. Within each criterion, the Secretary evaluates each factor 
equally.
    The Secretary will base final funding decisions on the panel review 
ranking of applications. Geographic balance is no longer a 
consideration in funding decisions.

Planning Grants

    (a) Need for the project. (25 points) In determining the need for 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (1) The description and documentation of the targeted schools' need 
for the services provided and the need for the activities carried out 
by the proposed project consistent with the educational problems 
generally associated with the impersonal nature of large high schools. 
Need may consider factors such as: enrollment; attendance and drop-out 
rates; incidents of violence, drug and alcohol use, and disciplinary 
actions; percentage of students who pass graduation exams or State 
assessments (local assessments may be substituted in states that do not 
yet administer State assessments), enroll in advanced level courses, 
register for college entrance exams, and matriculate into postsecondary 
institutions or training; percentage of students who have limited 
English proficiency, who are migrant youth, who come from low-income 
families, or are otherwise disadvantaged; the applicant's fiscal 
capacity to fund programs described here without Federal assistance; or 
other local need factors as described by the applicant.
    (2) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses [including the 
nature and magnitude of those gaps and weaknesses] in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified by the applicant 
and will be addressed by the proposed project.
    (b) Foundation for planning. (20 points) In determining the merit 
of the proposed process for developing a viable implementation plan, 
the Secretary considers the extent to which the application:
    (1) Involves and documents the support of stakeholders both within 
the school community (e.g. administrators, staff, students, and 
parents) and within the greater community (e.g. representatives of 
institutions of higher education, employers, workforce investment 
boards, youth councils, and community-based organizations).
    (2) Provides clear evidence of teacher involvement and support, 
particularly of those teachers who will be directly affected by the 
implementation plan.
    (3) Indicates the collection and use of data that describe school 
needs.
    (4) Documents the use of research-based findings in the proposed 
restructuring of the learning environment.
    (c) Feasibility and soundness of the planning process. (45 points) 
In determining the feasibility and soundness of the planning process as 
a means of producing a viable implementation plan, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which the planned activities:
    (1) Are based on a commitment to meeting the needs of all students 
and ensuring the successful completion of their education or career 
goals.
    (2) Will lead to the establishment of smaller learning communities 
having clear goals and objectives connected to a mission statement and 
to student needs.
    (3) Follow a timeline appropriate to the goals and objectives to be 
achieved.
    (4) Involve key personnel who are qualified to undertake project 
activities.
    (d) Commitment of resources to the planning effort. (10 points) In 
determining the commitment of resources to the planning effort the 
Secretary considers the extent to which:

[[Page 65574]]

    (1) The requested budget adequately supports the proposed 
activities.
    (2) State, local, and other Federal funds will be used to support 
the development of the plan.
    (3) The administrative and managerial relationship between the LEA, 
the school(s), and the smaller learning community(ies) demonstrates a 
commitment to the concept of a smaller learning community and the 
planning process.

Implementation Grants

    (a) Need for the project. (25 points) In determining the need for 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (1) The description and documentation of the targeted schools' need 
for the services provided and the need for the activities carried out 
by the proposed project consistent with the educational problems 
generally associated with the impersonal nature of large high schools. 
Need may consider factors such as: enrollment; attendance and drop-out 
rates; incidents of violence, drug and alcohol use, and disciplinary 
actions; percentage of students who pass graduation exams or State 
assessments (local assessments may be substituted in states that do not 
yet administer State assessments), enroll in advanced level courses, 
register for college entrance exams, and matriculate into postsecondary 
institutions or training; percentage of students who have limited 
English proficiency, who are migrant youth, who come from low-income 
families, or are otherwise disadvantaged; the applicant's fiscal 
capacity to fund programs described here without Federal assistance; or 
other local need factors as described by the applicant.
    (2) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses (including the 
nature and magnitude of those gaps and weaknesses) in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified by the applicant 
and will be addressed by the proposed project.
    (b) Foundation for implementation. (15 points) In determining the 
quality of the implementation plan, the Secretary considers the extent 
to which the application:
    (1) Documents the involvement and support of stakeholders both 
within the school community (e.g., administrators, staff, students, and 
parents) and within the greater community (e.g. representatives of 
institutions of higher education, employers, workforce investment 
boards, youth councils, and community-based organizations).
    (2) Provides clear evidence of teacher involvement and support, 
particularly of those teachers who will be directly affected by the 
implementation plan.
    (3) Uses research-based findings and outside technical assistance 
in the proposed restructuring and in determining appropriate 
strategy(ies) to be implemented.
    (c) Feasibility and soundness of the plan. (35 points) In 
determining the quality of the proposed project, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which:
    (1) The goals and objectives of the smaller learning communities 
correspond to identified needs and are written in terms of student 
outcomes, including academic achievement.
    (2) The curriculum and instructional practices within each smaller 
learning community are aligned with its goals, theme, and emphases, 
where they exist.
    (3) The proposed smaller learning communities intervention(s) will 
benefit all students in the school and enable them to reach challenging 
State content standards and performance standards, ensuring their 
successful completion of high school and preparation for postsecondary 
education or a career.
    (4) Professional development activities offered to teachers, non-
instructional school staff, and others are aligned with smaller 
learning community goals.
    (5) The applicant provides a rationale for--
     Identifying grade levels and ages of students to be served 
by the smaller learning community(ies); and
     The methods and timetable for placing students in the 
smaller learning community(ies). Note: Students are not to be placed 
according to ability, performance, or any other measure of merit. The 
Department expects that all students will benefit from the SLC 
intervention.
    (6) The management plan appears capable of achieving the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including:
     The past experience, training, and clearly defined 
responsibilities of personnel who have key roles in carrying out the 
project; and
     The timelines and milestones for accomplishing project 
tasks.
    (d) Quality of the project evaluation. (15 points) In determining 
the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers whether the 
applicant has designed an effective method for:
    (1) Collecting student performance data, including:
     Required data for annual performance reports,
     Baseline data (to be included as an Appendix; refer to 
``Reporting Requirements and Expected Outcomes''), and data for three 
years preceding the baseline (the latter due upon award); and
     A process for monitoring and understanding changes in 
student outcomes for continuous improvement.
    (2) Describing, on an annual basis, the progress towards 
implementing smaller learning communities and implementing related 
program changes undertaken to make the smaller learning communities 
safe and successful. This information will be reported in the Annual 
Performance Report.
    (3) Disseminating best practices and products designed under this 
grant.
    (e) Adequacy of resources. (10 points) In determining the adequacy 
of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the 
extent to which:
    (1) State, local, foundation, and other Federal funds will be used 
to support the implementation of the plan.
    (2) The applicant will limit equipment, administrative costs, and 
other purchases in order to maximize the amount spent on delivery of 
services to students.
    (3) The applicant demonstrates a commitment to sustain the project 
beyond the period covered by the Federal grant.

Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs

    This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 
12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
    The objective of the Executive order is to foster an 
intergovernmental partnership and to strengthen federalism by relying 
on State and local processes for State and local government 
coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    Applicants must contact the appropriate State Single Point of 
Contact to find out about, and to comply with, the State's process 
under Executive Order 12372. Applicants proposing to perform activities 
in more than one State should immediately contact the Single Point of 
Contact for each of those States and follow the procedures established 
in each State under the Executive Order.
    If you want to know the name and address of any State Single Point 
of Contact (SPOC), see the latest list official SPOC list on the OMB 
Web site of the Office of Management and Budget at the following 
address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants.
    In States that have not established a process or chosen a program 
for review, State, area-wide, regional, and local entities may submit 
comments directly to the Department.

[[Page 65575]]

    Any State Process Recommendation and other comments submitted by a 
State Single Point of Contact and any comments from State, area-wide, 
regional, and local entities must be mailed or hand-delivered by the 
date indicated in this notice to the following address: The Secretary, 
E.O. 12372-CFDA #84.215L, U.S. Department of Education, Room 7E200, 400 
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-0125.
    We will determine proof of mailing on the same basis as we 
determine proof of mailing for applications (see 34 CFR 75.102). 
Recommendations or comments may be hand-delivered until 4:30 p.m. 
(Washington, DC time) on the date indicated in this notice. Please Note 
That the Above Address Is Not the Same Address as the One to Which the 
Applicant Submits Its Completed Application. Do not Send Applications 
to the Above Address.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: 
www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington DC area at (202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html


(Catalogue of Federal Assistance Number: 84.215L Smaller Learning 
Communities program)
    Dated: December 14, 2001.
Susan B. Neuman,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
Carol D'Amico,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 01-31273 Filed 12-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U