[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28426-28431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2476]



[[Page 28425]]

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

Part IV





Department of Education





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



Smaller Learning Communities Program--Notice of Final Priority, 
Requirements, and Selection Criteria for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Subsequent Years' Funds; and Notice Inviting Applications for New 
Awards Using Fiscal Year 2006 Funds; Notices

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

[[Page 28426]]


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

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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e0d131f12121b0c121b1f0c101710191d1113130b10170a171b0d3e1b1a50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee9d838f82828b9c828b8f9c808780898d8183839b80879a878b9dae8b8ac0898198">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 schools-within-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, school-based 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 agriculture-
themed 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 28428]]

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 two-day 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 28430]]

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

[[Page 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, third-party 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>