28426 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Smaller Learning Communities 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of final priority, 

requirements, and selection criteria for 

fiscal year (FY) 2006 and subsequent 

years’ funds. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Elementary and Secondary 

Education announces a priority, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

under the Smaller Learning 

Communities (SLC) program. The 

Acting Assistant Secretary will use the 

priority, requirements, and selection 

criteria, in addition to any other 

previously established priorities and 

requirements, for a competition using 

fiscal year (FY) 2006 funds and may use 

them in later years. We take this action 

to focus Federal financial assistance on 

an identified national need. We intend 

the priority, requirements, and selection 

criteria to enhance the effectiveness of 

SLC projects in improving academic 

achievement and the preparation of 

students for postsecondary education 

and careers. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The priority, 

requirements, and selection criteria are 

effective June 18, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Dennis, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 3W243, Washington, DC 20202– 

6200. Telephone: (202) 205–3784 or via 

Internet: 

smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov. 

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: 

General 

The SLC program is authorized under 

Title V, Part D, Subpart 4 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7249), as 

amended by the No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001. It awards discretionary 

grants to local educational agencies 

(LEAs) to support the implementation of 

SLCs and activities to improve student 

academic achievement in large public 

high schools with enrollments of 1,000 

or more students. SLCs include 

structures such as freshman academies, 

multi-grade academies organized 

around career interests or other themes, 

‘‘houses’’ in which small groups of 

students remain together throughout 

high school, and autonomous schoolswithin-a-school, as well as 

personalization strategies, such as 

student advisories, family advocate 

systems, and mentoring programs. As 

used in this notice, the terms smaller 

learning community, large high school, 

and BIE school have the meanings 

assigned to them in the notice of final 

priority, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria (NFP) for this program, 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 28, 2005 (70 FR 22233). 

Evidence from recently completed 

evaluations suggests that SLCs are most 

likely to be successful in raising 

academic achievement and improving 

other student outcomes if their 

implementation is integrated closely 

with improvements in curriculum and 

instruction. Since earning a bachelor’s 

degree or higher is now the goal of an 

overwhelming majority of high school 

students, regardless of their race, 

gender, ethnicity, or family income, the 

focus of these efforts should be on 

preparing all students to succeed in 

postsecondary education and careers 

without need for remediation. 

Currently, too many young people do 

not receive the academic preparation, 

guidance, and support they need to 

achieve their ambitious educational 

aspirations. Many students lack a clear 

understanding of the academic 

requirements for entrance to 

postsecondary education, how to apply 

for postsecondary education, or options 

for financial aid. Most importantly, 

considerable numbers of young people 

are graduating from high school without 

the academic foundation needed to 

succeed in postsecondary education. 

Consequently, a significant number of 

students begin their postsecondary 

education by enrolling in one or more 

remedial reading, writing, or 

mathematics courses (NCES, 2004). 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority, requirements, and selection 

criteria (NPP) for this program in the 

Federal Register on March 8, 2007 (72 

FR 10502). We discussed our proposals 

for this program in the NPP on pages 

10502–10506. 

This notice of final priority, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

contains several changes from the NPP. 

We fully explain these changes in the 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

section that follows. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

In response to our invitation in the 

NPP, 11 parties submitted comments. 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priority, requirements, 

and selection criteria follows. We group 

major issues according to subject. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes and 

suggested changes we are not authorized 

to make under the applicable statutory 

authority. We also do not address 

comments related to definitions, such as 

the definition of a large high school, and 

requirements that were established in 

the NFP for this program in the Federal 

Register on April 28, 2005 (70 FR 

22233) because we did not seek public 

comment on these provisions. 

Proposed Priority 

Comment: One commenter contended 

that the priority is focused exclusively 

on academic preparation for 

postsecondary education and careers 

and recommended that it be amended to 

include activities related to career 

exploration and career and technical 

education, such as internships, schoolbased enterprises, and certificate 

programs that integrate technical and 

academic content. 

Discussion: The priority focuses on 

academic preparation for postsecondary 

education and careers because many 

young people, including, particularly, 

low-income and minority youth, leave 

high school without the rigorous 

academic foundation they need to 

pursue these goals. In contrast, nearly 

every student who leaves high school 

has participated in career and technical 

education (National Assessment of 

Vocational Education, 2004). Moreover, 

under paragraph (5) of the priority, an 

applicant could propose to include 

career academies or career and technical 

education courses that offer students the 

opportunity to earn postsecondary 

credit. For example, an agriculturethemed career academy could include 

Advanced Placement Biology, 

Chemistry, and Environmental Science 

courses. A dual credit pre-engineering 

course offered in conjunction with a 

local college or university also could be 

proposed under the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we establish a 

competitive priority for LEAs and 

schools that have been identified as in 

need of improvement under Title I of 

the ESEA. 

Discussion: We agree that LEAs and 

schools that have been identified as in 

need of improvement merit special 

consideration in many of the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Notices 28427 

Department’s discretionary grant 

competitions. For this reason, we 

established a priority for LEAs with 

schools in need of improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring in the 

Federal Register on October 11, 2006 

(71 FR 60045). This priority may be 

used for any appropriate discretionary 

grant program, including the SLC 

program, in FY 2007 and FY 2008. 

Changes: None. 

Types of Grants 

Comment: One commenter asked us 

to clarify whether an implementation 

grant could be awarded to support a 

project in which a large high school is 

closed and reconstituted as a set of 

autonomous SLCs. 

Discussion: Implementation grants 

support the creation or expansion of an 

SLC or SLCs within a large high school. 

This includes projects in which a large 

high school will be closed and 

reconstituted during the performance 

period as a set of autonomous SLCs, 

which may be located on the same site 

as the large high school or in other 

locations. At the time of application and 

award, all large high schools to be 

served must meet the definition of large 

high school; any closing and 

reconstitution as described above must 

happen after the award. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

successful SLC implementation requires 

significant prior planning and 

recommended that we offer grants to 

LEAs to support planning activities. 

Discussion: While we agree that 

significant prior planning is important, 

we do not agree that it is necessary for 

the Department to award grants for this 

purpose. We believe it is reasonable to 

expect that prospective applicants will 

carry out these planning activities using 

their own funds, or with funds from 

other sources. The Department 

administers many other discretionary 

grant programs that also require 

significant prior planning by applicants 

but that do not award planning grants to 

support these activities. 

Changes: None. 

Budget Information for Determination 

of Award 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we limit the number 

of schools that may be included in an 

LEA’s application to five, rather than 

ten, as we had proposed. The 

commenter maintained that permitting 

LEAs to include as many as ten schools 

would give larger LEAs an unfair 

competitive advantage over smaller and 

medium-sized LEAs and would make it 

likely that all or most of the available 

grant funds would be awarded to LEAs 

that included ten schools in their 

applications. The commenter also 

expressed concern that a grant that 

included as many as ten schools would 

be difficult for an LEA to manage 

effectively. 

Discussion: Permitting LEAs to 

include as many as ten schools in their 

applications has not given larger LEAs 

a competitive advantage over smaller 

and medium-sized LEAs in recent SLC 

grant competitions. Only eight of the 51 

grants we awarded with FY 2005 funds 

included more than five schools, and 

only three of these included ten schools. 

Only four of the 70 grants we awarded 

with FY 2004 funds included more than 

five schools, and only two of these 

included ten schools. The average 

number of schools included in grants 

made in both years is three. However, 

the commenter’s concern that an LEA 

may have difficulty managing 

effectively a grant that includes as many 

as ten schools does have merit. The 

proposed priority promotes the 

integration of SLC implementation with 

comprehensive efforts to improve 

curriculum and instruction and student 

preparation for postsecondary 

education. This is challenging work, 

and ongoing support and technical 

assistance from an LEA will be critical 

to each school’s success. We also have 

proposed larger grant award amounts 

than we offered in previous SLC 

competitions. An LEA that includes ten 

schools in its application could receive 

up to $17.5 million for a 60-month 

project period, nearly $6 million more 

than it could have received in last year’s 

competition. For these reasons, we agree 

that reducing the number of schools that 

an LEA may include in its application 

is appropriate and prudent. 

Changes: We have reduced the 

maximum number of schools an LEA 

may include in its application from ten 

to eight. 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with our proposal to determine 

maximum award amounts on the basis 

of the number of students enrolled in 

each high school included in an 

application. The commenter 

recommended that our proposed 

maximum award amount of $1,750,000 

be available to every eligible high 

school, regardless of its enrollment. 

Discussion: As we have in previous 

SLC competitions, we proposed to use 

student enrollment to determine 

maximum grant award amounts because 

there is a clear relationship between 

student enrollment and the costs of 

implementing SLC projects. All SLC 

projects, for example, typically include 

extensive professional development 

activities. During the 2004–05 school 

year, public high schools with 

enrollments between 1,000 to 2,000 

students had an average of 83 full-time 

equivalent (FTE) teachers, while public 

high schools with 2,001 to 3,000 

students had an average of 120 FTE 

teachers (National Center for Education 

Statistics, Common Core of Data). 

Providing professional development for 

120 teachers is clearly more costly than 

serving 83 teachers. The relationship 

between student enrollment and the 

costs of curricula, assessments, external 

technical assistance, student guidance 

and support services, and other 

activities is similarly evident. 

Accordingly, we decline to make the 

change proposed by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

our proposal to award grants for up to 

a 60-month project period, with funding 

for the first 36 months provided in a 

single award from the FY 2006 

appropriation and funding for the 

remaining 24 months provided in a 

second award in FY 2009, contingent 

upon the availability of appropriations 

and the grant recipient’s demonstration 

of substantial progress in implementing 

its project objectives. The commenter 

was concerned that our proposal did not 

guarantee that grant recipients would 

receive continuation awards for the final 

24 months of the 60-month project 

period and, for this reason, 

recommended that we award grants for 

a 36-month project period only. 

Discussion: In 2005, we increased the 

project period for SLC grants from 36 to 

up to 60 months in response to 

recommendations we received from 

grant recipients and individuals with 

expertise in leading or supporting high 

school reform and improvement efforts. 

They argued persuasively that LEAs and 

schools needed a minimum of 60 

months to implement systemic, 

sustainable reforms. Our proposal to 

condition continuation awards on the 

availability of appropriations and the 

grant recipient’s progress in 

implementing the project is common 

among discretionary grant programs 

administered by the Department and 

ensures that multi-year grants do not 

receive continued funding unless they 

can provide evidence that they are 

making sufficient progress. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we permit an LEA to 

retain a portion of the SLC grant for 

district-level activities. 

Discussion: We did not propose to 

prohibit or limit the use of SLC grant 

funds for activities carried out at the 

district level, provided that these 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES2
28428 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Notices 

activities support the implementation of 

the project by the schools included in 

the application. While we proposed 

using student enrollment in each high 

school included in an application to 

determine maximum grant award 

amounts, an LEA is not required to 

provide each school in an application 

with all of the funds that its enrollment 

generates. Districts can play an 

important role in supporting the work of 

teachers and school administrators, and 

there are some activities that may be 

more appropriately or economically 

carried out at the district level. These 

activities could include, for example, 

implementing data and assessment 

systems and analytic tools that can be 

used by the staff of the schools included 

in the application to monitor student 

progress and improve instruction or 

providing curriculum pacing guides, 

sample lessons and other instructional 

supports. We leave to each applicant to 

decide how best to address the program 

requirements, priority, and selection 

criteria, including the amount of funds 

it proposes to use for district-level 

activities that support the 

implementation of the project serving 

the schools included in the application. 

Funds may not be used, however, for 

district-level activities that serve 

schools that are not included in the 

application or for general, district-wide 

high school reform initiatives. 

Changes: None. 

Performance Indicators 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we revise the 

proposed performance indicator for 

student enrollment in postsecondary 

education to include enrollment in 

advanced training and apprenticeships 

as well. 

Discussion: We agree that enrollment 

in advanced training or a registered 

apprenticeship program is an outcome 

that is consistent with the purpose of 

this indicator. Registered apprenticeship 

programs, for example, combine 

structured on-the-job training with 

classroom instruction that is often 

offered by a community college and 

articulated with a postsecondary 

certificate or associate’s degree program. 

Change: We revised the indicator to 

include, in addition to student 

enrollment in postsecondary education, 

enrollment in advanced training or a 

registered apprenticeship program. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we require grant 

recipients to collect and report data for 

an indicator that measured student 

success in achieving employment- or 

career-related outcomes, such as 

placement in employment, attainment 

of a technical certificate, or 

participation in work-related 

experiences during high school. 

Discussion: We agree that there are a 

variety of other indicators that may be 

useful to applicants in gauging their 

progress in implementing their projects. 

We encourage applicants to include in 

their applications additional indicators 

that they consider appropriate. 

However, in the interests of limiting 

burden on applicants and grant 

recipients, we decline to establish any 

additional mandatory performance 

indicators. 

Changes: None. 

Required Meetings Sponsored by the 

Department 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we require 

applicants to set aside funds within 

their proposed budgets to attend 

Department meetings in each year of the 

project period, rather than in the first 

and second years only, as we had 

proposed. The commenter indicated 

that meetings should be offered on an 

annual basis because they are helpful to 

project directors. 

Discussion: We agree that annual 

meetings would be helpful to grant 

recipients in implementing their 

projects. Change: We revised the 

requirement to direct applicants to set 

aside funding to attend annual meetings 

hosted by the Department. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: We proposed requiring 

applicants to set aside funds in the first 

year of the project period to support the 

participation of five key staff in a twoday regional institute, in addition to a 

meeting for project directors. During 

intradepartmental review, we 

determined that this requirement is 

inconsistent with our intent, which is to 

include several staff from each high 

school included in a grant. Five staff 

will be insufficient if a grant includes 

six high schools. Similarly, five staff 

may be excessive for a grant that 

includes a single high school. We also 

determined that describing this meeting 

as a regional event was inaccurate 

because our current expectation is that 

these meetings will be held in 

Washington, DC. 

Change: We revised the requirement 

to direct applicants to set aside funds to 

support the participation of at least two 

individuals from each high school 

included in an application in technical 

assistance meetings hosted by the 

Department in Washington, DC. 

Previous Grantees 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: We proposed to allow an 

LEA to apply only on behalf of a school 

or schools that will not receive funds 

through an SLC implementation grant 

that has a performance period that 

extends beyond the current fiscal year. 

During intradepartmental review, we 

determined that our reference to a 

school’s receipt of funds was ambiguous 

and could be interpreted in ways that 

are not consistent with our intent. An 

LEA can provide many services and 

supports to a school that is included in 

an application without transferring 

funds to the school. An LEA, for 

example, may purchase professional 

development services on behalf of a 

school, rather than provide the school 

with funds to purchase these services. 

In proposing this limitation, our intent 

was to exclude any high school that is 

included in an SLC grant with a 

performance period that extends beyond 

the current fiscal year, regardless of 

whether the high school actually 

receives grant funds from the LEA. 

Change: We revised the limitation to 

permit an LEA to apply only on behalf 

of a school or schools that is not 

included in an SLC implementation 

grant that has a performance period that 

extends beyond the current fiscal year. 

Selection Criteria 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about a proposed selection 

criterion under Quality of Project Design 

that evaluates an applicant’s readiness 

to implement its proposed project 

during the school year in which the 

grant award is made. Noting that grant 

awards are likely to be made after the 

start of the 2007–08 school year, the 

commenter asked us to clarify the types 

of activities we expected grant 

recipients to undertake during the 

school year in which the grant is 

awarded. 

Discussion: The commenter is correct 

that grant awards are likely to be made 

after the start of the 2007–08 school 

year. Given this, we do not expect grant 

recipients to implement immediately 

activities, such as creating freshman 

academies or other structures, that 

require changes in teacher assignments, 

student scheduling, and course 

offerings. However, there are a wide 

variety of other implementation 

activities that a grant recipient can carry 

out during the 2007–08 school year, 

such as professional development, 

piloting new curricula, and enhancing 

academic support services for students. 

In designing their proposed projects, 

applicants should take the expected 

date of the grant award into account, 

and identify substantive activities that 

they will be able to implement during 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Notices 28429 

the 2007–08 school year. Applications 

in which first year activities are limited 

to planning only are unlikely to be rated 

highly on the selection criterion that 

evaluates implementation readiness. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we require 

applicants to describe how students will 

be selected or placed in an SLC to 

assure that these placements are not 

made on the basis of students’ test 

scores or perceptions of their ability. 

The commenter also recommended 

including this requirement in the 

selection criteria and awarding points to 

applicants on the basis of their 

responses. 

Discussion: The description 

recommended by the commenter is one 

that, by statute, all applicants must 

provide. Since the statute prohibits 

projects from placing students in SLCs 

on the basis of their ability or pursuant 

to testing or other judgments, it is not 

appropriate to make this a selection 

criterion. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that we establish a 

selection criterion that evaluates the 

extent to which an applicant will place 

all students in an SLC by the end of the 

project period. Another commenter 

asked that we clarify whether projects 

are required to include all students in 

SLCs. A third commenter asked if the 

requirement that an SLC project include 

all students by the end of the fifth year 

of the project period means that projects 

must assign all students to academies or 

other smaller organizational units 

within a school. 

Discussion: In the notice of final 

priority, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria (NFP) published in the 

Federal Register on April 28, 2005 (70 

FR 22233), we established a requirement 

that SLC projects include all students by 

no later than the end of the fifth year of 

the project. We also defined 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. 

We did not propose any changes to the 

requirement or the SLC definition or 

seek public comment on them in the 

NPP. It is clear from the comments we 

received, however, that there is 

confusion about their meaning. We do 

not prescribe how an applicant creates 

the environment of strong academic and 

personal support described by the SLC 

definition, or how it provides this 

environment for all students. While we 

expect that SLC projects will include a 

structural component, such as an 

academy, we do not require projects to 

assign all students to academies, 

‘‘houses,’’ or other smaller 

organizational units. Depending upon 

the circumstances and needs of a 

particular school and its students, there 

may be a variety of ways to create an 

environment in which all students 

receive strong personal and academic 

support. Thus, for example, an 

applicant could propose a project that 

places all entering ninth graders in a 

freshman academy to support their 

transition to high school, and establish 

teacher advisories or mentoring 

programs to create an environment of 

academic and personal support for all 

students in the upper grades. Another 

applicant might decide to propose a 

project in which all students in a school 

are assigned to theme-based academies. 

Finally, in the NPP, we proposed a 

selection criterion under Quality of 

Project Services that evaluates the likely 

effectiveness of the proposed project in 

creating for all students the 

environment described in the SLC 

definition so we do not believe any 

further change is necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged us 

to revise the selection criteria to 

encourage applicants to align their 

proposed project with activities they 

carry out with funds provided under the 

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities Act, which is authorized 

by Title IV of the ESEA. 

Discussion: We agree that applicants 

should seek to utilize funds provided 

under Title IV of ESEA and other 

Federal programs in which they 

participate. For this reason, we 

proposed a selection criterion under 

Support for Implementation that 

evaluates the extent to which an 

applicant will support the proposed 

project with funds provided under 

Federal and State programs, as well as 

local cash and in-kind resources. We 

decline, however, to highlight specific 

Federal programs because there are 

numerous programs in which applicants 

may be participating. 

Changes: None. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. A 

notice soliciting applications for new awards 

for the SLC program with fiscal year 2006 

funds is published elsewhere in this issue of 

the Federal Register. When inviting 

applications we designate the 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 

Preparing All Students To Succeed in 

Postsecondary Education and Careers 

This priority supports projects that 

create or expand SLCs that are part of 

a comprehensive effort to prepare all 

students to succeed in postsecondary 

education and careers without need for 

remediation. 

In order to meet this priority an 

applicant must demonstrate that, using 

SLC grant funds or other resources, it 

will: 

(1) Provide intensive interventions to 

assist students who enter high school 

with reading/language arts or 

mathematics skills that are significantly 

below grade level to ‘‘catch up’’ quickly 

and attain proficiency by the end of 

10th grade; 

(2) Enroll students in a coherent 

sequence of rigorous English language 

arts, mathematics, and science courses 

that will equip them with the skills and 

content knowledge needed to succeed in 

postsecondary education and careers 

without need for remediation; 

(3) Provide tutoring and other 

academic supports to help students 

succeed in rigorous academic courses; 

(4) Deliver comprehensive guidance 

and academic advising to students and 

their parents that includes assistance in 

selecting courses and planning a 

program of study that will provide the 

academic preparation needed to succeed 

in postsecondary education, early and 

ongoing college awareness and planning 

activities, and help in identifying and 

applying for financial aid for 

postsecondary education; and 

(5) Increase opportunities for students 

to earn postsecondary credit through 

Advanced Placement courses, 

International Baccalaureate courses, or 

dual credit programs. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES2
28430 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Notices 

Application Requirements 

Application Requirements 

The Acting Assistant Secretary 

announces the following application 

requirements for the 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 under 

Title V, Part D, Subpart 4, Section 

5441(b) of the ESEA, and the 

application requirements we established 

in the NFP for this program, published 

in the Federal Register on April 28, 

2005 (70 FR 22233) in the following 

areas: Eligibility; School Report Cards; 

Consortium Applications and 

Educational Service Agencies; Student 

Placement; Including All Students; and 

Evaluation. LEAs, including BIE schools 

and educational service agencies, 

applying on behalf of large public high 

schools, are eligible to apply for a grant. 

1. 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 during the 

school year in which funds are first 

awarded. 

Grants will be awarded for a period 

up to 60 months. We require applicants 

to provide detailed, yearly budget 

information for the total grant period 

requested. At the time of the initial 

award, the Department will provide 

funds for the first 36 months of the 

performance period. Funding for the 

remaining 24 months will be contingent 

on the availability of funds and each 

grantee’s substantial progress toward 

accomplishing the goals and objectives 

of the project as described in its 

approved application. 

2. Budget Information for Determination 

of Award 

LEAs may receive, on behalf of a 

single school, up to $1,750,000, 

depending upon student enrollment in 

the school, during the 60-month project 

period. To ensure that sufficient funds 

are available to support awards to LEAs 

of all sizes, and not only the largest 

LEAs, we limit to eight the number of 

schools that an LEA may include in a 

single application for a grant. LEAs 

applying on behalf of a group of eligible 

schools thus could receive up to 

$14,000,000 per grant. 

The following chart provides the 

ranges of awards per high school size: 

SLC GRANT AWARD RANGES

Student enrollment Award ranges per 

school 

1,000–2,000 Students.$1,000,000–$1,250,000 

2,001–3,000 Students.$1,000,000–$1,500,000 

3,001 and Up Students.$1,000,000–$1,750,000 

The actual size of awards will be 

based on a number of factors, including 

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. 

3. Indirect Costs 

Eligible applicants that propose to use 

SLC grant funds for indirect costs must 

include, as part of their applications, a 

copy of their approved indirect cost 

agreement. 

4. 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 or above the proficient level 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; and 

(3) The percentage of graduates who 

enroll in postsecondary education, 

advanced training, or a registered 

apprenticeship program in the semester 

following high school graduation. 

Applicants must 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 grant funds 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. 

5. Required Meetings Sponsored by the 

Department 

Applicants must set aside adequate 

funds within their proposed budget to 

send their project director and at least 

two individuals from each school 

included in the application to a two-day 

technical assistance meeting in 

Washington, DC, in each year of the 

project period. The Department will 

host these meetings. 

Previous Grantees 

An LEA may apply only on behalf of 

a school or schools that is not included 

in an SLC implementation grant that has 

a performance period that extends 

beyond the current fiscal year 

(September 30, 2007). 

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. 

Need for the Project 

In determining the need for the 

proposed project, we will consider the 

magnitude of the need for the services 

that will be provided and the activities 

that will be carried out by the proposed 

project. 

Quality of the Project Design 

In determining the quality of the 

design of the proposed project, we will 

consider the extent to which—

(1) Teachers, school administrators, 

parents and community stakeholders 

support the proposed project and have 

been and will continue to be involved 

in its development and implementation; 

(2) The applicant has carried out 

sufficient planning and preparatory 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Notices 28431 

activities to enable it to implement the 

proposed project during the school year 

in which the grant award will be made; 

(3) School administrators, teachers, 

and other school employees will receive 

effective, ongoing technical assistance 

and support in implementing structural 

and instructional reforms; 

(4) The applicant will offer all 

students a coherent sequence of rigorous 

English language arts, mathematics, and 

science courses that will provide 

students with the knowledge and skills 

needed to succeed in postsecondary 

education and careers without need for 

remediation; and 

(5) The proposed project is part of a 

districtwide strategy for high school 

redesign and strengthens the district’s 

capacity to develop and implement 

smaller learning communities and 

improve student academic achievement 

as part of that strategy. 

Quality of Project Services 

In determining the quality of the 

services to be provided by the proposed 

project, we will consider the extent to 

which the proposed project is likely to 

be effective in—

(1) Creating an environment in which 

a core group of teachers and other adults 

within the school know the needs, 

interests, and aspirations of each 

student well, closely monitor each 

student’s progress, and provide the 

academic and other support each 

student needs to succeed; 

(2) Equipping all students with the 

reading/English language arts, 

mathematics, and science knowledge 

and skills they need to succeed in 

postsecondary education and careers 

without need for remediation; 

(3) Helping students who enter high 

school with reading/English language 

arts or mathematics skills that are 

significantly below grade-level ‘‘catch 

up’’ quickly and attain proficiency by 

the end of the 10th grade; 

(4) Providing teachers with the 

professional development, coaching, 

regular opportunities for collaboration 

with peers, and other supports needed 

to implement a rigorous curriculum and 

provide high-quality instruction; 

(5) Increasing the participation of 

students, particularly low-income 

students, in Advanced Placement, 

International Baccalaureate, or dual 

credit courses; and 

(6) Increasing the percentage of 

students who enter postsecondary 

education in the semester following 

high school graduation. 

Support for Implementation 

In determining the adequacy of the 

support the applicant will provide for 

implementation of the proposed project, 

we will consider the extent to which—

(1) The management plan is likely to 

achieve the objectives of the proposed 

project on time and within budget and 

includes clearly defined responsibilities 

and detailed timelines and milestones 

for accomplishing project tasks; 

(2) The project director and other key 

personnel are qualified to carry out their 

responsibilities, and their time 

commitments are appropriate and 

adequate to implement the SLC project 

effectively; 

(3) The applicant will support the 

proposed project with funds provided 

under other Federal or State programs 

and local cash or in-kind resources; and 

(4) The requested grant amount and 

the project costs are sufficient to attain 

project goals and reasonable in relation 

to the objectives and design of the 

project. 

Quality of the SLC Project Evaluation 

In determining the quality of the 

proposed project evaluation to be 

conducted by an independent, thirdparty evaluator, we consider the extent 

to which—

(1) The evaluation will provide 

timely, regular, and useful feedback to 

the LEA and the participating schools 

on the success and progress of 

implementation, and identify areas for 

needed improvement; and 

(2) The independent evaluator is 

qualified to conduct the evaluation. 

Executive Order 12866 

This notice of final priority, 

requirements, 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, 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, and selection 

criteria, we have determined that the 

benefits of the final priority, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

justify the costs. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other Department of Education 

documents published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 84.215L, Smaller Learning 

Communities Program) 

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

Dated: May 15, 2007. 

Kerri L. Briggs, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 07–2476 Filed 5–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education; Overview Information; 

Smaller Learning Communities 

Program; Notice Inviting Applications 

for New Awards Using Fiscal Year (FY) 

2006 Funds 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.215L. 

DATES: Applications Available: May 18, 

2007. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: July 17, 2007. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: September 17, 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES2