[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10502-10507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4228]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Smaller Learning Communities Program

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed priority, requirements, and selection 
criteria for fiscal year (FY) 2006 and subsequent years' funds.

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

SUMMARY: The Deputy Secretary of Education proposes a priority, 
requirements, and selection criteria under the Smaller Learning 
Communities (SLC) program. The Deputy Secretary will use the priority, 
requirements, and selection criteria, in

[[Page 10503]]

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.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed priority, 
requirements, and selection criteria to Gregory Dennis, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., FB-6, room 3W243, Washington, 
DC 20202-6200. If you prefer to send your comments through the 
Internet, use the following address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a59474b46464f58464f4b584443444d494547475f44435e434f596a4f4e044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c0f111d1010190e10191d0e1215121b1f1311110912150815190f3c1918521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    You must include the term ``SLC Proposed Requirements'' in the 
subject line of your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Dennis. Telephone: (202) 205-
3784 or via Internet: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99eaf4f8f5f5fcebf5fcf8ebf7f0f7fefaf6f4f4ecf7f0edf0fcead9fcfdb7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="592a343835353c2b353c382b3730373e3a3634342c37302d303c2a193c3d773e362f">[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:

Invitation to Comment

    We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priority, 
requirements, and selection criteria. To ensure that your comments have 
maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, 
requirements, and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly 
the specific proposed priority, requirement, or selection criterion 
that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of 
reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed 
priority, requirements, and selection criteria. Please let us know of 
any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or 
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and 
efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priority, requirements, and selection 
criteria at the U.S. Department of Education, FB6, room 3W243, 400 
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202 between the hours of 8:30 
a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week 
except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking 
Record

    On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or 
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs 
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public 
rulemaking record for the proposed priority, requirements, and 
selection criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this 
type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 restructuring of large public high schools with enrollments of 
1,000 or more students into smaller units. SLC structures include 
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. These structural changes are typically complemented by other 
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 BIA 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).
    Creating a more personalized learning experience for students has 
been a prominent part of high school improvement efforts in recent 
years, supported not only by the SLC program but also by States and 
private foundations. Several recently completed evaluations of SLCs 
have highlighted the strengths and limitations of these efforts. They 
have found, generally, that the implementation of SLCs and 
complementary personalization strategies can increase student 
attendance, reduce disruptive behavior, and create a more orderly 
environment for learning. However, these structural changes and 
personalization strategies, by themselves, do not appear to improve 
student academic achievement and readiness for postsecondary education 
and careers.
    Student learning gains have been seen only in those schools that 
also have made considerable changes in curriculum and instruction 
(Bernstein, et al., 2005; Kahne, Sporte, et al., 2006; Quint, 2006; 
Rhodes, Smerdon, 2005). Similarly, some large comprehensive high 
schools that have not implemented SLCs have significantly increased 
student achievement in reading or mathematics and narrowed achievement 
gaps by implementing more rigorous courses, providing extra support to 
struggling students, and systematically using data to improve 
instruction (ACT, Inc. and the Education Trust, 2005; Billig, Jaime, et 
al., 2005; National Center for Educational Accountability, 2005; 
Robinson, et al., 2005).
    This evidence 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. As some reform advocates have argued 
persuasively, the focus of these efforts should be on achieving what 
most students and their parents now consider to be the core mission of 
the American high school: preparing all students to succeed in 
postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation 
(Roderick, 2006).
    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 percentage of high 
school sophomores who say they expect to earn a bachelor's degree or 
higher has nearly doubled over the last two decades, from 41 percent in 
1980 to nearly 79 percent in 2002, with the largest increases occurring 
among American Indian and Alaskan Native, Hispanic, and low-income 
students. Another 11 percent of 2002 sophomores said they expected to 
earn an associate's degree or postsecondary certificate (National 
Center for Education Statistics, 2006).
    Yet too many young people do not receive the academic preparation, 
guidance, and support they need to achieve these ambitious aspirations. 
Many students lack a clear understanding of the academic requirements 
for entrance to

[[Page 10504]]

postsecondary education, how to apply for postsecondary education, or 
options for financial aid (Horn and Chen, 2003; Horn and Nunez, 2000; 
and Kirst and Venezia, 2004). Most importantly, considerable numbers of 
young people are graduating from high school without the academic 
foundation needed to succeed in postsecondary education. According to 
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), more than one-
third of all high school seniors, and the majority of minority and low-
income seniors, scored ``below basic'' in mathematics in 2000. Just 17 
percent scored proficient or higher. Similarly, on the NAEP reading 
assessment in 2002, only about one-third of 12th graders demonstrated 
proficient or advanced reading skills, while the reading skills of one-
quarter of high school seniors were ``below basic.'' Fewer than 22 
percent of the high school graduates who took the ACT college-entrance 
examination in 2004 demonstrated readiness to do college-level work in 
core subjects such as mathematics, English, and science (ACT, Inc., 
2005). Consequently, a significant number of students begin their 
postsecondary education by enrolling in one or more remedial reading, 
writing, or mathematics courses (NCES, 2004).
    Students who plan to enter the workforce immediately after high 
school, rather than pursue postsecondary education, also need a strong 
academic foundation. An emerging body of research indicates that the 
knowledge and skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education are 
comparable to those that employers expect from their entry-level 
workers (Achieve, Inc., 2004, 2005; ACT, Inc., 2006). Moreover, most 
students who decide initially that they do not want a postsecondary 
education and enter the workforce immediately after high school change 
their minds and decide within 18 months of high school graduation to 
pursue postsecondary education (Haimson, Deke, 2003).
    For these reasons, we are proposing a priority and selection 
criteria that are intended to promote the integration of SLC 
implementation with efforts to improve the preparation of all students 
for postsecondary education and careers without need for remediation. 
We also propose other requirements to clarify statutory provisions, 
facilitate the review of applications, and promote the equitable 
distribution of limited SLC grant funds.

Discussion of Priority, Requirements, and Selection Criteria

    We will announce the final priority, requirements, and selection 
criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the 
final priority, requirements, and selection criteria after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. This notice does not preclude us from using additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    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. 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 proposed 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 include 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.

Application Requirements

Proposed Application Requirements

    The Secretary proposes the following application requirements for 
this SLC competition. These proposed 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 BIA schools and educational 
service agencies, applying on behalf of large public high schools, are 
eligible to apply for a grant. A discussion of each proposed 
application requirement follows.
1. Types of Grants
    We propose awarding 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. We do 
not propose funding any planning grants this year.
    Grants will be awarded for a period up to 60 months. We propose to 
require that applicants provide detailed, yearly budget information for 
the total grant period requested. At the time of the initial award, the 
Department will

[[Page 10505]]

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.

Rationale

    Since the inception of the SLC program in 2000, the Department has 
awarded planning grants to more than 350 LEAs. Now, resources, planning 
tools, and research on SLCs and high school improvement strategies are 
much more prevalent and accessible for schools and LEAs than was the 
case at the outset of the SLC program. Therefore, the Department does 
not see a need to fund planning grants and, instead, intends to focus 
the SLC program on the actual implementation of projects to create or 
expand SLCs.
2. Budget Information for Determination of Award
    We propose that 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 propose, as we have in previous years, to limit to 10 
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 $17,500,000 per grant.
    The following chart provides the ranges of awards per high school 
size that we are proposing:

                         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...................................      1,000,000-1,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The actual size of awards would 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 would 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 would be required to work with the 
Department to revise their proposed budgets to fit within the 
appropriate funding range.

Rationale

    In previous SLC competitions, some applicants have requested more 
funds than the amount that we indicated would be available for a grant. 
Their applications included activities that could only be implemented 
if the applicants received a funding amount that exceeded the maximum 
amount specified in the notice. This strategy put at a competitive 
disadvantage other applicants that requested funds within the specified 
funding range and outlined a less extensive set of activities. For this 
reason, we propose to read initially only those applications that 
request an amount that does not exceed the maximum amounts specified 
for the grants.
3. Indirect Costs
    We propose to require eligible applicants who propose to use SLC 
grant funds for indirect costs to include, as part of their 
applications, a copy of their approved indirect cost agreement.

Rationale

    The Department needs a copy of the approved indirect cost agreement 
to verify the accuracy of the amount of indirect costs for which an 
applicant is seeking to use SLC funds.
4. Performance Indicators
    We propose to require applicants to identify in their application 
specific performance indicators and annual performance objectives for 
each of these indicators. Specifically, we propose to 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 in the semester following high school graduation.
    Applicants would be required to include in their applications 
baseline data for each of these indicators and identify performance 
objectives for each year of the project period. We further propose to 
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 propose to 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.

Rationale

    While creating SLCs can appeal to teachers, students, and parents 
for many reasons, their fundamental purpose is to improve academic 
achievement and student success after high school. Assistance provided 
under the SLC program should also support and enhance the efforts of 
LEAs and schools to fulfill the ambitious goals of the No Child Left 
Behind Act of 2001.
    For these reasons, it is important that projects measure their 
progress in improving student academic achievement and related 
outcomes. Two of the indicators we propose to use, student performance 
on reading/language arts and mathematics assessments and the graduation 
rate, are the same indicators used by States to measure the progress of 
LEAs and high schools under Part A of Title I of the ESEA. Performance 
objectives for these indicators should equal or exceed the annual 
measurable objectives established by the State in its approved 
accountability plan for Part A of Title I of the ESEA.
    Enrolling in postsecondary education is now a nearly universal 
aspiration among high school students and their parents. The third 
indicator we are proposing, entrance into postsecondary education in 
the semester following high school graduation, would measure the 
success of LEAs and schools in helping students achieve this goal. 
Performance objectives for this indicator should exceed the baseline 
level of performance and give particular emphasis to narrowing any gaps 
between students in general and economically disadvantaged students, 
students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with 
disabilities, and

[[Page 10506]]

students with limited English proficiency.
5. Required Meetings Sponsored by the Department
    Applicants must set aside adequate funds within their proposed 
budget to send their project director to a two-day project directors' 
meeting in Washington, DC, in years one and two of the grant, and to 
send a team of five key staff members to attend a two-day regional 
institute in year one of the grant. The Department will host these 
meetings.

Rationale

    Convening all project directors at an initial meeting enables 
Department staff to provide introductory information on grants 
administration and Department regulations, and other topics of interest 
to new grantees. The second project directors' meeting is intended to 
provide project directors an opportunity to take stock of their 
implementation progress and to share with their peers what they have 
learned, their success, and any challenges encountered in the first 
year of implementation. Project directors will have an opportunity to 
ask questions of one another and consult with technical assistance 
providers at this second meeting. Regional institutes in year one will 
provide grantee teams with technical assistance that will be useful in 
implementing their projects.

Previous Grantees

    We propose 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 (September 30, 2007).

Rationale

    Schools included in implementation grants that will be active after 
September 30, 2007 do not need additional assistance. Since the 
Department has received more applications for SLC grants than it has 
been able to fund in recent years, we believe that targeting new awards 
to LEAs that will assist high schools that are not included in grants 
that will be active after September 30, 2007 would be equitable and 
make the best use of limited program funds.

Selection Criteria

Proposed Selection Criteria

    We propose that the following selection criteria 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 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 proposed 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.

[[Page 10507]]

    The potential costs associated with this notice of proposed 
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 proposed priority, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria, we have determined that the 
benefits of the proposed 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.
    Elsewhere in this notice we discuss the potential costs and 
benefits of the proposed priority, requirements, and selection criteria 
under the following heading: Discussion of Priority, Requirements, and 
Selection Criteria.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)

    Certain sections of the proposed priority, requirements, and 
selection criteria for the SLC grant program contain changes to 
information collection requirements already approved by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 1810-0676 
(1890-0001). We will be publishing a separate notice in the Federal 
Register requesting comments on these changes.

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: March 2, 2007.
Raymond Simon,
Deputy Secretary of Education Delegated the Authority to Perform the 
Functions of the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary 
Education.
[FR Doc. E7-4228 Filed 3-7-07; 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>