[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 81 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22233-22239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8514]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Smaller Learning Communities Program

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

ACTION: Notice of final priority, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria for fiscal year (FY) 2004 and subsequent years' 
funds.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education 
announces a priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
under the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) program. The Assistant 
Secretary will use this priority, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria for a competition using fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds 
and may use them in later years.
    We intend the priority, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria to further the purpose of the SLC program, which is to promote 
academic achievement through the creation or expansion of small, safe, 
and successful learning environments in large public high schools.

DATES: The final priority, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are effective May 31, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Williams, U.S. Department of 
Education, OVAE, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center Plaza, room 
11064, Washington, DC 20202-7241. Telephone: (202) 245-7770 or via 
Internet: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) 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 (20 U.S.C. 7249), as amended by Public Law 107-110, the No Child 
Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA).
    A strategy that may hold 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.
    While the research on school size to date has been largely 
nonexperimental, some evidence 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 (SLCs) are described in the Conference Report for 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113, H.R. 
Conference Report No. 106-479, at 1240 (1999)). Such methods include 
establishing small learning clusters, ``houses,'' career academies, 
magnet programs, and schools-within-a-school. Other activities may 
include freshman transition activities, advisory and adult advocate 
systems, academic teaming, multi-year groupings, ``extra 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 might, 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 educational agencies (LEAs) to set higher academic 
expectations for all of their students and to implement reforms that 
will provide the effective instruction and personalized academic and 
social support students need to meet those expectations.
    The Department's ongoing efforts to ensure improved outcomes for 
students enrolled in programs funded by the SLC program are reflected 
in this notice. Many of the changes represent an effort to provide 
grantees with sufficient time and resources to carry out their plans 
for raising academic achievement through comprehensive structural and 
instructional reforms. Toward that end, we are extending the project 
period from three to five years. In addition, we are increasing the 
award amounts for individual grants.
    In an attempt to facilitate the application process, encourage more 
LEAs to apply, and raise the quality of proposals received, we have 
streamlined the number of selection criteria from the previous 
competition. The priority, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria in this notice continue to focus on making the curriculum more 
rigorous and improving instruction through SLC structures and 
strategies.
    We published a notice of proposed priority, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for fiscal year (FY) 2004 and 
subsequent years' funds in the Federal Register on February 25, 2005 
(70 FR 9290) (NPP). This notice of final priority, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria contains several changes from the 
NPP. We fully explain these changes in the following section.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the NPP, 17 parties submitted 
comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the 
priority, requirements,

[[Page 22234]]

definitions, and selection criteria since publication of the NPP.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes--and 
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority.
    Comments: A number of commenters were concerned that grantees with 
SLC projects ending this year are at a disadvantage, since they are not 
eligible to apply for an additional grant.
    Discussion: As we proposed in the NPP, recipients of the first 
cohort of grants awarded in the SLC program in 2000 are eligible to 
apply for a grant. Based on public comments, however, we have 
determined that an LEA may apply on behalf of schools funded in the 
second cohort of grants awarded in 2001 under the SLC program as well. 
The requirements for improved academic achievement, continuous data 
collection and analysis to inform decision-making and program 
improvement, and third-party external evaluation of implementation are 
among the significant changes that are included in the program 
requirements starting with implementation grants awarded in 2003 
(cohort 3) and continuing for grants awarded in 2004 (cohort 4). 
Accordingly, we do not think these grantees are at a disadvantage.
    Change: We have added language in the Previous Grantees section of 
the notice to provide that recipients of grants in the second SLC 
cohort are eligible to apply for a grant under the conditions set forth 
in this notice. After internal review, we also have deleted the 
requirement that previous grantees include a copy of their final 
performance report in their applications.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that we add a ``readiness 
criterion'' to the selection criteria that would document support from 
stakeholders outside of the school(s).
    Discussion: We agree that the commitment of teachers, other school 
personnel, parents, students, and other community stakeholders is 
required for effective implementation of new or expansion of existing 
SLCs. The factors listed under the criterion Foundation for 
Implementation specifically address this requirement for continued 
involvement of all stakeholders in the planning stages and throughout 
the implementation process.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters sought clarification regarding our 
proposal to prohibit a grantee from using year 1 of the grant period 
for planning purposes. One commenter recommended reinstatement of 
planning grants for $50,000 or $100,000 and a requirement that a 
grantee begin its implementation plan at the end of one year.
    Discussion: When the SLC program was established, few resources 
were available regarding effective SLCs and efficient implementation 
practices. Accordingly, in the earlier years of this program, planning 
grants were awarded to provide funding to enable grantees to convene 
stakeholders for planning, to research SLCs, to visit various sites, 
and to participate in development opportunities as they decided whether 
they would apply for an implementation grant or not. Currently there 
are more readily available resources, planning tools, and SLC findings 
from research and practice that may inform the planning in schools and 
districts for the implementation process so that implementation can 
take place earlier. We do expect some new SLC implementation activities 
or expansion of some existing SLC to be completed during the first year 
of the grant; full implementation, however, is not expected in the 
first year of the project. As required in the selection criterion, 
Quality of the Management Plan, the application must include clearly 
defined responsibilities and detailed timelines and milestones for 
accomplishing project tasks for the project performance period.
    Changes: We have added language to the Types of Grants section 
under Application Requirements to allow grantees to use the first year, 
if necessary, for some planning activities, and for investigation and 
piloting of SLC structural changes, strategies, services, more rigorous 
course offerings, and interventions that may be implemented in the SLCs 
as part of their whole-school reform initiative.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that districts be allowed to 
apply for a grant on behalf of high schools under construction.
    Discussion: Schools under construction do not have actual student 
enrollments. Consistent with language in the Conference Report for 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199), we have 
decided that to be considered an eligible large high school for 
purposes of this program, the school must have an actual enrollment of 
1,000 or more students at the time of application.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that we consider citing 
``highly specified reform models'' in the selection criterion, Quality 
of Project Design.
    Discussion: There are many resources available for use by 
applicants as they decide what reform models will work best in their 
specific environment. Resources are available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/slcp/resources.html and many other Web sites that may inform 
decision-making with regard to models and practices to use as the 
proposed SLC project is designed. Applicants should investigate various 
research-based strategies, services, and interventions that are likely 
to improve overall student achievements and program outcomes. Thus, a 
citation of ``highly specified reform models'' in the selection 
criteria is unnecessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department establish 
the performance target for the graduation rate performance indicator 
and give preference to applicants with the highest graduation rate in a 
standard number of years.
    Discussion: The performance indicators and annual performance 
objectives included in the grant application are established by each 
applicant and are based upon factors at each school included in the 
grant application. It is not possible for us to set a target for 
graduation outcomes that would be realistic for all potential 
applicants. Further, there are no competitive preference priorities 
established for this competition.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested clarification regarding the award 
ranges and whether the recommendations were for one year or the full 
period of the grant.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that potential applicants 
may be confused about how to calculate the amount of award they are 
requesting.
    Changes: We have added language in the Budget Information for 
Determining Award section under Application Requirements that makes it 
clear that the award recommendations are for the 60-month grant period.
    Comments: One commenter requested clarification regarding group 
applications.
    Discussion: We realize it may be beneficial for school districts to 
form a consortium for development and implementation of an SLC project. 
Per the Education Department General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR), applicants may apply as a consortium. The regulations, at 34 
CFR 75.127-72.129, set out the details of group applications. All 
members of a consortium must be eligible entities.

[[Page 22235]]

The applicant is considered the grantee and is legally responsible for 
the grant. The consortium members must enter into an agreement that 
binds each member to every statement and assurance made by the 
applicant in the application, and the applicant must submit the 
agreement with its application.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters requested clarification regarding the 
determination of ``high-risk'' status for grantees.
    Discussion: Designation of a grantee as ``high-risk'' is based on 
factors that arise during the grant or may be based on past grant 
performance results. The designation is made only after measures have 
been taken by the Program Officer to help the grantee remedy any 
deficiencies. Any such designation would be done in accordance with 34 
CFR 80.12 of EDGAR.
    Changes: None.

    Note: This notice of final priority, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria, 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)).

Priority

Priority: Helping All Students To Succeed in Rigorous Academic Courses

    This priority supports projects to create or expand SLCs 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 have acquired 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, 
apprenticeships, 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.

Application Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary announces the following application 
requirements for this SLC competition. These requirements are in 
addition to the content that all SLC grant applicants must include in 
their applications as required by the program statute in title V, part 
D, subpart 4, section 5441(b) of the ESEA. LEAs, including schools 
funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and educational service 
agencies, applying on behalf of large public high schools, are eligible 
to apply for a grant. A discussion of each application requirement 
follows:

Eligibility

    To be considered for funding, LEAs must identify in their 
applications the name(s) of the eligible large high school(s) and the 
number of students enrolled in each school. A large high school is 
defined as one having grades 11 and 12, with 1,000 or more students 
enrolled in grades 9 and above. 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. LEAs may 
apply on behalf of no more than 10 schools.

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, including information about student academic 
achievement and other student outcomes. These ``report cards'' must 
include, at a minimum, the following 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 those indicators for 
students in the LEA as a whole and also shows the performance of the 
school's students on statewide assessments.

Types of Grants

    We will award implementation grants to applicants to support the 
creation or expansion of an SLC or SLCs within each targeted high 
school. We will not fund any planning grants this year; however, full 
implementation is not expected in the first year of the grant. In the 
first year of the implementation grant, grantees will be allowed to 
continue planning activities including, but not limited to, (a) 
convening stakeholders who are actively involved in the continuing 
development of the new SLCs or expansion of SLCs at the targeted 
schools; (b) investigating and testing new structures and strategies to 
be implemented throughout the performance period; (c) piloting more 
rigorous academic courses and requirements to better prepare students 
for transition to postsecondary education; (d) surveying staff to 
inform the plans for high quality and sustained professional 
development throughout the implementation process; (e) conducting 
surveys of students, staff, and community stakeholders to inform 
continuous improvement throughout the implementation process; and (f) 
collecting and analyzing data to inform the initiatives planned for the 
implementation project.
    Grants will be awarded for a period up to 60 months. We require 
that applicants 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 will 
award the entire grant amount at the time of the initial award. We also 
require that applicants provide detailed yearly plans, including 
benchmarks, for the total grant period requested.

[[Page 22236]]

Consortium Applications and Educational Service Agencies

    In an effort to encourage systemic, district-level reform efforts, 
we permit an individual LEA to submit only one grant application in a 
competition, specifying in each application which high schools the LEA 
intends to fund.
    In addition, we require that an LEA applying for a grant under this 
competition apply only on behalf of a high school or high schools for 
which it has governing authority, unless the LEA is an educational 
service agency that includes in its application evidence that the 
entity that has governing authority over the eligible high school 
supports the application. An LEA, however, may form a consortium with 
another LEA and submit a joint application for funds. The consortium 
must follow the procedures for group applications described in 34 CFR 
75.127-75.129 in the Education Department General Administrative 
Regulations (EDGAR).
    An LEA is eligible for only one grant whether the LEA applies 
independently or as part of a consortium.

Budget Information for Determination of Award

    LEAs may receive, on behalf of a single school, up to $1,175,000, 
depending upon the size of the school. This award is for the full 60-
month project period. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible 
schools could receive up to $11,750,000 per grant. To ensure that 
sufficient funds are available to support SLC activities, LEAs may not 
include more than 10 schools in a single application for a grant.
    The following chart provides the ranges of awards per high school 
size for 60-month SLC grants:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AP05.086

    The actual size of awards will be based on a number of factors. 
These factors include the scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the 
proposed project and the range of awards indicated in the application.
    Applications that request more funds than the maximum amounts 
specified for any school or for the total grant will not be read as 
part of the regular application process. However, if after the 
Secretary selects applications to be funded, it appears that additional 
funds remain available, the Secretary may choose to read those 
additional applications that requested funds exceeding the maximum 
amounts specified. If the Secretary chooses to fund any of those 
additional applications, applicants will be required to work with the 
Department to revise their proposed budgets to fit within the 
appropriate funding range.

Student Placement

    We require applicants for SLC grants to include a description of 
how students will be selected or placed in an SLC and an assurance 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.

Including All Students

    We require applicants for grants to create or expand an SLC project 
that will include every student within the school by no later than the 
end of the fifth school year of implementation. Elsewhere in this 
notice, we define an SLC as an environment in which a group of teachers 
and other adults within the school knows the needs, interests, and 
aspirations of each student well, closely monitors each student's 
progress, and provides the academic and other support each student 
needs to succeed.

Performance Indicators

    We require applicants to identify in their application specific 
performance indicators and annual performance objectives for each of 
these indicators. Specifically, we require applicants to use the 
following performance indicators to measure the progress of each 
school:
    (1) The percentage of students who score at the proficient and 
advanced

[[Page 22237]]

levels on the reading/language arts and mathematics assessments used by 
the State to determine whether a school has made adequate yearly 
progress under part A of title I of the ESEA, as well as these 
percentages disaggregated by subject matter and the following 
subgroups:
    (A) Major racial and ethnic groups;
    (B) Students with disabilities;
    (C) Students with limited English proficiency; and
    (D) 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 the ESEA;
    (3) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary 
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training for the semester 
following graduation;
    (4) The percentage of graduates who are employed by the end of the 
first quarter after they graduate (e.g., for students who graduate in 
May or June, this would be September 30);
    (5) Other appropriate indicators the LEA may choose to identify in 
its application, such as rates of average daily attendance and year-to-
year retention; achievement and gains in English proficiency of limited 
English proficient students; the incidence of school violence, drug and 
alcohol use, and disciplinary actions; or the percentage of students 
completing advanced placement courses and the rate of passing advanced 
placement tests (such as Advanced Placement and International 
Baccalaureate) and courses for college credit.
    Applicants are required to include in their applications baseline 
data for each of these indicators and identify performance objectives 
for each year of the project period. We further require recipients of 
grants to report annually on the extent to which each school achieves 
its performance objectives for each indicator during the preceding 
school year. 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.

Evaluation

    We require each applicant to provide assurances that it will 
support an evaluation of the project that provides information to the 
project director and school personnel, and that will be useful in 
gauging the project's progress and in identifying areas for 
improvement. Each evaluation must include an annual report for each of 
the first four years of the project period and a final report that 
would be completed at the end of the fifth year of implementation and 
that will include information on implementation during the fifth year 
as well as information on the implementation of the project across the 
entire project period. We require grantees to submit each of these 
reports to the Department.
    In addition, we require that the evaluation be conducted by an 
independent third party, selected by the applicant, whose role in the 
project is limited to conducting the evaluation.

High-Risk Status and Other Enforcement Mechanisms

    Requirements listed in this notice are material requirements. 
Failure to comply with any requirement or with any elements of the 
grantee's application would 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 showing a decline 
in student achievement after two years of implementation of the grant; 
the grantee's failure to make substantial progress in completing the 
milestones outlined in the management plan included in the application; 
and the grantee's expenditure of funds in a manner that is inconsistent 
with the budget as submitted in the application.

Required Meetings Sponsored by the Department

    Applicants must set aside adequate funds within their proposed 
budget to send their project director to a two-day project directors' 
meeting in Washington, DC, and to send a team of five key staff 
members, including their external evaluator, to attend a two-and-a-
half-day Regional Institute. The Department will host both meetings.

Previous Grantees

    An LEA that was awarded an implementation grant on behalf of a 
school under the original SLC program competition held in 2000 (Cohort 
1) may apply on behalf of the school for a second SLC grant under the 
terms set forth in this notice. An LEA that was awarded an 
implementation grant on behalf of a school under the competition held 
in 2002 (Cohort 2) may apply on behalf of the school for a second grant 
under the terms set forth in this notice. LEAs would not be able to 
apply for funding on behalf of schools that received an SLC 
implementation grant under the competitions held in 2003 (Cohort 3) and 
2004 (Cohort 4).

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:
    BIA School means a school operated or supported by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
    Large High School means 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 (SLC) means an environment in which a 
core group of teachers and other adults within the school knows the 
needs, interests, and aspirations of each student well, closely 
monitors each student's progress, and provides the academic and other 
support each student needs to succeed.

Selection Criteria

    The following selection criteria will be used to evaluate 
applications for new grants under this program. We may apply these 
selection criteria to any SLC competition in the future.

    Note: The maximum score for a grant under this program is 100 
points. The points or weights assigned to each criterion and sub-
criterion are indicated in parentheses.

Need for the Project (10 Points)

    In determining the need for the proposed project, we consider the 
extent to which the applicant will:
    (1) Assist schools that have the greatest need for assistance, as 
indicated by, relative to other high schools within the State, one or 
more of the factors below:
    (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, including gaps in the performance of all students 
and that of student subgroups, such as economically disadvantaged 
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with 
disabilities, or students with limited English proficiency.
    (B) The school's dropout rate and gaps in the graduation rate 
between all students and student subgroups.
    (C) Disciplinary actions.
    (D) The percentage of graduates who enroll in postsecondary 
education, apprenticeships, or advanced training in the semester 
following graduation, and gaps between all students and student 
subgroups.

Foundation for Implementation (20 Points)

    In determining the quality of the implementation plan for the 
proposed

[[Page 22238]]

project, we consider the extent to which:
    (1)(5 points) Teachers and administrators within each school 
support the proposed project and have been and will continue to be 
involved in its planning and development, including, particularly, 
those teachers who will be directly affected by the proposed project.
    (2)(5 points) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders 
support the proposed project and have been and will continue to be 
involved in its planning and development.
    (3)(5 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 student 
subgroups.
    (4)(5 points) The applicant demonstrates that it has carried out 
sufficient planning and preparatory activities to enable it to begin to 
implement the proposed project at the beginning of the school year 
immediately following receipt of an award.

Quality of the Project Design (30 Points)

    In determining the quality of the project design for the SLC 
project, we consider the extent to which--
    (1)(5 points) The applicant will implement or expand 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 knows the needs, interests, and 
aspirations of each student well, closely monitors each student's 
progress, and provides the academic and other support each student 
needs to succeed;
    (2)(5 points) The applicant proposes research-based strategies that 
are likely to improve overall student achievement and other outcomes 
(including graduation rates and enrollment in postsecondary education), 
narrow any gaps in achievement between all students and student 
subgroups, and address the particular needs identified by the school 
under the paragraph titled Need for the Project, 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 other academic and technical courses that offer 
both high school and postsecondary credit.
    (3)(5 points) The applicant will 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 and that:
    (A) Are designed to equip participating students with grade-level 
reading/language arts and mathematics skills by no later than the end 
of the 10th grade;
    (B) Are grounded in scientifically based research;
    (C) Include the use of age-appropriate instructional materials and 
teaching and learning strategies;
    (D) Provide additional instructional 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;
    (E) Will be delivered with sufficient intensity to improve the 
reading/language arts or math skills, as appropriate, of participating 
students; and
    (F) Include sustained professional development and ongoing support 
for teachers and other personnel who are responsible for delivering 
instruction.
    (4)(5 points) The applicant will provide high-quality professional 
development throughout the project period that 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, and 
provide the knowledge and skills those staff need to participate 
effectively in the development, expansion, or implementation of an SLC.
    (5)(5 points) The proposed project fits into a comprehensive 
district high school improvement strategy to increase the academic 
achievement of all district high school students, reduce gaps between 
the achievement of all students and student subgroups, and prepare 
students to enter postsecondary education or the workforce.
    (6)(5 points) The proposed project is part of a cohesive plan that 
uses 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 sufficient to ensure continuation of efforts 
after Federal support ends.

Quality of the Management Plan (20 Points)

    In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed 
project, we consider the following factors:
    (1)(5 points) The adequacy of the proposed 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 time commitments of the project 
director and other key personnel are appropriate and adequate to 
implement the SLC project effectively.
    (3)(5 points) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of the project director and other key personnel; and
    (4)(5 points) The adequacy of resources, including the extent to 
which the budget is adequate and costs are directly related to the 
objectives and SLC activities.

Quality of the SLC Project Evaluation (20 Points)

    In determining the quality of the proposed project evaluation 
conducted by an independent, third party evaluator, we consider the 
following factors--
    (1)(5 points) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are 
thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and 
outcomes of the proposed SLC project;
    (2)(5 points) The extent to which the evaluation will collect and 
report accurate qualitative and quantitative data that will be useful 
in assessing the success and progress of implementation, including, at 
a minimum--
    (A) Measures of student academic achievement that provide data for 
the performance indicators identified in the application, 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; and
    (B) Other measures identified by the applicant in the application 
as performance indicators;

[[Page 22239]]

    (3)(5 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.
    (4)(5 points) The qualifications and relevant training and 
experience of the independent evaluator.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of final priority, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 
12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential 
costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
    The potential costs associated with this notice of final priority, 
requirements, definitions, 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 priority, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria, we have determined that the 
benefits of the final priority, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria justify the costs.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.

Intergovernmental Review

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

Electronic Access to This Document

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

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


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

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

    Dated: April 22, 2005.
Susan Sclafani,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 05-8514 Filed 4-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P