[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 74 (Friday, April 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20766-20771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8659]



[[Page 20765]]

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

Part IV





Department of Education





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



Office of Vocational and Adult Education; Community Technology Centers 
Program; Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 74 / Friday, April 16, 2004 / 
Notices  

[[Page 20766]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1830-ZA05


Community Technology Centers Program

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

ACTION: Notice of final requirements, priorities, and selection 
criteria for novice and non-novice applicants for the Community 
Technology Centers program.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education 
announces final requirements, priorities, and selection criteria under 
the Community Technology Centers (CTC) program. The Assistant Secretary 
may use one or more of these requirements, priorities, and selection 
criteria for competitions in FY 2004 and competitions to be conducted 
in later years.
    We establish these final requirements, priorities, and selection 
criteria to further the purpose of the CTC program, which is to assist 
eligible applicants to create or expand community technology centers 
that provide disadvantaged residents of economically distressed urban 
and rural communities with access to information technology and related 
training.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These final requirements, priorities, and selection 
criteria are effective May 17, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Holliday, U.S. Department of 
Education, OVAE, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-7110. 
Telephone: (202) 245-7708 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 Community Technology Centers program is authorized under Title 
V, Part D, Subpart 11, Sections 5511-13 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7263-7263b), 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 of the purposes of the CTC program is to address these gaps by 
providing students with access to information technology and related 
training.
    We published a notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and 
selection criteria in the Federal Register on February 2, 2004 (69 FR 
5000).
    In that notice, we discussed (on pages 5000 through 5003) our 
proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for the FY 
2004 CTC competition and competitions to be conducted in later years. 
Except for two changes to Priority 1, which we explain in the Analysis 
of Comments and Changes section, and minor editorial and technical 
revisions, there are no differences between the notice of proposed 
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria, and this notice of 
final requirements, priorities, and selection criteria.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed 
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria, nine parties 
submitted comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in 
the proposed requirements, priorities, or selection criteria since we 
published the notice follows.
    We have grouped major issues by subject. Generally, we do not 
address technical and other minor, non-substantive changes and 
suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority.

Definitions

    Comments: One commenter sought clarification regarding the 
definition of a ``community-based organization'' (CBO) and whether a 
community college is considered a CBO.
    Discussion: Section 5512(a) of the ESEA includes among the types of 
applicants eligible to apply for a CTC award a ``community-based 
organization'' and an ``institution of higher education.'' Community 
colleges are considered institutions of higher education, rather than 
community-based organizations. Section 9101(6) of the ESEA defines a 
community-based organization to mean ``a public or private nonprofit 
organization of demonstrated effectiveness that--(A) is representative 
of a community or significant segments of a community; and provides 
educational or related services to individuals in the community.'' 
Under the CTC program a community college could apply directly for an 
award as an ``institution of higher education'', but it could not 
otherwise serve as a ``community-based organization'' in an application 
filed by another eligible entity. For example, a community college 
could not play the required role of one of the entities in partnership 
with an applicant under Priority 1.
    Changes: None.

Access to Comments and Information

    Comments: One commenter expressed concern regarding the posting of 
public comments and inquired whether they are posted online or could be 
posted online for all to see and not just for those who can physically 
travel to DC to view them.
    Discussion: The Department does not have an electronic docket 
system so it is not possible currently for us to post comments online 
in a systematic manner. We will be developing such a system in the 
future as part of a Federal government wide initiative on electronic 
rulemaking. A summary of the public comments, and our responses, are 
contained in this notice which will be published in the Federal 
Register and can be electronically accessed in text or Adobe Portable 
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http:/
www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters suggested that the Department make available 
on its Web site information concerning instructional strategies that 
have proven effective and evidence-based model programs that could be 
adopted or replicated locally in an effort to assist applicants. 
Another commenter also suggested that the Department consider working 
with intermediate organizations, whether they be state, local or 
regional, to better identify and target resources and technical 
assistance where need is greatest and to support and disseminate the 
good work that has already been accomplished as widely as possible.

[[Page 20767]]

    Discussion: The Department's Web site provides information on 
practices that can improve student performance at http://www.ed.gov/teachers/landing.jhtml?src=fp. The Office of Vocational and Adult 
Education will continue to update the Web site as additional 
information becomes available. Through the Department's technical 
assistance provider, grantees can access information specific to issues 
surrounding CTCs at http://www.americaconnects.net.
    Changes: None.

Matching Requirement

    Comments: One commenter sought clarification regarding the matching 
requirement of cash or in-kind support of at least 50% from non-Federal 
sources towards total project costs. Two commenters expressed concern 
that some organizations and LEAs may have difficulty raising the 
required minimum match of $250,000 and asked whether the Department is 
aware of any instances where entities had difficulties providing the 
required match.
    Discussion: The statute requires that Federal funds may not be used 
to pay for more than 50 percent of a CTC project's total costs. As an 
example, if a CTC applicant requests $250,000 in Federal funds (the 
mandatory minimum request) for its project, the applicant must have 
available or obtain at least $250,000 in cash or in kind from non-
Federal sources. Through our experience with the CTC program since 
1999, we have discovered that, in order to provide significant 
increased access to technology at the local level, CTC projects must be 
adequately funded.
    We believe that the minimum award threshold, coupled with the 
applicant's mandatory match, will ensure the applicant's ability to be 
effective. We have taken into account the ability of applicants to 
raise funds and therefore, in the notice of proposed requirements, 
priorities, and selection criteria, proposed to lower the minimum 
required match that was required in FY 2003 from $300,000 to $250,000 
for FY 2004. We are adopting that change in this notice. Additionally, 
if an applicant desires to draw non-Federal funds from a variety of 
other resources, it could do so by entering into a group application 
with other eligible entities in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-129.
    Changes: None.

Use of Funds

    Comments: One commenter asked that at least a portion of the FY 
2004 funds be made available for adult education program activities 
that do not include a mandatory program to reach disadvantaged 
secondary school students. The commenter recommended that if the 
Department uses absolute priorities for the FY 2004 program, some of 
the funding should be reserved for either proposed Priority 3 or 
Priority 4 programs. Additionally, another commenter suggested that the 
Department broaden the scope of the CTC program to include greater 
family involvement and learning and specifically to provide support for 
single parents through such areas as life skills enhancement and 
lifelong learning opportunities.
    Discussion: Section 5513(a) of the ESEA requires that grant 
recipients use funds for ``(1) creating or expanding community 
technology centers that expand access to information technology and 
related training for disadvantaged residents of distressed urban and 
rural communities''. Serving disadvantaged students as well as other 
members of the disadvantaged community is mandatory. With respect to 
the commenter's recommendation that funding be reserved for either 
proposed Priority 3 or Priority 4 should the Department use absolute 
priorities, we offer the following. Elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register, we are publishing a notice inviting applications for 
new awards for this program for FY 2004 in which we establish the 
priorities to be used in the FY 2004 competition. To the extent that we 
do not use Priorities 3 and 4 in the FY 2004 competition, applicants 
may include services for adult learners as well as family literacy 
activities as part of their overall program, as long as they meet the 
other requirements and priorities set forth in the notice inviting 
applications. With respect to the commenter's suggestion to broaden the 
scope toward greater family involvement and learning, we agree that the 
family has a significant impact on the educational development of low 
and under-achieving students. Applicants may want to structure their 
project designs to include more family involvement consistent with the 
CTC program's statutory purpose. We cannot, however, prescribe a scope 
of format for family involvement that applicants must follow.
    Changes: None.

Allowable Use of Funds

    Comments: One commenter indicated that in an effort to support 
learning and program outreach, food purchases should be an allowable 
use of Federal funds at a minimum for outreach meetings, refreshments, 
and after-school snacks.
    Discussion: While we recognize that there are a variety of ways to 
support learning and program outreach, Section 5513(b) of the ESEA does 
not allow Federal funds to be used for the purchase of food.
    Changes: None.

Mandatory Services for High School Students

    Comments: Several commenters expressed concerns with the 
requirement that projects must serve students who are entering or 
enrolled in grades 9 through 12. One commenter further recommended 
that, unless the 9th through 12th grade requirement is legislatively 
mandated, the Department should eliminate the requirement, as the 
commenter stated that ``good centers'' should improve the academic 
skills of children of all ages. As an alternative, the commenter 
suggested the Department have a requirement that applicants offer 
programs for those in the 9th through 12th grades and that their 
management plans be reflective of the intended program.
    Discussion: We recognize the need to ensure that children of all 
ages improve their academic skills. However, we are especially 
concerned about issues relating to the academic achievement of high 
school students. As a result, through Priority 2, we may give priority 
to applications focused on improving the academic achievement of low-
achieving high school students while not neglecting members of the 
disadvantaged community as a whole.
    Changes: None.

Additional Credit for Past Performance

    Comments: One commenter recommended that the priorities provide for 
the award of additional points to applicants that meet the requirements 
set forth therein and also have prior experience in implementing a CTC 
project. The commenter further recommended that additional or 
``priority'' points be given to applicants that have projects in 
underserved areas. Under this proposal, the award of such additional 
points would become part of the selection criteria for the CTC program.
    Discussion: While we recognize the value of the experience and 
accomplishments of previous grantees, the Department does not regard it 
as necessary to award extra points for past applicants. All projects 
funded under this program by law must serve disadvantaged residents of 
economically distressed communities.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 20768]]

Program Impact

    Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department may need to 
articulate more specifically the Secretary's intent for a systematic 
approach to enhancing and improving education through community 
learning while also increasing parental involvement and community 
participation. Similarly, the commenter suggested that it might be 
helpful to applicants if the Department established a general framework 
for evaluation and assessment of program effectiveness and impact.
    Discussion: With regard to the commenter's concern for the 
Department to articulate the Secretary's intent for a systematic 
approach to enhancing and improving education through community 
learning, Priority 2 and the Need for the Project criterion under the 
Selection Criteria address this matter in detail. With respect to the 
commenter's request for the Department to establish a general framework 
for evaluation and assessment of program effectiveness and impact, such 
guidance is provided to grantees by the Department through its 
technical assistance provider. We have further developed a set of 
performance measures for the program. These performance measures are 
provided in the notice inviting applications.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed concern regarding the Need for 
the Project criterion in the selection criteria. The commenter 
suggested that the scope of the disadvantaged population and audience 
include persons with, and the families of persons with, disabilities 
and English as a second language needs.
    Discussion: We agree that persons with disabilities and those for 
whom English is a second language may require and can benefit from 
services that may be offered through a CTC project. We encourage 
applicants to demonstrate such a need in the Need for the Project 
section of the application.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that, in an effort to reduce 
potential costs or increase potential benefits to applicants, the 
Department develop one standard online application for everyone to 
complete, thereby reducing the amount of paperwork.
    Discussion: In an effort to reduce paperwork and applicant burden, 
we are utilizing e-Application for the CTC grant competition.
    Changes: None.

Eligibility

    Comments: We received a number of comments about eligibility under 
the CTC program and the requirements of Priority 1. One commenter 
sought clarification regarding the wording of ``partnership between a 
community-based organization and a local educational agency'' as 
described in the first paragraph under Proposed Priority 1 and also 
asked the Department to clarify the statement ``LEAs are eligible under 
the CTC program, but an individual public school is not an eligible 
applicant.'' Another commenter also sought clarification regarding an 
individual public school not being considered an eligible applicant. 
The commenter indicated that an individual school is just as capable as 
a charter or private school of fulfilling the role set forth in the 
educational agency partnership.
    A third commenter expressed concern that an individual public high 
school would have access to information necessary to identify students 
who are most in need of academic support and to ensure that the 
project's goals and objectives are consistent with the CTC program. The 
commenter stated that this contention justifies allowing an individual 
school to make application for the CTC program.
    Discussion: We take this opportunity to clarify which entities are 
eligible to apply for grants under this program and how eligible 
applicants must meet the requirements under Priority 1.
    Pursuant to the statute, the following entities are eligible to 
submit applications for the CTC program--(a) an entity, such as a 
foundation, museum, library, for-profit business, public or private 
nonprofit organization or community-based organization (including 
faith-based organizations), (b) an institution of higher education, (c) 
a State educational agency (SEA), (d) a local educational agency (LEA), 
or (e) a consortium of such entities, institutions, or agencies. With 
respect to individual schools, under these statutory provisions, a 
charter school that meets its State's definition of LEA is an eligible 
applicant. A private school also is an eligible applicant. However, an 
individual public school is not an eligible applicant. Thus, although 
we agree that the individual public school can play an integral role in 
the execution of a CTC program, the law does not permit an individual 
public school to apply for a grant under the CTC program. Instead the 
law makes LEAs, rather than individual public schools, eligible 
applicants.
    The fact that an individual public school is not eligible to apply 
for a grant does not mean that it cannot participate in a CTC project 
with an eligible applicant. We had proposed in the notice of proposed 
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria to establish Priority 
1--a priority for projects that included a partnership between a 
community-based organization (CBO) and an LEA. Based on the comments 
received and our own internal review, we are clarifying in Priority 1 
that the partnership must be between a CBO, on the one hand, and an LEA 
(including a charter school that meets its State's definition of an 
LEA), or a public school or a private school, on the other hand. We did 
not intend to exclude private schools and individual public schools 
from this priority. Accordingly, if a CBO applies for a grant under 
Priority 1, its project must propose a partnership with an LEA 
(including a charter school that meets its State's definition of an 
LEA), or a public school or a private school. If an LEA (including a 
charter school that meets its State's definition of an LEA) or a 
private school applies for a grant under Priority 1, its project must 
propose a partnership with a CBO. Because of the general eligibility 
restrictions in the law, an individual public school cannot submit an 
application for the CTC program; its role under Priority 1 is limited 
solely to being a partner with a CBO under an application filed by any 
eligible applicant.
    Changes: Yes. We are making these changes to Priority 1.
    Comments: One commenter indicated that Priority 1 should not 
require partnerships between LEAs and CBOs, as this would stifle 
innovation and program effectiveness. The commenter further stated that 
allowing institutions to deliver effective services and programs 
voluntarily in partnership with one another would encourage a better 
informed knowledge base for ``the broader field'' and help to deliver 
on the promise of flexibility and innovation at the local level.
    Discussion: We have determined that the participation of both CBOs 
and LEAs (including a charter school that meets its State's definition 
of an LEA), or a public school or a private school, pursuant to the 
clarifications we are making to Priority 1, is critical to the success 
of CTC projects. Many academic support programs for adolescents report 
that securing and maintaining a high level of student participation can 
be challenging. Involving CBOs in service delivery will help projects 
better master this challenge, such as by providing expanded outreach 
and support to students, joint programming, or alternative services 
sites that are in or near the neighborhoods where students live. LEAs 
(including a charter school

[[Page 20769]]

that meets its State's definition of an LEA), or a public school or a 
private school also are essential participants. Their involvement is 
needed to identify the students who are most in need of academic 
support and to ensure that the project's curriculum, assessment, and 
instructional practices are consistent with those of the schools the 
students attend.
    Changes: None.

Priorities

    Comments: One commenter indicated that it was unclear in the notice 
of proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria whether 
the four proposed priorities are absolute priorities and how the funds 
would be distributed between them. The commenter also indicated that 
the priorities did not appear to be in alignment with the descriptions 
provided under the selection criteria sections, Need for the Project 
and Quality of the Project Design. The commenter then suggested that, 
if the project is to support adult learners and career development 
needs, the two descriptions would need to be expanded to include 
criteria related to the respective populations.
    Discussion: As indicated in the notice of proposed requirements, 
priorities, and selection criteria, we will designate the priorities as 
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational in a notice inviting 
applications for new awards. The decision how to use them is made each 
year, see 34 CFR 75.105. After considering the proposed comment, the 
Secretary believes no action or change strengthening the priorities is 
necessary. The notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2004, 
including the designation of priorities, is published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed concern that the focus of the CTC 
program should be not only on the increased academic achievement of 
low-achieving high school students but also on enrichment activities 
for high school students.
    Discussion: Although Priority 2 focuses on increased academic 
achievement of low-achieving high schools, recipients also may use 
grant funds for academic enrichment activities pursuant to Section 5513 
(b)(3)(A) of the ESEA.
    Changes: None.

Funding

    Comments: One commenter recommended the Department restore its 
funding and programmatic scope to a multi-year cycle that includes the 
award of smaller multi-year grants rather using a one-year grant cycle.
    Discussion: While the Department recognizes that a multi-year cycle 
would allow additional time for grantees to implement and evaluate the 
effectiveness of their projects, the Department has not requested funds 
for the CTC program for 2005 and, therefore, does not want to commit a 
project to several years of funding and staffing without assurance of 
continued support.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed concern regarding the set-aside 
designation for the novice applicants. The commenter further indicated 
that, although novice applicants may be first-time applicants for or 
recipients of Federal funding under the CTC program, they are not 
necessarily new entrants to the field of community technology.
    Discussion: The Department's goal in setting aside a percentage of 
funding for novice applicants is to ensure that applicants with limited 
experience in administering Federal funds are provided an opportunity 
to compete for CTC funds, whatever may be their prior experience in 
community technology.
    Changes: None.

Partnering

    Comments: One commenter expressed concern regarding the requirement 
concerning the minimum number of participating educational entities--
including LEAs and high schools--that must be engaged. Additionally, 
the commenter indicated that by basing the number of CTCs involved and 
requiring partnership with LEAs and secondary schools, the potential to 
focus attention on other educational groups (including middle or 
elementary schools) is lessened.
    Discussion: We recognize the importance of serving students of 
other grade levels; however, we are especially concerned about issues 
relating to the academic achievement of high school students. 
Therefore, we have emphasized secondary schools within Priority 2.
    Changes: None.

Novice Applicants

    Discussion: As part of our internal review of the proposed 
priorities, we are further modifying Priority 1 to indicate that it 
will not apply to novice applicants. As most novice applicants are 
applying for Federal funding for the first time, the Department has 
determined that the additional time and administrative requirements of 
Priority 1 would be too cumbersome for novice applicants.
    Changes: Yes. We are modifying Priority 1 to state specifically 
that it does not apply to novice applicants.


    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.

Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary announces the following requirements for 
the CTC program. These requirements are in addition to the content that 
all Community Technology Centers grant applicants include in their 
applications as required by the program statute under Title V, Part D, 
Subpart 11, Sections 5511-13 of the ESEA.

A. Targeted Applicants

    One combined competition will be conducted for both non-novice and 
novice applicants. The Department will rank and fund the two groups 
separately. At least seventy-five percent of the funds will be set-
aside for non-novice applicants and up to twenty-five percent will be 
set-aside for novice applicants.

B. Range of Awards

    The Department establishes $250,000 as the minimum award and 
$500,000 as the maximum award. No grant application will be considered 
for funding if it requests an award amount outside the funding range of 
$250,000 to $500,000.

C. Matching Funds Requirement

    Pursuant to section 5512(c) of ESEA, as amended by the No Child 
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Federal funds may not be used to pay 
for more than 50 percent of total CTC project costs. In order to 
receive a grant award under the competition, each applicant must 
furnish from non-Federal sources at least 50 percent of its total 
project costs. Applicants may satisfy this requirement in cash or in 
kind, fairly evaluated, including services. Each applicant must provide 
a dollar-for-dollar match of the amount requested from the Federal 
Government. An example of an allowable match would be a situation in 
which an applicant requested $250,000 in Federal funds (the mandatory 
minimum request). In that situation, the application would be required 
to furnish at least $250,000 in cash or in kind from non-Federal funds, 
fairly evaluated, resulting in a total project cost of $500,000.

[[Page 20770]]

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
    This priority supports projects by eligible applicants that include 
a partnership with a community-based organization, on the one hand, and 
a local educational agency (including a charter school that meets its 
State's definition of an LEA), or a public school or a private school, 
on the other hand. To meet the priority, an applicant must clearly 
identify the partnering agencies and include a detailed plan of their 
working relationship, including a project budget that reflects fund 
disbursements to the various partnering agencies. Thus, the Secretary 
gives priority to projects in which the delivery of instructional 
services includes:
    1. A community-based organization (CBO), which may be a faith-based 
organization, and
    2. A local educational agency (LEA) (including a charter school 
that meets its State's definition of an LEA), or a public school or a 
private school.
    A CBO is not required to submit a joint application with its 
proposed partners when applying for funds; however, the proposed 
project must deliver the educational services in partnership with an 
LEA (including a charter school that meets its State's definition of an 
LEA), or a public school or a private school.
    An LEA (including a charter school that meets its State's 
definition of an LEA) or a private school also is not required to 
submit a joint application with a CBO when applying for funds; however, 
the proposed project must deliver the educational services in 
partnership with a CBO.
    An eligible applicant, e.g., an institution of higher education, 
that is not a CBO or an LEA (including a charter school that meets its 
State's definition of an LEA) or a private school must enter into a 
partnership that includes a CBO, on the one hand, and an LEA (including 
a charter school that meets its State's definition of an LEA), or a 
public school or a private school, on the other hand, in the delivery 
of educational services.
    An individual public school is not eligible to submit an 
application under the CTC program in general due to the authorizing 
statute's general eligibility restrictions. However, an individual 
public school may be included as a partner in an eligible applicant's 
proposed project and application.
    This priority does not apply to novice applicants. In any 
competition in which the Department establishes this priority as an 
absolute priority, novice applicants are not required to meet the 
requirements of this priority.
Priority 2
    This priority supports applicants that meet the following criteria:
    Applicants must state whether they are proposing a local or State 
project. A local project must include one or more CTCs; a State project 
must include two or more CTCs. In addition, the project must be 
coordinated with one or more LEAs (including a charter school that 
meets its State's definition of an LEA), or a public school or a 
private school that provides supplementary instruction in the core 
academic subjects of reading or language arts, or mathematics, to low-
achieving high school students. Projects must serve students who are 
entering or enrolled in grades 9 through 12 and who: (1) Have academic 
skills significantly below grade level, or (2) have not attained 
proficiency on the State academic assessments conducted under Title I 
of the ESEA. Supplementary instruction may be delivered before or after 
school or at other times when school is not in session. Instruction may 
also be provided while school is in session, provided that it increases 
the amount of time students receive instruction in core academic 
subjects and does not require their removal from class. The 
instructional strategies used must be based on practices that have 
proven effective for improving the academic performance of low-
achieving students. If these services are not provided directly by an 
LEA or school, they must be provided in coordination with an LEA or 
school. Each applicant must demonstrate how their project's proposed 
academic approach is aligned with the secondary school curricula of the 
school or schools in which the students to be served by the grant are 
entering or enrolled.
Priority 3
    This priority supports projects whose CTC activities focus on adult 
education and family literacy services.
    Under this priority, we give priority to projects that provide 
adult education and family literacy activities through technology and 
the Internet, including adult basic education, adult secondary 
education, and English literacy instruction.
Priority 4
    This priority supports projects whose CTC activities focus on 
career development and job preparation activities. Under this priority 
we give priority to projects that provide career development and job 
preparation activities in high-demand occupational areas.

Selection Criteria

    The following criteria will be used to evaluate applications 
submitted for grants under the CTC program.
    (a) Need for the Project. In evaluating the need for the proposed 
project, we will consider the extent to which the proposed project 
will:
    (1) Serve students from low-income families;
    (2) Serve students entering or enrolled in high schools (9th 
through 12th grades) that are among the high schools in the State that 
have the highest numbers or percentages of students who have not 
achieved proficiency on the State academic assessments required by 
Title I of ESEA, or who have academic skills in reading or language 
arts, or mathematics, that are significantly below grade level;
    (3) Serve students who have the greatest need for supplementary 
instruction, as indicated by their scores on State or local 
standardized assessments in reading or language arts, or mathematics, 
or some other local measure of performance in reading or language arts, 
or mathematics; and
    (4) Create or expand access to information technology and related 
training for disadvantaged residents of distressed urban or rural 
communities.
    (b) Quality of the Project Design. In evaluating the quality of the 
project design, we will consider the extent to which the proposed 
project will adequately and effectively investigate

[[Page 20771]]

and incorporate in its implementation plan the following elements:
    (1) Provide instructional services that will be of sufficient size, 
scope, and intensity to improve the academic performance of 
participating students;
    (2) Incorporate strategies that have proven effective for improving 
the academic performance of low-achieving students;
    (3) Implement strategies in recruiting and retaining students that 
have proven effective;
    (4) Provide instruction that is aligned with the high school 
curricula of the schools in which the students to be served by the 
grant are entering or enrolled; and
    (5) Provide high-quality, sustained, and intensive professional 
development for personnel who provide instruction to students.
    (c) Quality of the Management Plan. In evaluating the quality of 
the management plan, we consider the extent to which the proposed 
project:
    (1) Outlines specific, measurable goals, objectives, and outcomes 
to be achieved by the proposed project;
    (2) Assigns responsibility for the accomplishment of project tasks 
to specific project personnel, and provides timelines for the 
accomplishment of project tasks;
    (3) Requires appropriate and adequate time commitments of the 
project director and other key personnel to achieve the objectives of 
the proposed project; and
    (4) Includes key project personnel, including the project director 
and other staff, with appropriate qualifications and relevant training 
and experience.
    (d) Adequacy of Resources. In determining the adequacy of the 
resources for the proposed project, we consider the following factors:
    (1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant;
    (2) The extent to which a preponderance of project resources will 
be used for activities designed to improve the academic performance of 
low-achieving students in grades 9 through 12 in reading and/or 
mathematics;
    (3) The extent to which the budget is adequate and costs are 
reasonable in relation to the objectives and design of the proposed 
project; and
    (4) The potential for continued support of the project after 
Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated 
commitment of appropriate entities to such support.
    (e) Quality of the Evaluation. In determining the quality of the 
project evaluation, we consider the extent to which the application:
    (1) Includes a plan that utilizes evaluation methods that are 
feasible and appropriate to the goals and outcomes of the project;
    (2) Will regularly examine the progress and outcomes of 
participating students on a range of appropriate performance measures 
and has a plan for utilizing such information to improve project 
activities and instruction;
    (3) Will use an independent, external evaluator with the necessary 
background and technical expertise to assess the performance of the 
project; and
    (4) Effectively demonstrates that the applicant has adopted a 
rigorous evaluation design.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of final 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 the notice of final 
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 final requirements, priorities and 
selection criteria, we have determined that the benefits of the final 
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.
    We summarized the costs and benefits in the notice of proposed 
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria.

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: 
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 84.341A, Community 
Technology Centers Program)


    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7263-7263b.

    Dated: April 12, 2004.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 04-8659 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P