[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15308-15312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2935]



[[Page 15307]]

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

Part III





Department of Education





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



Parental Information and Resource Centers; Final Priorities and 
Eligibility Requirements; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / 
Notices  

[[Page 15308]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Parental Information and Resource Centers; Final Priorities and 
Eligibility Requirements

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities and eligibility requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
announces priorities and eligibility requirements under the Parental 
Information and Resource Centers (PIRC) program. The Assistant Deputy 
Secretary may use one or more of these priorities for and apply these 
eligibility requirements to competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2006 and 
later years. We intend these priorities and requirements to help ensure 
that funded projects will effectively address the purposes of the PIRC 
program.

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities and eligibility requirements 
are effective April 26, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven L. Brockhouse, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W229, Washington, DC 
20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 260-2476 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: PIRC projects help implement successful and 
effective parental involvement policies, programs, and activities that 
lead to improvements in student academic achievement and strengthen 
partnerships among parents, teachers, principals, administrators, and 
other school personnel in meeting the education needs of children. 
Section 5563(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
as amended (ESEA), describes project requirements for the recipients of 
PIRC grants, including requirements to serve both rural and urban 
areas; to use at least one-half of the funds awarded to a project to 
serve areas with high concentrations of low-income families; and to use 
at least 30 percent of the funds awarded to a project to establish, 
expand, or operate early childhood parent education programs.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities and eligibility 
requirements for this program in the Federal Register on December 28, 
2005 (70 FR 76787).
    This notice of final priorities makes one change based on the 
recommendations of commenters. We are adding a new priority addressing 
the geographic distribution of awards to award additional points to 
each application based on the total number of students enrolled in the 
public schools of each State.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priorities 
and eligibility requirements, 25 parties submitted comments on one or 
more of the proposed priorities and eligibility requirements. An 
analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities and 
eligibility requirements since publication of the notice of proposed 
priorities and eligibility requirements follows.
    We discuss substantive issues under the priority number or 
requirement to which they pertain.
    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.

Priority 1--Geographic Distribution of Awards

    Comment: Nine commenters expressed support for this priority. More 
than half of these commenters also suggested that it would beneficial 
to consider making more than one award in a State, if possible, so that 
factors such as the size or diversity of the State's school-age 
population could be taken into consideration.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that in making awards, we 
should give some consideration to other factors to help ensure that 
additional awards are made in States with relatively large student 
populations, consistent with quality. This change will help ensure that 
the geographic distribution of all awards targets States with larger 
student populations. There are no additional costs to applicants 
associated with this change.
    Change: We have added a new priority to award priority points based 
on the number of public elementary and secondary school students 
enrolled in a State.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that Priority 1 not be used. The 
commenter expressed concern that the priority would be detrimental to 
reaching the neediest populations.
    Discussion: The priority to award a PIRC grant to the highest-
ranking application in each State (provided that the application is of 
sufficient quality to show that it is likely to meet the purposes of 
the PIRC program, implement effective activities, and achieve intended 
results) does not adversely affect an applicant's ability to focus on 
needy populations. Consistent with the statutory requirement in section 
5563(b)(3) of the ESEA, a PIRC project must target a minimum of 50 
percent of the grant funds it receives for services to areas with high 
concentrations of low-income families. Further, each application must 
address selection criteria related to need in order to show that the 
application will appropriately focus on meeting the needs of 
disadvantaged individuals, including students at risk of educational 
failure.
    Change: None.

Priority 2--Statewide Impact of PIRC Services

    Comment: Eleven commenters wrote to express support for the 
priority. In particular, several commenters noted particular 
appreciation for the flexible approach contained in the priority that 
permits a project to include services that are tailored to specific 
communities, geographic regions, or local educational agencies (LEAs), 
where appropriate, in addition to the statewide strategies and services 
that a project would include.
    Discussion: None.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter indicated that it would have been helpful to 
have a list of required activities associated with the priority.
    Discussion: The priority for statewide impact clearly focuses on an 
applicant's proposed plan to provide services to parents that enhance 
the ability of parents to participate effectively in their children's 
education, including their ability to communicate effectively with 
public school personnel in the school that their child attends. Beyond 
that, we believe that applicants need to have flexibility to consider 
the specific activities that are most appropriate to the needs of 
parents in the State and are likely to have a significant impact in 
enhancing parents' ability to participate effectively in their 
children's education and communicate effectively with public school 
personnel in the school that their child attends.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that, in addition to making 
services that have a statewide impact a priority, we should also award 
competitive points to an application

[[Page 15309]]

proposing collaboration with the State educational agency (SEA).
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the development of an 
effective collaborative relationship with the SEA is important to 
implementing broad Statewide strategies but we expect that applicants 
will address how they propose to establish this relationship in their 
response to this priority. As a result, we do not believe that changing 
the priority to require specifically that applicants address this type 
of collaboration is necessary for applicants to develop their PIRC 
applications.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Four commenters expressed concern that giving priority to 
activities that emphasize statewide approaches would have a detrimental 
impact on the effectiveness of projects by diluting PIRC services and 
inhibiting PIRCs' ability to develop and maintain effective working 
relationships with parents. One of these commenters specifically 
recommended that the priority not be implemented. Another one of the 
four commenters recommended a substitute approach that would give 
priority to those applications that propose to work with their SEA even 
if the proposed application did not include activities designed to have 
a statewide impact.
    Discussion: The priority for statewide impact does not require that 
all services provided by a grantee under a PIRC project be delivered on 
a statewide basis. The statutory requirements for this program clearly 
provide that grantees must provide services to parents and local 
communities, so we do not believe PIRCs will be reluctant to work 
effectively with parents. We believe, however, that there is 
substantial benefit in supporting the operation of PIRC projects that 
include activities designed to have a statewide impact.
    The priority for statewide impact is intended to help ensure that 
all parents from across a State have access to information and 
services, especially services that are designed to enhance the ability 
of parents to participate effectively in the education of their 
children. We also intend that this priority will facilitate the ability 
of PIRC projects to develop more effective working relationships with 
the State educational agency in their State.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that we fund one or more 
additional national projects to support PIRC projects. One of the 
commenters specifically recommended that these additional projects 
provide content-focused specialties to help other PIRC projects stay 
abreast of current research and to provide professional development to 
PIRC projects in translating research into practice.
    Discussion: We decline to add funding priorities for national 
projects in the context of these priorities and requirements because 
these priorities focus to a greater extent on providing services to 
States and local communities. We note, however, that section 5565(c) of 
the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to 
support the operation of PIRCs. We will consider including national 
activities in future technical assistance grants or contracts 
authorized by section 5565(c).
    Change: None.

Priority 3--Understanding State and Local Report Cards and 
Opportunities for Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational 
Services

    Comment: Seven commenters wrote to express unqualified support for 
Priority 3. Of those commenters who discussed their reasons for 
supporting this priority, one observed that understanding State report 
cards is fundamental to parents' understanding of their State's 
accountability system and to empowering parents; one indicated that 
PIRCs are a source of unbiased information; and another noted that the 
subject areas addressed in the priority are essential to the role of 
parents as envisioned by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
    Discussion: None.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that other PIRC program 
requirements be limited in order to ensure that PIRC projects had 
sufficient resources to meet Priority 3 and Priority 4.
    Discussion: Section 5563(b) of the ESEA sets forth specific 
requirements that all applications must address, including two 
requirements that carry with them minimum standards for the use of 
funds. Specifically, section 5563(b)(3) requires that each PIRC project 
use at least 50 percent of the funds it receives in order to serve 
areas with high concentrations of low-income families. Further, section 
5563(b)(10) requires each PIRC project to use at least 30 percent of 
the funds it receives to establish, expand, or operate an early 
childhood parent education program such as Parents as Teachers or Home 
Instruction for Pre-school Youngsters. Applications must be responsive 
to all of these statutory requirements. Applications may propose 
activities that address a priority and, at the same time, contribute 
towards meeting one or more of the statutory requirements in section 
5563(b). For example, by focusing some or all of an applicant's 
proposed activities to address Priority 3 on areas with high 
concentrations of low-income families, an applicant could both address 
this priority and contribute towards meeting the requirement in section 
5563(b)(3).
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we include more specific 
direction concerning the production and dissemination of information to 
parents and sought guidance regarding whether a PIRC could work with 
LEAs to ensure that requirements related to public school choice, 
supplemental educational services, and State and local report cards are 
met.
    Discussion: We do not believe that incorporation of more specific 
guidance into the priority is necessary. Projects may work with SEAs, 
LEAs, schools, parents, or other organizations, as appropriate, and may 
disseminate information in ways of reaching parents that are best 
suited to the needs and objectives of the project. As indicated in the 
notice of proposed priorities and eligibility requirements, guidance on 
the subject matter of this priority is also available on the 
Department's Web site as follows.
    (Guidance on report cards under Title I of the ESEA is available 
at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/reportcardsguidance.doc; 
guidance on supplemental educational services is available at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.doc; and guidance on public 
school choice is available at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.doc.)
    Change: None.

Priority 4--Technical Assistance in the Implementation of Local 
Educational Agency and School Parental Involvement Policy Under Section 
1118 of the ESEA

    Comment: Ten commenters wrote to express support for Priority 4.
    Discussion: None.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that we expand the language in 
Priority 4 to include school readiness in addition to student 
achievement and school performance as an area that should be targeted 
for improvement through the implementation of the parental involvement 
policy under section 1118 of the ESEA.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters regarding the importance 
of school readiness; however, the primary

[[Page 15310]]

focus of Priority 4 is technical assistance in implementing section 
1118 of the ESEA, which requires SEAs, LEAs, and schools to develop 
parental involvement activities to improve student academic achievement 
and school performance.
    As documented by the results of recent Title I monitoring activity, 
the need for technical assistance in this area remains substantial. We 
believe that adding school readiness as another focus for improvement 
would detract from the primary purpose of the priority. Further, 
section 5563(b)(10) requires PIRC projects to use a minimum of 30 
percent of the funds that a project receives annually for early 
childhood parent education activities, making early childhood parent 
education programs an integral part of any PIRC project without further 
expansion of Priority 4.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that Priority 4 include specific 
requirements related to project materials, the composition of the PIRC 
project staff, and the use of a statewide telephone number with 
multiple languages in its menu.
    Discussion: We do not think it is necessary to add these 
requirements. Such specific requirements would reduce applicants' 
flexibility in designing technical assistance strategies and approaches 
that are designed to address effectively the individual needs of States 
and their LEAs and schools.
    Change: None.

Eligibility Requirements

    Comment: One commenter recommended that institutions of higher 
education be specifically excluded from serving as either applicants or 
fiscal agents.
    Discussion: Institutions of higher education, like a variety of 
other organizations, may have specialized knowledge, interests, or 
programs that focus on parental involvement issues. We believe that 
excluding institutions of higher education that meet the eligibility 
requirements described in this notice would serve no beneficial 
purpose.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we add a provision that 
would permit an LEA to serve as the fiscal agent if the nonprofit 
organization provided evidence of its fiscal and program autonomy.
    Discussion: The recommendation did not explain why a nonprofit 
organization that has both fiscal and program autonomy would need an 
LEA to serve as the fiscal agent for a project. We also believe that 
allowing this type of exemption would undermine the statutory 
eligibility requirements for the PIRC program, which provide for 
nonprofit organizations or consortia of applicants including nonprofit 
organizations to provide PIRC services.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Three commenters addressed the eligibility provision 
concerning the nonprofit organization's board of directors. All three 
commenters recommended that governance of the nonprofit organization by 
a board of directors that includes parents of pre-school and school-age 
children be required of all applicants. One commenter also recommended 
that we require that a majority of the members of a nonprofit 
organization's board of directors be such parents.
    Discussion: These proposed changes would unnecessarily exclude 
organizations whose purpose or mission includes the types of programs 
and activities supported by the PIRC program, but whose boards of 
directors might not necessarily include parents of pre-school and 
school-age children.
    Change: None.

Other Comments

    Comment: Nine commenters wrote regarding the PIRC program 
requirement in section 5563(b)(10) of the ESEA addressing early 
childhood parent education programs. In particular, several commenters 
noted that section 5563(b)(10) requires that each PIRC project use at 
least 30 percent of the funds it receives annually for early childhood 
parent education programs and, as a result, it is important that 
attention be given to the quality of these programs. Four commenters 
specifically recommended that we add early childhood parent education 
activities as another priority. Four commenters also recommended that 
we give priority to applications that propose to use early childhood 
parent education programs that are either research-based or nationally 
recognized.
    Discussion: We agree that the early childhood parent education 
programs required by section 5563(b)(10) constitute a significant part 
of each PIRC project. Since a substantial proportion of the funds 
awarded to each PIRC project must specifically focus on early childhood 
parent education programs and activities, it is important that plans 
for the use of these funds are sufficiently detailed to ensure that the 
program plans for addressing this aspect of a PIRC project are of high 
quality and designed to achieve well-defined results. Consequently, we 
have included a priority addressing early childhood parent education 
programs in the notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2006 
for the PIRC program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register. This priority may be established without notice and comment 
pursuant to 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv).
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that PIRC projects be required 
to set aside a minimum of five percent of the funds they receive for 
evaluation. The commenter also recommended that we require the use of 
an outside evaluator by each project in order to preserve the 
independence of the evaluator and enhance the credibility of the 
evaluation.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important for each project to 
include an appropriate level of support for evaluation activities in 
its proposed budget and, indeed, in some instances an even greater 
amount than that suggested by the commenter may be appropriate or 
necessary. We believe, however, that this question is best addressed 
through the selection criteria concerning adequacy of resources to 
determine the extent to which selected costs, including the proposed 
costs of evaluation, are appropriate, reasonable, and sufficient.
    Regarding the recommendation that grant recipients be required to 
use an outside evaluator, we do not believe that this is necessary 
under this program.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that funding factors include not 
only size of the population of a State, but also the number of parents 
of Title I students.
    Discussion: The regulations in 34 CFR 75.232 require us to conduct 
a cost analysis before setting the amount of each award. As part of the 
cost analysis, we examine costs to determine that they are reasonable 
and that the budget proposed in the application permits project 
objectives to be achieved with reasonable efficiency and economy. This 
analysis would include consideration of the number of parents of 
students served under Title I of the ESEA.
    Change: None.


    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. 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. Unless 
designated in this notice, 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

[[Page 15311]]

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--Geographic Distribution of Awards: Highest-Ranking 
Application in a State

    This priority supports an application that meets the following 
three conditions:
    (1) The application is the highest-ranking application proposing to 
implement a PIRC project in a State, based on the selection criteria 
and competitive preference priorities used for this competition.
    (2) The application's PIRC project proposes to provide services 
only in that State.
    (3) The application is of sufficient quality to show that the 
proposed project is likely to succeed in meeting the purposes of the 
PIRC program, in implementing effective activities, and in achieving 
intended results.
    For the purpose of selecting applications under this priority, we 
use the definition of the term ``State'' in 34 CFR 77.1(c).

Priority 2--Statewide Impact of PIRC Services

    This priority supports applications that would implement broad 
statewide strategies to provide parents from across the State, 
particularly parents who are educationally or economically 
disadvantaged, with services that enhance their ability to participate 
effectively in their child's education, including their ability to 
communicate effectively with public school personnel in the school that 
their child attends.

Priority 3--Understanding State and Local Report Cards and 
Opportunities for Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational 
Services

    This priority supports applications that would implement activities 
that effectively assist parents in understanding State and local report 
cards under Title I of the ESEA and, in cases where their child attends 
a school identified as in need of improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring under Title I, in understanding their options for public 
school choice or supplemental educational services.

Priority 4--Technical Assistance in the Implementation of Local 
Educational Agency and School Parental Involvement Policy Under Section 
1118 of the ESEA

    This priority supports applications that would provide technical 
assistance in the implementation of LEA and school parental involvement 
policies under Title I of the ESEA in order to improve student academic 
achievement and school performance.

Priority 5--Geographic Distribution of Awards: Consideration of the 
Size of the Student Enrollment in a State

    Under this competitive preference priority, we award additional 
points to applications based on the number of students enrolled in the 
public schools of a State.
    We award additional points to each application that proposes to 
provide services only in a single State based on the total number of 
students enrolled in the public elementary and secondary schools of 
that State. To determine the number of such students enrolled in each 
State, we use the most recent data reported by States to the National 
Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data.
    We award a maximum of five points to an application. We award five 
points to each applicant proposing to serve a State with an enrollment 
of 2,000,000 or more students; four points to each applicant proposing 
to serve a State with an enrollment between 1,500,000 students and 
1,999,999 students; three points to an applicant proposing to serve a 
State with an enrollment between 1,000,000 students and 1,499,999 
students; two points to an applicant proposing to serve a State with an 
enrollment between 500,000 and 999,999 students; and one point to an 
applicant proposing to serve a State with an enrollment of less than 
500,000 students.
    For the purpose of selecting applications under this priority, we 
use the definition of the term State in 34 CFR 77.1(c).

Requirements

Eligibility Requirements

    We define the term nonprofit organization for purposes of the PIRC 
program as an organization that:
    (1) Is owned and operated by one or more corporations or 
associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully 
benefit, any private shareholder or entity, as set forth in 34 CFR part 
77; and
    (2) Represents the interests of parents of pre-school and school-
age children (including parents who are educationally or economically 
disadvantaged); or is governed by a board of directors whose membership 
includes such parents.
    For an application submitted by a consortium that includes a 
nonprofit organization and one or more LEAs the nonprofit organization 
must serve as the applicant and fiscal agent for the consortium. State 
and local governments, including LEAs, intermediate school districts, 
and schools, are not eligible to submit an application on behalf of a 
consortium or serve as the fiscal agent of a PIRC grant.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of final priorities and eligibility requirements 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 priorities 
and eligibility requirements 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 priorities and eligibility 
requirements, we have determined that the benefits of the final 
priorities and eligibility requirements 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.
    Summary of potential costs and benefits: There are no potential 
additional costs associated with the one change to these final 
priorities. The change will help to target assistance to areas of 
greatest need.

[[Page 15312]]

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.
    You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following 
site: http://www.ed.gov/programs/pirc/applicant.html.


    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 84.310A Parental 
Information and Resource Centers)


    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7273 et seq.

    Dated: March 22, 2006.
Christopher J. Doherty,
Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 06-2935 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P