[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 50 (Monday, March 15, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12254-12261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5817]



[[Page 12253]]

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

Part VI





Department of Education





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



Smaller Learning Communities Program; Notices

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

[[Page 12254]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1830 ZA04


Smaller Learning Communities Program

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

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

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education 
announces final 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.
    We intend these final requirements, priorities and selection 
criteria to further the purpose of the SLC program, which is to promote 
academic achievement through the planning, implementation or expansion 
of small, safe and successful learning environments in large public 
high schools.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These final requirements, priorities and selection 
criteria are effective April 14, 2004.

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

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.
    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)). These methods and strategies 
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 
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 SLC program 
encourages Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to set higher academic 
expectations for all of their students and to use these strategies to 
provide students with the effective instruction and personalized 
academic and social support they need to meet those expectations.
    We published a notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and 
selection criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and subsequent years funds 
in the Federal Register on January 7, 2004 (69 FR 1066). This notice of 
final requirements, priorities, and selection criteria contains several 
significant changes from the notice of proposed requirements, 
priorities, and selection criteria. We fully explain these changes in 
the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in this notice.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed 
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria 16 parties submitted 
comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the 
requirements, priorities, or selection criteria since publication of 
the notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria 
follows.
    Comments: Several commenters suggested we make clear under Types of 
Grants that Implementation Grant awardees are expected to begin program 
implementation in the first year of funding. The commenters suggested 
we require some actual outcomes in the first year of the grant and not 
allow grantees to use the first year for planning purposes.
    Discussion: We agree that the requirement would be clearer with the 
change recommended by the commenters. The Implementation Grant is 
awarded to applicants who are expected to have the capacity to 
implement new smaller learning communities or expand an existing 
program. The first year is not to be used for planning purposes.
    Changes: We have changed the timeframe for determining whether an 
Implementation Grant should be classified as High Risk as a result of

[[Page 12255]]

several factors, including not making substantial progress in specific 
goals set by the applicant.
    Comments: Several commenters suggested the award ranges for 
Implementation Grants, especially those with larger high schools, be 
increased.
    Discussion: We agree that the schools with larger student 
populations require higher funding levels to carry out the complex 
reform activities of this program, support the additional staff needed 
to provide the more personalized education that will result from 
implementing smaller learning communities, and procure the services of 
a qualified third party for an external evaluation of the project.
    Changes: We have increased the award ranges for schools with 
student enrollments of more than 1,000 through more than 3,000 in this 
notice.
    Comments: Several commenters requested clarification regarding an 
LEA applying for a grant on behalf of a consortium of districts. The 
commenters asked whether an intermediate school district could apply on 
behalf of a consortium of schools.
    Discussion: If an entity is an LEA, has governing authority over 
eligible schools, and meets other eligibility requirements, the LEA may 
apply for a planning grant and/or an implementation grant as the fiscal 
agent for a consortium of two or more districts on behalf of their 
eligible schools.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters sought clarification regarding whether 
adequate yearly progress would be the only indicator for review of the 
progress of SLCs.
    Discussion: Adequate yearly progress will not be the only factor 
used to determine progress. Several factors will be used to review the 
progress of SLCs, including progress in achieving planned objectives, 
data submitted in response to performance indicators, the annual 
performance reports from the projects, the evaluation reports from the 
projects, and site visits to the projects.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters sought clarification regarding 
placement of students and whether magnet programs are eligible as an 
SLC program.
    Discussion: Magnet programs may be eligible as SLCs. This notice 
requires that students be placed at random or by student/parent choice 
to participate in an SLC program. They cannot be placed as a result of 
testing, any form of competition, or any other judgment. Magnet 
programs are eligible as SLC programs if they do not use any form of 
testing or selection process other than random selection or student/
parent choice for placement of students.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters sought clarification and several 
commenters requested a change in the requirement regarding funding 
schools that have benefited from previous planning and implementation 
grants.
    Discussion: We are seeking to provide access to SLC grant funds to 
more districts across the country. Therefore schools that received 
funds through planning grants in a prior year's competition will not be 
eligible to apply for additional planning grants and schools that 
received funds through implementation grants in a prior year's 
competition will not be eligible to apply for additional implementation 
grants. Grantees are expected to work toward sustainability of funding 
to support programs after the federal funding period.
    Changes: None.
    Note: This notice of final requirements, priorities and selection 
criteria does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose 
to use these requirements, priorities and selection criteria, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Application Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary announces the following application 
requirements for the SLC program. These 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. A discussion 
of each application requirement follows:

A. Proof of Eligibility

    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.

B. School Report Cards

    We 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.

C. Types of Grants

    The Secretary will award 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 of up to 12 months, 
and implementation grants will be awarded for a period of up to 36 
months. We 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 amount for implementation grants at the time of the 
initial award.
    Applicants pursuing planning grant funds must not yet have 
developed a viable plan for creating smaller learning communities in 
the school(s) that will be served by the grant. To apply for 
implementation grant funds, applicants must be prepared to implement a 
new smaller learning communities program within each targeted high 
school, or to expand an existing smaller learning communities program. 
The first year of implementation grant funds is not to be used for 
planning purposes.

D. Applications on Behalf of Multiple Schools

    In an effort to encourage systemic, district-level reform efforts, 
the Secretary is permitting an individual LEA to submit only one 
planning grant application and one implementation grant application in 
a competition,

[[Page 12256]]

specifying in each application which high schools the LEA intends to 
fund.
    An LEA may not 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.
    An LEA may not apply for both a planning and 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 may apply only 
for one planning grant and one implementation grant whether the LEA 
applies independently or as part of a consortium application.

E. Award Ranges/Project Periods

    For a one-year planning grant, LEAs applying on behalf of only one 
school are eligible for a grant in the range of $25,000 to $50,000. 
LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible schools may 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, LEAs may not request funds for more than 10 schools in a 
single application for a planning grant. The following chart provides 
the ranges for awards for planning grants:

                             Planning Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants requesting more funds than the maximum amounts specified 
for any school or for the total grant will be declared ineligible for 
funding, and their applications will not be read. However, an applicant 
may request an amount lower than the suggested minimum for an 
individual school or for the overall grant based on the pertinent 
number of schools.
    Schools that received funding through planning grants in a prior 
year competition will not be eligible to receive funding for additional 
planning grants in this or future competitions.
    For a 36-month implementation grant, LEAs may receive, on behalf of 
a single school, $250,000 to $550,000, depending upon the size of the 
school. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible schools could 
receive up to $5,500,000 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, LEAs may not request funds for more 
than 10 schools in a single application for an implementation grant.
    The following chart provides the ranges of awards per high school 
for implementation grants:

                          Implementation Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Award ranges per
                Student enrollment                         school
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000-1,500 Students..............................     $250,000-$300,000
1,501-2,000 Students..............................     $250,000-$400,000
2,001-2,500 Students..............................     $250,000-$450,000
2,501-3,000 Students..............................     $250,000-$500,000
More than 3,000 Students..........................     $250,000-$550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants requesting more funds than the maximum amounts specified 
for any school or for the total grant would be declared ineligible for 
funding, and their applications will not be read. However, an applicant 
may request an amount lower than the suggested minimum for an 
individual school or for the overall grant based on the pertinent 
number of schools.
    Schools that received funding through implementation grants in a 
prior year competition will not be eligible to receive funding for 
additional implementation grants in this or future competitions.
    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 will 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.

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.
    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 are at random or by student/parent 
choice, and not pursuant to testing or other judgments.
    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.

G. Including All Students

    Applicants for planning grants are required 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. Applicants for implementation 
grants are required 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 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

[[Page 12257]]

other support he or she needs to succeed.

H. Reporting Requirement for Recipients of Planning Grants

    We 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.

I. Performance Indicators

    The Secretary requires applicants for implementation grants to 
identify in their application specific performance indicators and 
annual performance objectives for each of these indicators. 
Specifically, applicants are required 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;
    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; and
    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).
    In addition to the four required indicators listed above, 
applicants may choose to set performance levels for other appropriate 
indicators, such as:
    1. Rates of average daily attendance and year-to-year retention;
    2. Achievement and gains in English proficiency of limited English 
proficient students;
    3. The incidence of school violence, drug and alcohol use, and 
disciplinary actions;
    4. 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
    5. The level of teacher, student, and parent satisfaction with the 
Smaller Learning Communities structures and strategies being 
implemented.
    Applicants for implementation grants are required to include in 
their applications their most recent School Report Card. Upon receipt 
of awards, recipients of implementation grants will be required to 
provide baseline data responding to each of these indicators for the 
three years preceding the baseline year. Specific instructions will be 
sent from us to grant recipients. Recipients of implementation grants 
will be required to report annually on the extent to which each school 
achieved its performance objectives for each indicator during the 
preceding school year. Additionally, implementation grantees will have 
to submit a final Annual Performance Report at the end of the fourth 
year of implementation. We 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.

J. Evaluation of Implementation Grants

    The Assistant Secretary requires 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. Each project must include an annual evaluation report for 
each of the three years of the project period and a final evaluation 
report that will be completed at the end of the fourth year of 
implementation. We require that grantees submit each of these reports 
to us.
    In addition, the Assistant Secretary requires that the evaluation 
be conducted by an independent third party whose role in the project is 
limited to conducting the evaluation.

K. Forty-Eight (48) Month Management Plan

    The Assistant Secretary requires 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. Recipients of implementation grants are 
required to submit to us a copy of the final evaluation report and a 
final Annual Performance Report that will be completed at the end of 
the fourth year of implementation.?

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 first 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; and 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 in a 
future competition in accordance with 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3). We may 
institute other remedies as appropriate.

M. Definitions

    In addition to the definitions set out in the authorizing statute 
and 34 CFR 77.1, 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

    The following criteria will be used to evaluate applications 
submitted for planning and implementation grants. Please note:
    (a) The maximum score for both a planning and an implementation 
grant is 100 points.
    (b) The maximum score for each criterion or factor under that 
criterion is indicated in parentheses.

[[Page 12258]]

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 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

[[Page 12259]]

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 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) Provides 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.

[[Page 12260]]

    (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

    Note: In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these 
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

Priority 1: Helping All Students To Succeed in Rigorous Academic 
Courses (Planning Grants)
    This priority will 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.
Priority 2: Helping All Students To Succeed in Rigorous Academic 
Courses (Implementation Grants)
    This priority will 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

[[Page 12261]]

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.

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: March 9, 2004.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 04-5817 Filed 3-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P