[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1066-1075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-326]



[[Page 1065]]

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

Part VII





Department of Education





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



Smaller Learning Communities Program; Notice

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

[[Page 1066]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1830 ZA04


Smaller Learning Communities Program

AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and selection 
criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and subsequent years funds.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education 
proposes requirements, priorities, and selection criteria under the 
Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) Program. The Assistant Secretary 
will use these requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for a 
competition using fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds and may use them in later 
years.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before February 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed requirements, 
priorities, and selection criteria to Deborah Williams, U.S. Department 
of Education, OVAE, MES Room 5518, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20202-7100. If you prefer to send your comments through the 
Internet, use the following address: [email protected]. You must 
include the term ``SLC Proposed Requirements'' in the subject line of 
your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Williams. Telephone: (202) 
205-0242 or via Internet: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you 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 person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment

    We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed 
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria. To ensure that your 
comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final 
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria, we urge you to 
identify clearly the specific proposed requirement, priority, or 
selection criterion that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of 
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed 
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria. Please let us know of 
any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or 
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and 
efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about these proposed requirements, priorities, and selection 
criteria in Room 5518, 330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC, between the 
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of 
each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking 
Record

    On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or 
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs 
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public 
rulemaking record for these proposed requirements, priorities, and 
selection criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this 
type of aid, please contact Deborah Williams. Telephone: (202) 205-0242 
or via Internet: [email protected].

Background

    The Smaller Learning Communities program is authorized under Title 
V, Part D, Subpart 4 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7249), as amended by Public Law 107-110, the No 
Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
    The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the most sweeping reform of 
Federal education policy in a generation. It is designed to implement 
the President's agenda to improve America's public schools by: (1) 
Ensuring accountability for results, (2) providing unprecedented 
flexibility in the use of Federal funds in implementing education 
programs, (3) focusing on proven educational methods, and (4) expanding 
educational choice for parents. Since the enactment of the original 
ESEA in 1965, the Federal Government has spent more than $130 billion 
to improve public schools. Unfortunately, this investment in education 
has not yet eliminated the achievement gap between affluent and lower-
income students or between minority students and non-minority students.
    The U.S. Department of Education (Department) has developed a 
strategic plan that serves as the roadmap for all Departmental 
activities and investments. The plan specifically focuses on, among 
other areas, improving the performance of all high school students and 
holding schools accountable for raising the academic achievement level 
of all students. The Department will work with States to ensure that 
students attain the strong academic knowledge and skills necessary for 
future success in postsecondary education and adult life. The 
Department will encourage students to take more rigorous courses, 
especially in the areas of math and science. In addition, the 
Department is committed to ensuring that our Nation's schools are safe 
environments conducive to learning.
    One strategy that holds promise for improving the academic 
performance of our Nation's young people is the establishment of 
smaller learning communities as components of comprehensive high school 
improvement plans. The problems of large high schools and the related 
question of optimal school size have been debated for the last 40 years 
and are of growing interest today. Approximately 50 percent of American 
high schools enroll 1,000 or more students; nearly 70 percent of high 
school students attend schools enrolling more than 1,500 students. Some 
students attend schools enrolling as many as 4,000 to 5,000 students.
    While the research on school size to date has been largely non-
experimental, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that 
smaller schools may have advantages over larger schools. 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 operational strategies are thought to provide 
important supports for smaller learning environments; some data suggest 
that these approaches offer substantial advantages to both teachers and 
students (Ziegler 1993; Caroll 1994).
    Structural changes for recasting large schools as a set of smaller 
learning communities are described 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 methods include establishing 
small learning clusters, ``houses,'' career academies, magnet programs, 
and schools-within-a-school. Other activities may include: Freshman 
transition activities, advisory and adult advocate systems, academic 
teaming, multi-year groupings, ``extra

[[Page 1067]]

help'' or accelerated learning options for students or groups of 
students entering below grade level, and other innovations designed to 
create a more personalized high school experience for students. These 
structural changes and personalization strategies, by themselves, are 
not likely to improve student academic achievement. They do, however, 
create valuable opportunities to improve the quality of instruction and 
curriculum, and to provide the individualized attention and academic 
support that all students need to excel academically. The Smaller 
Learning Communities program encourages Local Education Agencies (LEAs) 
to set higher academic expectations for all of their students and 
provides support for reforms that will provide the effective 
instruction and personalized academic and social support students need 
to meet those expectations.

Proposed Application Requirements

    These proposed requirements are in addition to the content that all 
Smaller Learning Communities grant applicants must include in their 
applications as required by the program statute under Title V, Part D, 
Subpart 4, Section 5441(b) of the ESEA. Local educational agencies 
(LEAs), including schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
applying on behalf of large public high schools, are eligible to apply 
for a planning or implementation grant. A discussion of each proposed 
application requirement follows:

A. Proof of Eligibility

    We propose that, to be considered for funding, LEAs must identify 
in their applications the name(s) of the eligible school(s) and the 
number of students enrolled in each school. Enrollment figures must be 
based upon data from the current school year or data from the most 
recently completed school year. We will not accept applications from 
LEAs applying on behalf of schools that are being constructed and do 
not have an active student enrollment at the time of application.
Rationale
    The Department needs this information to determine if each school 
identified in an application meets the proposed definition of a large 
high school and to ensure that an LEA is not applying for more than 10 
schools. Further, the Department requires schools have an enrollment of 
over 1,000 students in grades 9 through 12. Schools under construction 
do not have actual enrollment data to be used to determine eligibility.

B. School Report Cards

    We propose to require that LEAs provide, for each school included 
in the application, the most recent ``report card'' produced by the 
State or the LEA to inform the public about the characteristics of the 
school and its students and student academic achievement and other 
student outcomes. These ``report cards'' must include, at a minimum, 
the information that LEAs are required to report for each school 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 
the academic assessments and other indicators of adequate yearly 
progress compare to students in the LEA and the State performance of 
the school's students on the statewide assessment as a whole.
Rationale
    The Department needs the ``report cards'' to verify the accuracy of 
information the LEA provides in its application about student academic 
achievement and other student outcomes at each school.

C. Types of Grants

    We propose awarding two types of grants in this competition: (1) 
Planning grants, which will be awarded to support planning, design, and 
other preparatory activities that culminate in the development of a 
detailed plan for the implementation of a smaller learning communities 
program in a school; and (2) implementation grants, which will be 
awarded to applicants to support the implementation of a new smaller 
learning community program within each targeted high school, or to 
expand an existing smaller learning community program.
    Planning grants will be awarded for a period up to 12 months, and 
implementation grants will be awarded for a period up to 36 months. We 
propose to require that applicants for implementation grants 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, we anticipate 
awarding the entire grant amount for implementation projects at the 
time of the initial award.
Rationale
    Effectively implementing a smaller learning community program 
requires significant prior planning and preparation, as well as 
extensive consultation with, and participation by, school personnel, 
parents, students, and community leaders. It requires fundamentally 
rethinking how a school is organized and how instruction and other 
direct services to students are delivered. It is not a discrete 
activity that can be carried out by a handful of teachers and school 
personnel without the involvement of the larger school community. We 
are proposing to award planning grants to those LEAs that may need 
additional resources to carry out these essential preparatory 
activities. Implementation grants would be available to those LEAs that 
have engaged in extensive planning activities and developed plans for 
implementing or expanding a smaller learning community program at one 
or more high schools.

D. Applications on Behalf of Multiple Schools

    In an effort to encourage systemic, district-level reform efforts, 
we propose permitting an individual LEA to submit only one planning 
grant application and one implementation grant application in a 
competition, specifying in each application which high schools the LEA 
intends to fund.
    We would not permit an LEA to apply on behalf of a high school for 
which it does not have governing authority, such as a high school in a 
neighboring school district. An LEA, however, may form a consortium 
with another LEA and submit a joint application for funds. They must 
follow the procedures for group applications described in 34 CFR 
75.127-75.129 in EDGAR.
    We further propose limiting an LEA to applying for either a 
planning or implementation grant on behalf of the same high school. A 
single high school could be included in either the LEA's planning grant 
application or its implementation grant application, but not both. An 
LEA is eligible for only one grant whether the LEA applies 
independently or as part of a consortium application.
Rationale
    This requirement is designed to ensure that each LEA that receives 
assistance under this program will manage and coordinate school-level 
planning and implementation activities as part of a single, coherent, 
district-wide reform strategy. This will help LEAs make the most 
effective and efficient use of SLC resources and assist them in 
aligning SLC activities with other district-level initiatives, 
including the implementation of activities carried out under other 
programs funded by the ESEA and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
Technical Education

[[Page 1068]]

Act. For the same reason, we are proposing to require that the LEA have 
governing authority over each high school it includes in its 
application. A high school will have considerable difficulty 
implementing or expanding a smaller learning community program without 
the active participation of its parent LEA.
    We propose limiting an LEA to applying for either a planning or 
implementation grant on behalf of a single high school because of the 
different nature and purposes of the two types of grants. A planning 
grant supports planning, design, and preparatory activities that 
culminate in the development of a plan for implementing a smaller 
learning community program. Applicants pursuing planning grant funds 
must not yet have developed a viable plan. Implementation grants 
support the implementation of a plan to create or expand a smaller 
learning community program in a high school. Applicants must be 
prepared to either implement a new smaller learning community program 
or to expand an existing SLC program.

E. Award Ranges/Project Periods

    For a one-year planning grant, we propose that LEAs applying on 
behalf of only one school would be eligible for a grant in the range of 
$25,000 to $50,000. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible 
schools could receive up to $250,000 per planning grant depending on 
the number of schools included in the application. To ensure sufficient 
planning funds at the local level, we propose a limit of 10 schools 
that an LEA may include in a single application for a planning grant. 
The following chart provides the ranges for awards that we are 
proposing for planning grants:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07JA04.005

    Applicants requesting more funds than the maximum amounts specified 
for each school and for the total grant would be declared ineligible 
for funding, and their applications will not be read.
    We further propose that schools that received funds through 
planning grants in a prior year competition will not be eligible to 
apply for additional planning grants.
    For a 36-month implementation grant, we propose that LEAs may 
receive, on behalf of a single school, $250,000 to $500,000, depending 
upon the size of the school. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of 
eligible schools could receive up to $5,000,000 per implementation 
grant. Implementation grants are designed to support extensive redesign 
and improvement efforts, professional development, direct student 
services, and other activities associated with creating or expanding a 
smaller learning community program. To ensure that sufficient funds are 
available to support implementation activities, we propose a limit of 
10 schools that an LEA may include in a single application for an 
implementation grant.
    The following chart provides the ranges of awards per high school 
that we are proposing for implementation grants:

[[Page 1069]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07JA04.006

    Applicants requesting more funds than the maximum amounts specified 
for each school and for the total grant would be declared ineligible 
for funding, and their applications will not be read.
    We propose that schools that received funds through implementation 
grants in a prior year competition will not be eligible to apply for 
additional implementation grants.
    In previous SLC competitions, some applicants have requested more 
funds than the amount that we indicated would be available for a grant. 
Their applications included any number of activities that could only be 
made possible if the applicants received a funding amount that exceeded 
the maximum amount specified in the notice. This strategy put at a 
competitive disadvantage other applicants who requested funds within 
the specified funding range and outlined a less extensive set of 
activities. For this reason, we propose to fund only those applications 
that request an amount that does not exceed the maximum amounts 
specified for planning and implementation grants.
    The actual size of awards will be based on a number of factors. 
These factors include the scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the 
proposed program, and the range of awards indicated in the application.
Rationale
    By establishing grant award ranges and maximum LEA award amounts, 
we will be able to fund a larger number of grants, ensure greater 
geographic distribution, encourage the planning and implementation of a 
diverse range of SLC strategies, and provide sufficient funding to 
support comprehensive reform within each participating high school. We 
determined these amounts after reviewing the experiences of previous 
recipients of SLC funds and examining the design and outcomes of other 
similar Federal, State, and privately funded programs.
    The proposed grant award ranges and maximum LEA award amounts for 
SLC planning grants are the same as those that were established for the 
competition using FY 2000, FY 2001 and FY 2002 SLC funds. We concluded 
from our review of the experiences of previous recipients of SLC 
planning grants that these amounts are sufficient to support the 
activities needed to develop a detailed plan for implementing an SLC 
program.
    For implementation grants, we are proposing to increase the maximum 
LEA award amount that we established in previous SLC competitions from 
$2.5 million to $5 million. In competitions using FY 2000, 2001 and 
2002 funds, the $2.5 million maximum award discouraged LEAs from 
working with more than 5 high schools. An LEA serving 6 high schools 
could receive no more than an LEA serving 5 high schools. Based on our 
review of the experiences of previous SLC implementation grantees, we 
do not believe that this $2.5 million cap is warranted. Though some 
economies of scale may be achieved by serving multiple high schools, 
the cost savings are not likely to be so significant that an LEA would 
not be able to serve 6 or more high schools with the same amount of 
funds that is awarded to an LEA that is serving just 5 high schools. 
School districts are organized differently in every State. In a number 
of States, for example, LEAS are organized by county and govern a large 
number of high schools across a wide geographical area. The $2.5 
million maximum award we imposed in previous competitions inadvertently 
discouraged these LEAs from implementing smaller learning communities 
on a system-wide basis.
    We also have linked implementation grant award amounts to the size 
of the student population served by each high school. The experiences 
of previous SLC

[[Page 1070]]

grantees indicate that this change is warranted. The cost of 
implementing a smaller learning community is clearly related to the 
size of a school's student population. The number of teachers, 
administrators, counselors, and other school staff, as well as parents 
and other stakeholders, who must be engaged in the implementation 
process increases with the number of students enrolled at a high 
school. Logistical issues also become more complex as the number of 
students involved grows. Implementing a smaller learning community 
program in a high school of 2,500 students will require more resources 
than implementing the program in a high school with 1,000 students. We 
believe our proposal to link award amounts to school size will ensure 
that award amounts are more consistent with the true costs of 
implementing a smaller learning community program.
    Only an estimated 20 percent of eligible American high schools have 
benefited from a planning or implementation grant awarded under the SLC 
program since FY 2000. For this reason, we are proposing to limit (a) 
planning grant assistance to those schools that have not previously 
benefited from an SLC planning grant and (b) implementation grant 
assistance to those schools that have not previously benefited from an 
SLC implementation grant.

F. Student Placement

    Section 5441(b)(13) of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left 
Behind Act of 2001, requires applicants for SLC grants to describe the 
method of placing students in the smaller learning community or 
communities, such that students are not placed according to ability or 
any other measure, but are placed at random or by student/parent 
choice, and not pursuant to testing or other judgments.'' For instance, 
projects that place students in any smaller learning community on the 
basis of their prior academic achievement or performance on an academic 
assessment are not eligible for assistance under this program.
    We propose that, to be considered for funding, applicants for 
planning grants must include in their application an assurance that the 
applicant will identify, as part of the planning process, methods of 
selecting or placing students in a smaller learning community that are 
not according to ability or any other measure but at random or by 
student/parent choice, and not pursuant to testing or other judgments.
    We further propose that applicants for implementation grants must 
include an assurance/description of how students will be selected or 
placed in a smaller learning community such that students will not be 
placed according to ability or any other measure, but will be placed at 
random or by student/parent choice, and not pursuant to testing or 
other judgments.
Rationale
    The Department needs this information to ensure that each funded 
project complies with the requirements of the statute regarding random 
assignment or student/parent choice for SLC placement of students.

G. Including All Students

    We propose to require applicants for planning grants to develop 
plans to implement or expand a smaller learning community program that 
will include every student within the school by no later than the end 
of the fourth school year of implementation. We propose to require 
applicants for implementation grants to implement or expand a smaller 
learning community program that will include every student within the 
school by no later than the end of the fourth school year of 
implementation. Elsewhere in this notice, we propose to define a 
smaller learning community as an environment in which a core group of 
teachers and other adults within the school know the needs, interests 
and aspirations of each student well, closely monitor his or her 
progress, and provide the academic and other support he or she needs to 
succeed.
Rationale
    The purpose of creating smaller learning communities within large 
high schools is to provide students with individualized attention, 
support, and instruction that will help them excel academically and 
acquire the knowledge and skills they need to succeed after high 
school. Young people have many different needs and personal resources, 
but most young people would benefit from participating in a well-
implemented smaller learning community. While it may be easier to 
implement incremental reforms that include only a limited number of 
students, we do a disservice to young people when we narrow our sights 
in this way. For this reason, we propose to support only those projects 
that will include (or, in the case of planning grants, seek to include) 
every student within a smaller learning community.
    We recognize that recipients of implementation grants may need 
several years to accomplish this goal. Implementing a smaller learning 
community program within a large high school is a formidable task, and 
it may take several years to include all students. We also do not 
believe that we should dictate how grantees accomplish the goal of 
including all students. The proposed requirement does not mean, for 
example, that schools must place all students in ``houses,'' academies, 
or other smaller organizational units. Smaller learning communities may 
also be created by implementing a variety of strategies, such as 
teacher advisories and more intensive academic counseling and career 
guidance, which do not necessarily require changes in how a school is 
organized.

H. Reporting Requirement for Recipients of Planning Grants

    We propose to require recipients of planning grants to include as 
part of their final performance report a copy of the implementation 
plan they developed during the project period.
Rationale
    Planning grants are awarded to support the development of a plan 
for implementing or expanding a smaller learning community program. 
Planning grants are not available to LEAs that wish merely to 
investigate the merits or feasibility of implementing or expanding a 
smaller learning community program. This preparatory work should be 
carried out prior to the submission of an application for a planning 
grant. Though grantees may wish to refine or expand further the 
implementation plan they develop during the project period, the plan 
should be substantially complete at the conclusion of the project 
period. Requiring grantees to submit these implementation plans as part 
of their final performance report will help ensure that grantees use 
planning grant funds effectively and appropriately.

I. Performance Indicators

    We propose to require applicants for implementation grants to 
identify in their application specific performance indicators and 
annual performance objectives for each of these indicators. 
Specifically, we propose to require applicants to use the following 
performance indicators to measure the progress of each school:
    1. The percentage of students who scored at the proficient and 
advanced levels on the reading/language arts and mathematics 
assessments used by the State to measure adequate yearly progress under 
Part A of Title I of ESEA, disaggregated by subject matter and the 
following subgroups:
    a. All students;
    b. Major racial and ethnic groups;
    c. Students with disabilities;

[[Page 1071]]

    d. Students with limited English proficiency; and
    e. Economically disadvantaged students.
    2. The school's graduation rate, as defined in the State's approved 
accountability plan for Part A of Title I of ESEA;
    3. The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary 
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training for the semester 
following graduation;
    4. The percentage of graduates who are employed by the end of the 
first quarter after they graduate (e.g., for students who graduate in 
May or June, this would be September 30);
    5. Other appropriate indicators the LEA may choose to identify in 
its application, such as:
    a. Rates of average daily attendance and year-to-year retention;
    b. Achievement and gains in English proficiency of limited English 
proficient students;
    c. The incidence of school violence, drug and alcohol use, and 
disciplinary actions;
    d. The percentage of students completing advanced placement 
courses, and the rate of passing advanced placement tests (such as 
Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and courses for 
college credit); and
    e. Teacher, student, and parent satisfaction.
    Applicants would be required to include in their applications 
baseline data for each of these indicators and identify performance 
objectives for each year of the project period. We further propose to 
require recipients of implementation grants to report annually on the 
extent to which each school achieved its performance objectives for 
each indicator during the preceding school year. We propose to require 
grantees to include in these reports comparable data, if available, for 
the preceding three school years so that trends in performance will be 
more apparent.
Rationale
    While creating smaller learning communities appeals to teachers, 
students, and parents for many reasons, their fundamental purpose is to 
improve academic achievement and to prepare all young people to 
participate successfully in postsecondary education or advanced 
training, the workforce, our democracy, and our communities. As 
Jacqueline Ancess, Associate Director of the National Center for 
Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching has written, ``if the 
opportunity to develop close relationships with students and know them 
well is not leveraged on behalf of improving opportunities for their 
intellectual development, achievement, and success, the promise of 
these new small schools will be squandered.'' (Urban Dreamcatchers: 
Launching And Leading New Small Schools. 1997. National Center for 
Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching). Assistance provided 
under the SLC program should also support and enhance the efforts of 
LEAs and schools to fulfill the ambitious goals of the No Child Left 
Behind Act of 2001.
    For these reasons, it is important that projects measure their 
progress in improving student academic achievement and related 
outcomes. Two of the indicators we propose to use, student performance 
on reading/language arts and mathematics assessments and the graduation 
rate, are the same indicators used by States to measure the adequate 
yearly progress of LEAs and schools under Part A of Title I of ESEA. 
Performance objectives for these indicators should equal or exceed the 
measurable annual objectives established by the State in its approved 
accountability plan for Part A of Title I of ESEA.
    In today's economy, completing some form of postsecondary education 
or training beyond high school is becoming a prerequisite to securing 
employment that pays family-supporting wages and offers opportunities 
for career advancement. Most parents and students understand this well, 
and they consider preparing young people for postsecondary education or 
further learning to be one of the central missions of the American high 
school. The third indicator we are proposing, entrance into 
postsecondary education or advanced training, will measure the success 
of LEAs and schools in fulfilling these expectations. Performance 
objectives for this indicator should exceed the baseline level of 
performance and give particular emphasis to narrowing any gaps among 
all students and between students and economically disadvantaged 
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with 
disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency.
    Our high schools also must prepare young people to succeed in the 
workforce. All high school graduates should have the necessary skills 
to obtain gainful employment, whether they decide to work to help pay 
for postsecondary education and their living expenses or decide to 
enter the workforce full-time after high school. The extent to which 
graduates are able to find employment after leaving high school is 
another important measure of the success of a high school in meeting 
the needs of its students.
    Certainly, LEAs and schools will have other goals they hope to 
achieve through the implementation or expansion of a smaller learning 
communities program. For this reason, we propose to give applicants for 
implementation grants the opportunity to identify and establish 
performance objectives for other indicators that they consider useful 
and appropriate, such as, for example, rates of average daily 
attendance or incidents of violence and drug and alcohol use.

J. Evaluation of Implementation Grants

    We propose to require recipients of implementation grants to 
support an evaluation of the project that will provide information to 
the project director and school personnel that will be useful in 
gauging their progress and in identifying areas for improvement. We 
propose that each evaluation include an annual report for each of the 
three years of the project period and a final report that will be 
completed at the end of the fourth year of implementation. We would 
require grantees to submit each of these reports to the Department.
    In addition, we propose to require that the evaluation be conducted 
by an independent third party whose role in the project is limited to 
conducting the evaluation.
Rationale
    Implementing or expanding a smaller learning community program is 
difficult and complex work that administrators, teachers, and other 
school personnel must carry out at the same time that they are carrying 
out other demanding, day-to-day responsibilities. An evaluation that 
provides regular feedback on the progress of implementation and its 
impact can help the project director and school personnel identify 
their successes and how they may need to revise their strategies to 
accomplish their goals. To be most useful, the evaluation should be 
objective and carried out by an independent third party who has no 
other role in the implementation of the project.

K. Forty-eight (48) month management plan

    We propose to require applicants for implementation grants to 
include in their applications a management plan for the 12 months 
following the end of the 36-month project period, and a budget for 
these activities that will be supported by other Federal, State, local, 
or private funds. We also propose to require recipients of 
implementation

[[Page 1072]]

grants to submit to us a copy of the final evaluation report that will 
be completed at the end of the fourth year of implementation.
Rationale
    Implementation grants will be awarded for a 36-month project 
period. Fully implementing a smaller learning communities program, 
however, may require additional time. Implementation grants are also 
intended to provide the ``seed capital'' needed to support the initial 
implementation or expansion of a smaller learning community program. 
Other Federal, State, local or private funds must be used to continue 
and sustain the program. Requiring applicants to develop and submit a 
management plan, and accompanying budget, for the 12 months following 
the project period will provide information that is needed to assess 
the extent to which applicants will fully implement the smaller 
learning community program, as well as provide the resources needed to 
continue and sustain it at the end of the project period. The final 
evaluation report will provide information about the success of the 
grantee in accomplishing the tasks and objectives it describes in the 
management plan for the 12 months following the end of the project 
period.

L. High-Risk Status and Other Enforcement Mechanisms

    Applicants should note that the requirements listed in this notice 
are material requirements. Failure to comply with any requirement or 
with any elements of the grantee's application may subject the grantee 
to administrative action, including but not limited to designation as a 
``high-risk'' grantee, the imposition of special conditions, or 
termination of the grant. Circumstances that might cause the Department 
to take such action include, but are not limited to: The grantee's 
failure to show improvement on the required performance indicators by 
the end of the second year of implementation; the grantee's failure to 
demonstrate that performance remains above the baseline level; the 
grantee's failure to make substantial progress in completing the 
milestones outlined in the management plan as submitted in the 
application; the grantee's expenditure of funds in a manner that is 
inconsistent with the budget as submitted in the application. The 
grantee's failure to carry out its plans for sustaining the program 
into the fourth year of implementation may be taken into account into a 
future competition in accordance with 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3).

M. Definitions

    In addition to the definitions set out in the authorizing statute 
and 34 CFR 77.1, we propose that the following definitions also apply 
to this program:
    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.
    Smaller Learning Community: A smaller learning community is an 
environment in which a core group of teachers and other adults within 
the school know the needs, interests, and aspirations of each student 
well, closely monitor his or her progress, and provide the academic and 
other support he or she needs to succeed.
    BIA School: A BIA school is a school operated or supported by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Selection Criteria

    We propose that the following selection criteria be used to 
evaluate applications for new grants. The maximum score for all of 
these criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion or 
factor under that criterion is indicated in the parentheses.

Planning Grants

    (a) Need for the project. (10 points) In determining the need for 
the proposed project, we will consider the extent to which:
    (1) (7 points) The applicant will devise a plan or plans to assist 
school(s) that have the greatest need for assistance relative to other 
high schools within the State, as indicated by--
    (A) Student performance on the academic assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics administered by the State under Part A, 
Title I of the ESEA;
    (B) Gaps in performance between all students and economically 
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, 
students with disabilities, and students with limited English 
proficiency on the academic assessments in reading or language arts and 
mathematics administered by the State under Part A, Title I of the ESEA
    (C) The school's graduation rate, and gaps in the graduation rate 
between all students and economically disadvantaged students, students 
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and 
students with limited English proficiency;
    (D) Disciplinary actions and reported incidents of violence and of 
drug and alcohol use;
    (E) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary 
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training in the semester 
following graduation, and gaps in the percentage of all students who 
enroll in postsecondary education, apprenticeships, and advanced 
training and that of economically disadvantaged students, students from 
major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and 
students with limited English proficiency;
    (2) (3 points) The applicant's planning activities will address 
effectively the needs it identified in paragraph (1);
    (b) Foundation for planning. (30 points) In determining whether 
there is an adequate foundation for the development of an effective 
implementation plan, we will consider the extent to which:
    (1) (6 points) Teachers, administrators, and other school staff 
within each school support the proposed planning project and will be 
involved actively in the development of an implementation plan, 
including, particularly, those teachers who will be directly affected 
by the plan.
    (2) (6 points) Teachers, administrators, and other school staff 
within each school will be provided sufficient and appropriate 
professional development to enable them to participate effectively in 
developing the implementation plan.
    (3) (6 points) Teachers, administrators, and other school staff 
within each school will be provided sufficient paid release time during 
the regular school day or compensated time outside school hours to 
participate actively in professional development, planning, and 
preparatory activities.
    (4) (6 points) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders 
(such as institutions of higher education, employers, and community 
organizations, including local non-profit agencies, faith-based 
organizations, and other service organizations) support the proposed 
planning project and will be involved actively in the development of an 
implementation plan.
    (5) (6 points) The implementation or expansion of a smaller 
learning community program is consistent with, and will advance State 
and local initiatives to improve student achievement and narrow gaps in 
achievement between all students and students who are economically 
disadvantaged, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students 
with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency.
    (c) Quality of project design. (40 points) In evaluating the 
quality of the project design, we will consider the extent to which the 
applicant will adequately and effectively investigate

[[Page 1073]]

and incorporate in its implementation plan:
    (1) (10 points) Research-based strategies, services, and 
interventions that are likely to improve overall student achievement 
and other outcomes (including graduation and enrollment in 
postsecondary education) and narrow any gaps in achievement between all 
students and economically disadvantaged students, students from major 
racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with 
limited English proficiency.
    (2) (10 points) Research-based strategies, services, and 
interventions to accelerate learning by students who enter high school 
with reading/language arts or mathematics skills that are significantly 
below grade level so that, by no later than the end of the 10th grade, 
they acquire the reading/language arts and mathematics skills they need 
to participate successfully in rigorous academic courses that will 
equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary to transition 
successfully to postsecondary education, an apprenticeship, or advanced 
training.
    (3) (10 points) A high-quality program of sustained and intensive 
professional development that will be provided to teachers, 
administrators, and school staff to assist them in carrying out the 
implementation plan.
    (4) (10 points) Strategies for using funds provided under the ESEA, 
the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, or other 
Federal programs, as well as local, State, and private funds, to carry 
out the implementation plan.
    (d) Adequacy of resources. (20 points) In determining the adequacy 
of the financial and personnel resources to support effective planning, 
we will consider the extent to which:
    (1) (8 points) The budget is adequate and funds will be used 
appropriately and effectively to develop a comprehensive implementation 
plan.
    (2) (6 points) The time commitments of the project director and 
other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to achieve the 
objectives of the proposed project.
    (3) (6 points) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of the project director and other key project personnel.

Implementation Grants

    (a) Need for the project. (10 points) In determining the need for 
the proposed project, we will consider the extent to which the 
applicant will:
    (1) (5 points) Assist schools that have the greatest need for 
assistance, as indicated by, relative to other high schools within the 
State:
    (A) Student performance on the academic assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics administered by the State under Part A, 
Title I of the ESEA;
    (B) Gaps in the performance of all students and that of 
economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and 
ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited 
English proficiency on the academic assessments in reading or language 
arts and mathematics administered by the State under Part A, Title I of 
the ESEA.
    (C) The school's graduation rate, and gaps in the graduation rate 
between all students and economically disadvantaged students, students 
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and 
students with limited English proficiency.
    (D) Disciplinary actions and reported incidents of violence and of 
drug and alcohol use;
    (E) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary 
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training in the semester 
following graduation, and gaps in the percentage of students who enroll 
in postsecondary education, apprenticeships, and advanced training 
between all students and economically disadvantaged students, students 
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and 
students with limited English proficiency.
    (2) (5 points) Employ strategies and carry out activities in its 
implementation of the proposed project that address the needs it has 
identified in paragraph (1);
    (b) Foundation for Implementation. (15 points) In determining the 
quality of the implementation plan for the proposed project, we will 
consider the extent to which:
    (1) (3 points) Teachers within each school support the proposed 
project and have been and will continue to be involved in its planning, 
development, and implementation, including, particularly, those 
teachers who will be directly affected by the proposed project.
    (2) (3 points) Administrators, teachers, and other school staff 
within each school support the proposed project and have been and will 
continue to be involved in its planning, development, and 
implementation.
    (3) (3 points) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders 
(such as institutions of higher education, employers, and community 
organizations, including local non-profit agencies, faith-based 
organizations, and other service organizations) support the proposed 
project and have been and will continue to be involved in its planning, 
development, and implementation.
    (4) (3 points) The proposed project is consistent with, and will 
advance, State and local initiatives to increase student achievement 
and narrow gaps in achievement between all students and students who 
are economically disadvantaged, students from major racial and ethnic 
groups, students with disabilities, or students with limited English 
proficiency.
    (5) (3 points) The applicant demonstrates that it has reviewed 
relevant scientifically based and other rigorous research and carried 
out sufficient planning and preparatory activities, outreach, and 
consultation with teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders to 
enable it to implement the proposed project at the beginning of the 
school year immediately following receipt of an award.
    (c) Quality of Project Design. (30 points) In determining the 
quality of the design of the project we will consider the extent to 
which, using funds provided by this program in conjunction with other 
Federal, State, local, or private funds, the proposed project will:
    (1) (6 points) Implement strategies, new organizational structures, 
or other changes in practice that are likely to create an environment 
in which a core group of teachers and other adults within the school 
know the needs, interests, and aspirations of each student well, 
closely monitor his or her progress, and provide the academic and other 
support he or she needs to succeed.
    (2) (6 points) Implement research-based strategies, services, and 
interventions that are likely to improve overall student achievement 
and other outcomes (including graduation and enrollment in 
postsecondary education) and narrow any gaps in achievement between all 
students and economically disadvantaged students, students from major 
racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, or students with 
limited English proficiency, such as--
    (A) More rigorous academic curriculum for all students, and the 
provision of academic support to struggling students who need 
assistance to master more challenging academic content;
    (B) More intensive and individualized educational counseling and 
career and college guidance, provided through mentoring, teacher 
advisories, adult advocates, or other means;
    (C) Strategies designed to increase average daily attendance, 
increase the

[[Page 1074]]

percentage of students who transition from the 9th to 10th grade, and 
improve the graduation rate; and
    (D) Expanding opportunities for students to participate in Advanced 
Placement courses and academic and technical courses that offer both 
high school and postsecondary credit.
    (3) (6 points) Implement accelerated learning strategies and 
interventions that will assist students who enter the school with 
reading/language or mathematics skills that are significantly below 
grade level that--
    (A) Will serve all students who enter the school with reading/
language arts or mathematics skills that are significantly below grade 
level;
    (B) Are designed to equip participating students with grade-level 
reading/language arts and mathematics skills by no later than the end 
of 10th grade;
    (C) Are grounded in scientifically based research;
    (D) Include the use of age-appropriate instructional materials and 
teaching and learning strategies;
    (E) Provide additional instruction and academic support during the 
regular school day, which may be supplemented by instruction that is 
provided before or after school, on weekends, and at other times when 
school is not in session;
    (F) Will be delivered with sufficient intensity to improve the 
reading/language arts or math skills, as appropriate, of participating 
students; and
    (G) Include sustained professional development and ongoing support 
for teachers and other personnel who are responsible for delivering 
instruction.
    (4) (6 points) Provide high-quality, sustained and intensive 
professional development throughout the project period that--
    (A) Improves the content knowledge of teachers of core academic 
subjects;
    (B) Includes activities designed to enable all teachers of core 
academic subjects to become ``highly qualified'' as defined by ESEA by 
the end of the project period;
    (C) Advances the understanding of teachers, administrators, and 
other school staff of effective, research-based instructional 
strategies for improving the academic achievement of students, 
including, particularly, students with academic skills that are 
significantly below grade level;
    (D) Provides teachers, administrators, other school personnel, and 
parents with the knowledge and skills they need to participate 
effectively in the development and implementation of a smaller learning 
community, including professional development that improves the 
capacity of teachers to deliver instruction and support students within 
a smaller learning community;
    (5) (6 points) Provide the participating schools sufficient 
flexibility and autonomy to enable school administrators, teachers, 
other school staff, and parents to participate as full partners in the 
implementation of the proposed project.
    (d) Quality of the Management Plan. (25 points) In determining the 
quality of the management plan for the proposed project, we consider 
the following factors:
    (1) (10 points) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the 
objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including 
clearly defined responsibilities and detailed timelines and milestones 
for accomplishing project tasks.
    (2) (5 points) The extent to which the time commitments of the 
project director and other key personnel, including the individuals who 
will have primary responsibility for implementing the project at each 
school, are appropriate and adequate to achieve the objectives of the 
proposed project.
    (3) (5 points) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of the project director and other key personnel, including 
the individuals who will have primary responsibility for professional 
development and technical assistance, and the individuals responsible 
for implementing the project at each school.
    (4) Adequacy of resources. (5 points) In determining the adequacy 
of resources for the proposed project, we consider:
    (A) The extent to which the budget is adequate and costs are 
directly related to the objectives and design of the proposed project.
    (B) The extent to which the applicant will use funds provided under 
the ESEA, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, 
or other Federal programs, as well as discretionary grants provided by 
the State or private sources, to support the implementation of the 
project;
    (C) The potential for continued support of the project after 
Federal funding ends.
    (e) Quality of Project Evaluation. (20 points) In determining the 
quality of the project evaluation conducted by an independent, third 
party evaluator, we consider the following factors:
    (1) (4 points) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are 
thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and 
outcomes of the proposed project.
    (2) (4 points) The extent to which the evaluation will collect and 
annually report accurate, valid, and reliable data for each of the 
required performance indicators, including student achievement data 
that are disaggregated for economically disadvantaged students, 
students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with 
disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency.
    (3) (4 points) The extent to which the evaluation will collect 
additional qualitative and quantitative data that will be useful in 
assessing the success and progress of implementation, including, at a 
minimum:
    (A) The results of multiple measures of student academic 
achievement, including results that are disaggregated for economically 
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, 
students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, 
and other subgroups identified by the applicant.
    (B) Rates of average daily attendance, year-to-year retention, and 
graduation that are disaggregated for economically disadvantaged 
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with 
disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and other 
subgroups identified by the applicant.
    (C) Information on the satisfaction and perspectives of teachers, 
administrators, parents, and students at each school.
    (D) Information on the extent to which the school is providing a 
safe and orderly environment for learning, such as the number of 
disciplinary actions, incidents of violence or drug or alcohol use, or 
other indicators identified by the applicant.
    (E) Information on the progress of the school in creating an 
environment in which a core group of teachers and other adults within 
the school know the needs, interests and aspirations of each student 
well, closely monitor his or her progress, and provide the academic and 
other support he or she needs to succeed.
    (4) (4 points) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will 
provide timely and regular feedback to the LEA and the school on the 
success and progress of implementation, and identify areas for needed 
improvement.
    (5) (4 points) The qualifications and relevant training and 
experience of the independent evaluator.

Discussion of Priorities

    We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priorities after considering 
responses to this notice and

[[Page 1075]]

other information available to the Department. This notice does not 
preclude us from proposing or funding additional priorities, subject to 
meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities, we 
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When 
inviting applications we designate each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of 
priority follows:


    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority we give competitive preference to an application by either (1) 
Awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to 
which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the 
competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that does 
not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational 
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the 
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other 
applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Priorities

Proposed Priority 1: Helping All Students to Succeed in Rigorous 
Academic Courses (Planning Grants)

    This proposed priority would support projects that will develop a 
plan to create or expand a smaller learning community program that will 
implement a coherent set of strategies and interventions that are 
designed to ensure that all students who enter high school with 
reading/language arts and mathematics skills that are significantly 
below grade level ``catch up'' quickly so that, by no later than the 
end of the 10th grade, they acquire the reading/language arts and 
mathematics skills they need to participate successfully in rigorous 
academic courses that will equip them with the knowledge and skills 
necessary to transition successfully to postsecondary education, an 
apprenticeship, or advanced training.
    These accelerated learning strategies and interventions must:
    (1) Be grounded in the findings of scientifically based and other 
rigorous research;
    (2) Include the use of age-appropriate instructional materials and 
teaching and learning strategies;
    (3) Provide additional instruction and academic support during the 
regular school day, which may be supplemented by instruction that is 
provided before or after school, on weekends, and at other times when 
school is not in session; and
    (4) Provide sustained professional development and ongoing support 
for teachers and other personnel who are responsible for delivering 
instruction.

Proposed Priority 2: Helping All Students to Succeed in Rigorous 
Academic Courses (Implementation Grants)

    This proposed priority would support projects that will implement a 
coherent set of strategies and interventions that are designed to 
ensure that all students who enter high school with reading/language 
arts or mathematics skills that are significantly below grade level 
``catch up'' quickly so that, by no later than the end of the 10th 
grade, they acquire the reading/language arts and mathematics skills 
they need to participate successfully in rigorous academic courses that 
will equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary to transition 
successfully to postsecondary education, an apprenticeship, or advanced 
training.
    These accelerated learning strategies and interventions must:
    (1) Be grounded in the findings of scientifically based and other 
rigorous research;
    (2) Include the use of age-appropriate instructional materials and 
teaching and learning strategies;
    (3) Provide additional instruction and academic support during the 
regular school day, which may be supplemented by instruction that is 
provided before or after school, on weekends, and at other times when 
school is not in session; and
    (4) Provide sustained professional development and ongoing support 
for teachers and other personnel who are responsible for delivering 
instruction.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and selection 
criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. 
Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and 
benefits of this regulatory action.
    The potential costs associated with this notice of proposed 
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria are those resulting 
from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary 
for administering this program effectively and efficiently.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative 
and qualitative--of this notice of proposed requirements, priorities, 
and selection criteria, we have determined that the benefits of the 
proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria justify the 
costs.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive 
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened 
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State 
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.

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: 
http://www.ed.gov/news/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://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.215L, Smaller 
Learning Communities Program)

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7249.

    Dated: January 2, 2004.
Susan Sclafani,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 04-326 Filed 1-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P