Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 15949 

In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following: 

1. The extent to which the budget is 

adequate to support the proposed 

project (see 34 CFR 75.210(f)(2)(iii)). 

2. The extent to which the costs are 

reasonable in relation to the number of 

persons to be served and to the 

anticipated results and benefits (see 34 

CFR 75.210(f)(2)(v)). 

2. Review and Selection Process: A 

panel of non-Federal readers will review 

each eligible application in accordance 

with the competitive preference priority 

and the selection criteria, pursuant to 34 

CFR 75.217. Each reader will 

individually score each application by 

totaling the points (from the competitive 

preference priority and selection 

criteria) the reader assigned the 

application. An applicant’s overall score 

will be determined by adding all reader 

scores for the applicant’s application 

and then dividing the total points by the 

number of readers who reviewed the 

application. If there are insufficient 

funds for all applications with the same 

overall scores, the Secretary will choose 

among the tied applications so as to 

serve geographical areas that have been 

underserved by the CCAMPIS Program. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your application 

is successful, we notify your U.S. 

Representative and U.S. Senators and 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN). We may notify you informally, 

also. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: At the end of your 

project period, you must submit a final 

performance report, including financial 

information, as directed by the 

Secretary. If you receive a multi-year 

award, you must submit an annual 

performance report that provides the 

most current performance and financial 

expenditure information as directed by 

the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The 

Secretary may also require more 

frequent performance reports under 34 

CFR 75.720(c). For specific 

requirements on reporting, please go to 

http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/ 

appforms/appforms.html. 

4. Performance Measures: The success 

of the CCAMPIS Program will be 

measured by the postsecondary 

persistence and degree of completion 

rates of CCAMPIS Program participants 

who remain at the grantee institution. 

All CCAMPIS Program grantees will be 

required to submit an annual 

performance report documenting the 

persistence and degree attainment of 

their participants. Because students may 

take different lengths of time to 

complete their degrees, multiple years 

of performance report data are needed to 

determine the degree completion rates 

of CCAMPIS Program participants. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

For Further Information Contact: J. 

Alexander Hamilton, if unavailable, 

contact Antoinette Clark-Edwards or 

Dorothy Marshall, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street, NW., suite 

7000, Washington, DC 20006–8510. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7583; (202) 502– 

7656; or (202) 502–7734, respectively, or 

by e-mail: TRIO@ed.gov. 

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll 

free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to one of the program contact 

persons listed under For Further 

Information Contact in section VII of 

this notice. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

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. 

Delegation of Authority: The Secretary 

of Education has delegated authority to 

Daniel T. Madzelan, Director, 

Forecasting and Policy Analysis for the 

Office of Postsecondary Education, to 

perform the functions of the Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education. 

Dated: April 3, 2009. 

Daniel T. Madzelan, 

Director, Forecasting and Policy Analysis. 

[FR Doc. E9–7992 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Striving Readers 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.371A. 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the 

Striving Readers program grant 

competition. The Assistant Secretary 

may use these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2009 

and later years. The Assistant Secretary 

intends to use the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria to provide Federal financial 

assistance to support the 

implementation and evaluation of 

intensive, supplemental literacy 

interventions for struggling readers. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Marcia J. Kingman, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., room 3E106, Washington, 

DC 20202–6400. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by e-mail, use the following address: 

Marcia.Kingman@ed.gov. You must 

include the term ‘‘Striving Readers— 

Comments on FY 2009 Proposed 

Priorities’’ in the subject line of your 

electronic message. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marcia J. Kingman. Telephone: (202) 

401–0003 or by e-mail: 

Marcia.Kingman@ed.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
15950 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion your 

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 priorities, requirements, 

definitions, 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 priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in room 3E106, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Washington, DC time, Monday through 

Friday of each week except Federal 

holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

this program is to raise the reading 

levels of adolescent students in ESEA 

Title I-eligible schools with significant 

numbers of students reading below 

grade level and to build a strong, 

scientific research base for identifying 

and replicating strategies that improve 

adolescent literacy instruction. The 

program supports expanding existing 

adolescent literacy initiatives or creating 

new initiatives that provide intensive, 

supplemental literacy interventions for 

struggling readers. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6492. 

Applicable Program Regulations: The 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 

85, 86, 97, 98, and 99, as applicable. 

Proposed Priorities: This notice 

contains two proposed priorities. 

Proposed Priority 1—Supplemental 

Literacy Intervention for Struggling 

Readers in the Middle Grades: 

Background: 

One of the greatest obstacles to 

achieving President Obama’s ambitious 

goal of regaining our Nation’s global 

leadership in educational attainment is 

the inadequate literacy skills that too 

many young people bring with them as 

they enter high school. Without strong 

literacy skills, high school students 

cannot master the rigorous academic 

content they need to prepare for 

postsecondary education, careers, and 

active participation in our democracy. 

Students in the middle grades and in 

high school who have low-level reading 

skills also are at greater risk of dropping 

out of school. 

The Striving Readers program awards 

competitive grants to support the 

implementation and rigorous evaluation 

of promising adolescent literacy 

interventions intended to increase our 

understanding of how we can improve 

the literacy skills of adolescents most 

effectively. The Department awarded 

more than $24 million for the first eight 

grants under the program in March, 

2006 and has supported continuation of 

those grants with an additional $88.6 

million in subsequent years. These 

projects are now entering their third 

year and are serving more than 45,000 

secondary school students annually, 

including 7,300 adolescents who read 

two or more years below grade level. 

The Department released year-one 

implementation studies last year, and 

expects to release impact evaluations of 

the first two years of project 

implementation this summer. 

Focus on Supplemental Literacy 

Intervention for Struggling Readers: 

Each of the Striving Readers projects 

funded in FY 2006 supports both an 

intensive supplemental literacy 

intervention for struggling readers 

(students who read two or more years 

below grade level) and a schoolwide 

literacy initiative that includes literacy 

instruction in all content-area classes 

and is intended to improve the literacy 

skills of all students. In Proposed 

Priority 1, we are proposing to support 

projects that focus exclusively on the 

implementation of a supplemental 

literacy intervention for struggling 

readers. While teaching literacy in every 

content-area class is necessary if all 

students are to acquire high-level 

literacy skills—the complex set of skills 

that enables one to read critically, 

comprehend, reason, and write 

persuasively—students with reading 

difficulties need support in addition to 

the support they receive in content-area 

classes. Struggling readers, through 

intense interventions that occur in a 

supplemental class, must have a real 

opportunity to catch up with their 

peers, graduate from high school, and 

secure a place in college and the 

workplace after graduation. Given 

limited available resources for this 

program, we believe that the primary 

focus of this priority should be the 

urgent needs of these adolescents. 

Under Proposed Priority 1, we also 

are proposing that projects address the 

needs of struggling readers by 

implementing a school-year-long 

literacy intervention that supplements 

the regular English language arts 

instruction students receive and that 

delivers instruction exclusively or 

principally during the school day. 

Research indicates that an intensive, 

supplemental intervention of this kind 

is more likely to accelerate the 

development of grade-level literacy 

skills by struggling readers than are 

other strategies or approaches. 

Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective 

Classroom and Intervention Practices, a 

practice guide published in 2008 by the 

Institute of Education Sciences’ What 

Works Clearinghouse, found strong 

research evidence that students who 

have only partial mastery of the 

prerequisite knowledge and skills that 

are fundamental for reading at grade 

level need more intensive help than can 

be provided by teachers during English 

language arts or other classes (Institute 

of Education Sciences, 2008). 

Proposed Priority 1 would also 

require that this supplemental literacy 

intervention be research-based and 

include, at a minimum, a number of 

practices that many researchers in the 

field of adolescent literacy agree are 

critical to the effectiveness of a 

supplemental literacy intervention for 

struggling readers. These practices 

include the use of a reliable screening 

assessment to identify students with 

reading difficulties, a reliable diagnostic 

reading assessment to pinpoint 

students’ instructional needs, explicit 

vocabulary instruction, direct and 

explicit comprehension strategy 

instruction, and content intended to 

improve student motivation and 

engagement in literacy learning 

(Institute of Education Sciences, 2008; 

Boardman, Roberts, Vaughn et al., 2008; 

Biancarosa and Snow, 2006). 

To meet Proposed Priority 1, the 

supplemental literacy intervention also 

must have been implemented in at least 

one school in the United States within 

the past five years. The purpose of this 

requirement is to ensure that the limited 

funds available for new awards are used 

to support interventions that are fully 

developed and that can be implemented 

by the schools included in the project 

without significant modification. While 

there is a need for greater investment in 

the development of new literacy 

interventions, at this time, the 

Department seeks to focus on replicating 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 15951 

successful supplemental literary 

interventions in multiple schools. 

Focus on Students in the Middle 

Grades: 

Proposed Priority 1 would also focus 

on projects that serve struggling readers 

in any of grades 6 through 8 because 

research indicates that early and intense 

intervention in the middle grades is 

critical to putting students with belowgrade-level literacy skills on a path to 

graduation when they enter high school 

(Balfanz, Herzog, and Mac Iver, 2007). 

The number of adolescents in the 

middle grades who need assistance with 

reading is alarming. Twenty-seven 

percent of eighth-grade students in the 

United States scored below basic in 

reading on the most recent National 

Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP). Forty-two percent of eighthgrade students eligible for free- or 

reduced-price lunch scored below basic 

(National Center for Education 

Statistics, 2007). According to one 

estimate, approximately half of the 

students who enter a typical highpoverty, urban high school read at a 

sixth- or seventh-grade level (Balfanz et 

al., 2002). 

When students enter high school with 

reading skills that are significantly 

below grade level, they are at great risk 

of dropping out, particularly during the 

ninth-grade year. One analysis of the 

school experiences and outcomes of 

students who were members of the Class 

of 2000 in Philadelphia found that more 

than three-quarters of the students who 

dropped out in ninth grade entered high 

school with reading skills that were one 

or more years below grade level. Fiftyeight percent of these ninth-grade 

dropouts entered the ninth grade with 

reading skills that were three or more 

years below grade level (Neild and 

Balfanz, 2006). Similarly, an analysis of 

longitudinal student data for three large 

California districts found that more than 

sixty percent of students who scored 

‘‘far below basic’’ on an eighth-grade 

reading assessment dropped out before 

graduation (Kurlaender, Reardon, and 

Jackson, 2008). 

Proposed Priority 1—Supplemental 

Literacy Intervention for Struggling 

Readers in the Middle Grades: 

To be eligible for consideration under 

this priority, an applicant must propose 

to implement a supplemental literacy 

intervention during the second, third, 

and fourth years of the project period 

that— 

(a) Will be provided to struggling 

readers (as defined elsewhere in this 

notice) in any of grades 6 through 8 in 

no fewer than 5 eligible schools; 

(b) Supplements the regular English 

language arts instruction students 

receive; 

(c) Provides instruction exclusively or 

primarily during the regular school day, 

but that may be augmented by afterschool instruction; 

(d) Is at least one full school year in 

duration; 

(e) Includes the use of a nationally 

normed, reliable, and valid screening 

reading assessment (as defined 

elsewhere in this notice) to identify 

struggling readers; 

(f) Includes the use of a nationally 

normed, reliable, and valid diagnostic 

reading assessment (as defined 

elsewhere in this notice) to pinpoint 

students’ instructional needs; 

(g) Uses a research-based literacy 

model that is flexible enough to meet 

the varied needs of struggling readers, is 

intense enough to accelerate the 

development of literacy skills, and 

includes, at a minimum, the following 

practices: 

(1) Explicit vocabulary instruction. 

(2) Direct and explicit comprehension 

strategy instruction. 

(3) Opportunities for extended 

discussion of text meaning and 

interpretation. 

(4) Instruction in reading foundational 

skills, such as decoding and fluency (for 

students who need to be taught these 

skills). 

(5) Course content intended to 

improve student motivation and 

engagement in literacy learning. 

(6) Instruction in writing; and 

(h) Has been implemented in at least 

one school in the United States during 

the preceding five years. 

Proposed Priority 2—Rigorous and 

Independent Evaluation: 

Background: 

Under section 1502(b) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (ESEA), the Secretary is 

required to evaluate Striving Readers 

projects ‘‘using rigorous methodological 

designs and techniques, including 

control groups and random assignment, 

to the extent feasible, to produce 

reliable evidence of effectiveness.’’ 

Consequently, we are proposing a 

priority for applications that includes an 

evaluation plan that measures, through 

a randomized field trial, the 

effectiveness of the proposed 

supplemental literacy intervention in 

achieving desired outcomes. 

The statutory evaluation requirement 

coincides with the needs of the 

adolescent literacy field for better 

information about what works. School 

systems across the country are 

beginning to develop comprehensive 

literacy programs that extend 

elementary literacy instruction into 

middle and high schools, but there is 

little empirical data to support some of 

these secondary-level programs. And, 

although the marketplace is producing a 

wealth of ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ interventions 

for students with reading deficiencies, 

most of these interventions have not 

been subjected to rigorous evaluations. 

The critical need for a stronger 

research base on adolescent literacy 

necessitates that funded projects 

conduct careful, rigorous studies of the 

supplemental literacy interventions that 

will be implemented. Therefore, we 

have designed Proposed Priority 1 to be 

used in conjunction with Proposed 

Priority 2. Each project funded under 

Proposed Priority 1—Supplemental 

Literacy Intervention for Struggling 

Readers in the Middle Grades would be 

required to contract with an 

independent evaluator to conduct an 

experimental design evaluation and 

provide information and data for 

dissemination to the literacy 

community. The evaluation for each 

project must include at least 750 

struggling readers, the minimum sample 

required to detect approximately 3–5 

months of growth in reading 

achievement on standardized 

assessments for the typical student in 

grades 6 through 8. In addition, each 

project would be required to include at 

least 5 eligible schools. These schools 

may be part of a single local educational 

agency (LEA) or multiple LEAs. The 

Department plans to provide technical 

assistance to help grantees and their 

evaluation partners with evaluation 

design and implementation. 

Proposed Priority 2—Rigorous and 

Independent Evaluation: 

To be eligible for consideration under 

this priority, an applicant must propose 

to support a rigorous experimental 

evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

supplemental literacy intervention it 

implements under Priority 1 

(Supplemental Literacy Intervention for 

Struggling Readers in the Middle 

Grades) during the second, third, and 

fourth years of the project that will— 

(a) Be carried out by an independent 

evaluator whose role in the project is 

limited solely to conducting the 

evaluation; 

(b) Use a random lottery to assign 

eligible struggling readers in each 

school in the project either to the 

supplemental literacy intervention or to 

other activities in which they would 

otherwise participate, such as a study 

hall, electives, or another activity that 

does not involve supplemental literacy 

instruction; 

(c) Include rigorous and appropriate 

procedures to monitor the integrity of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
15952 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 

the random assignment of students, 

minimize crossover and contamination 

between the treatment and control 

groups, and monitor, document, and, 

where possible, minimize student 

attrition from the sample; 

(d) Measure outcomes of the 

supplemental literacy intervention 

using, at a minimum: 

(1) The reading/language arts 

assessment used by the State to 

determine whether a school has made 

adequate yearly progress under part A of 

title I of the ESEA. 

(2) A nationally normed, reliable, and 

valid outcome reading assessment (as 

defined elsewhere in this notice) that is 

closely aligned with the literacy skills 

targeted by the supplemental literacy 

intervention; 

(e) Use rigorous statistical models to 

analyze the impact of the supplemental 

literacy intervention on student 

achievement, including the use of 

students’ prior-year test scores as a 

covariate in the model to improve 

statistical precision and also including 

appropriate statistical techniques for 

taking into account the clustering of 

students within schools; 

(f) Include an analysis of the fidelity 

of implementation of the critical 

features of the supplemental literacy 

intervention based on data collected by 

the evaluator; 

(g) Include measures designed to 

ensure that the evaluator obtains high 

response rates to all data collections; 

(h) Include no fewer than 750 

struggling readers enrolled in no fewer 

than 5 schools in each year of the 

evaluation; and 

(i) Be designed to detect not less than 

a 0.10 standard deviation impact of the 

supplemental literacy intervention on 

student achievement, which represents 

approximately 3 to 5 months’ growth in 

reading achievement on standardized 

assessments for the typical student in 

grades 6 through 8. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 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 (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the 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 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Proposed Requirements: 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes the following requirements for 

this program. We may apply these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Proposed Eligibility Requirement: 

Background: 

Several State educational agencies 

have recently published comprehensive 

literacy plans that go beyond the 

traditional State focus on reading 

instruction in the early grades. These 

plans create policies and guidelines for 

extending literacy instruction into 

middle and high schools. In general, the 

new State plans acknowledge that 

improvements in adolescent literacy are 

the cornerstone for secondary-school 

reform and that those improvements 

must be accomplished through the 

teaching of literacy skills in all contentareas as well as through the provision of 

targeted, supplemental literacy 

interventions to struggling readers. To 

accomplish the mission embodied in 

those State plans, States are working 

with schools and districts to modify 

State literacy standards and 

assessments; to identify research-based 

literacy programs; to create cohorts of 

literacy coaches; to revise teacher 

preparation and training so that it 

includes education in content-based 

literacy strategies; to develop literacy 

professional development for in-service 

teachers; and to help improve the 

infrastructure of schools in order to 

better support literacy instruction. 

Recent American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds 

appropriated for Title I School 

Improvement Grants and for the State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund are available 

as financial support for executing many 

of the components of State 

comprehensive literacy plans as well as 

for creating comprehensive plans in 

States that are just beginning to address 

adolescent literacy needs. We are 

proposing that within the larger effort of 

building State-wide programs that will 

improve literacy for all adolescents, the 

limited funds available through the 

Striving Readers program be used by 

States to target services to struggling 

readers. 

By proposing to limit eligibility to 

State educational agencies, we intend to 

partner with States, not only through 

the ARRA but also through these grants, 

to help States address the needs of 

struggling readers. 

Proposed Eligible Applicants: To be 

considered for an award under this 

competition, an applicant must be a 

State educational agency (SEA) that 

applies on behalf of itself and one or 

more LEAs that have governing 

authority over the eligible schools (as 

defined elsewhere in this notice) that 

the applicant proposes to include in the 

project. 

Proposed Application Requirements: 

Eligible Schools: 

Background: 

We are proposing that the applicant 

SEA submit, for each eligible school it 

intends to include in the project, certain 

eligibility information to ensure that 

reviewers can adequately judge the 

extent of the school’s willingness to 

participate fully in the evaluation and 

implementation of the supplemental 

literacy intervention. As a part of this 

application requirement, we also would 

require each applicant to submit, for 

each eligible school it intends to include 

in its project, State assessment data to 

verify that a large enough group of 

struggling readers exists among enrolled 

students to ensure an adequate sample 

size for the evaluation. 

Eligible schools: To be considered for 

an award under this competition, an 

eligible applicant must include in its 

application the following with respect 

to each school it proposes to include in 

the project: 

(a) The school’s name, location, and 

enrollment disaggregated by grade level 

for the 2008–09 school year. 

(b) State or other assessment data that 

demonstrate that, during each of the 

2007–08 and 2008–09 school years, a 

minimum of 75 students enrolled in 

grades 6 through 8 in the school were 

struggling readers (as defined elsewhere 

in this notice). 

(c) Evidence that the school is eligible 

to receive funds under part A of title I 

of the ESEA, pursuant to section 1113 

of the ESEA. 

(d) A letter from the superintendent of 

the LEA that has governing authority 

over the school and the principal of the 

school in which they— 

(1) Agree to implement the proposed 

supplemental literacy intervention 

during the 2010–11, 2011–12, and 

2012–13 school years, adhering strictly 

to the design of the intervention; 

(2) Agree to allow eligible struggling 

readers to be randomly assigned (by 

lottery) to either the supplemental 

literacy intervention curriculum or to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 15953 

other activities in which they would 

otherwise participate, such as a study 

hall, electives, or other activity that does 

not involve supplemental reading 

instruction; and 

(3) Agree to participate in the 

evaluation, including in the evaluator’s 

collection of data on student outcomes 

and program implementation. 

Proposed Logic Model and 

Assessment Requirements: 

Background: 

We are proposing to require 

applicants to include, in their 

applications, a logic model of the 

supplemental literacy intervention that 

will allow reviewers to evaluate the 

merits of the intervention and the 

relation between the intervention and 

student outcomes. We are also 

proposing that applicants identify in 

their applications the nationally 

normed, reliable, and valid screening, 

diagnostic, and outcome reading 

assessments that they will use as they 

implement and evaluate the effects of 

the supplemental literacy intervention. 

Supplemental literacy intervention 

Logic Model and Assessment 

Requirements: To be considered for an 

award under this competition, an 

applicant must include in its 

application the following evidence with 

respect to the supplemental literacy 

intervention it proposes to implement 

and evaluate: 

(a) Evidence that the supplemental 

literacy intervention has been 

implemented in at least one school in 

the United States during the preceding 

five years. 

(b) A one-page logic model that shows 

a clear, logical pathway leading from the 

project inputs and activities, through 

classroom instruction, to the expected 

impacts on students. 

(c) The nationally normed, reliable, 

and valid screening, diagnostic, and 

outcome reading assessments (as these 

reading assessments are defined 

elsewhere in this notice) of student 

literacy skills that the applicant would 

use to inform the identification of 

struggling readers and the content of 

their instruction. 

Proposed Definitions: 

Background: 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes several definitions that will 

help clarify the population of students 

eligible for services under this 

competition and the tools to be used to 

identify those eligible students. We may 

apply one or more of these definitions 

in any year in which this program is in 

effect. 

Diagnostic reading assessment means 

an assessment that is— 

(a) Valid, reliable, and based on 

scientifically based reading research; 

and 

(b) Used for the purpose of— 

(1) Identifying a child’s specific areas 

of strength and weakness; 

(2) Determining any difficulties that a 

child may have in learning to read and 

the potential cause of such difficulties; 

and 

(3) Helping to determine possible 

reading intervention strategies and 

related special needs. 

Eligible school means a school that— 

(a) Is eligible to receive funds under 

part A of title I of the ESEA, pursuant 

to section 1113 of the ESEA; 

(b) Serves students in any of grades 6 

through 8; and 

(c) Enrolled not fewer than 75 

students in any of grades 6 through 8 

during the 2007–08 and 2008–09 school 

years whose reading skills were two or 

more years below grade level. 

Outcome reading assessment means 

an assessment that is— 

(a) Valid, reliable, and nationally 

normed; 

(b) Closely aligned with the literacy 

skills targeted by the supplemental 

literacy intervention; and 

(c) Used for the purpose of— 

(1) Measuring student reading 

achievement; and 

(2) Evaluating the effectiveness of the 

supplemental literacy intervention. 

Screening reading assessment means 

an assessment that is— 

(a) Valid, reliable, and based on 

scientifically based reading research; 

and 

(b) A brief procedure designed as a 

first step in identifying children who 

may be at high risk for delayed 

development or academic failure and in 

need of further diagnosis of their need 

for special services or additional literacy 

instruction. 

Struggling readers means readers 

who— 

(a) Have only partial mastery of the 

prerequisite knowledge and skills that 

are fundamental for reading at grade 

level; 

(b) Are reading two or more grades 

below grade level when measured on an 

initial screening reading assessment. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: 

Background: 

The purposes of the Striving Readers 

grant program are to improve the 

literacy skills of adolescent struggling 

readers and to help build a strong, 

scientific, research base for specific 

strategies that improve adolescent 

literacy skills. To support those 

purposes, we are proposing the 

following selection criteria that we 

believe will allow us to fund the most 

promising supplemental literacy 

interventions for struggling readers and 

that will ensure that the evaluations of 

those interventions meet the research 

community’s highest standard and 

provide reliable findings that inform 

adolescent literacy practice. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes the following selection criteria 

for evaluating an application under this 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these criteria in any year in which this 

program is in effect. In the notice 

inviting applications or the application 

package or both we will announce the 

maximum possible points assigned to 

each criterion. 

(a) Significance. 

(1) The potential contribution of the 

project to the development and 

advancement of theory, research, and 

practices in the field of adolescent 

literacy, including— 

(i) In the case of a supplemental 

literacy intervention that has not been 

evaluated through a large-scale 

experimental evaluation, the extent to 

which other empirical evidence (such as 

smaller-scale experimental or quasiexperimental studies of the effects of the 

intervention on student achievement) 

demonstrates that the intervention is 

likely to be effective in improving the 

reading skills of struggling readers; or 

(ii) In the case of a supplemental 

literacy intervention that has been 

evaluated by one or more large-scale 

experimental evaluations, the extent to 

which those evaluations provide 

evidence that demonstrates that the 

intervention is likely to be effective in 

improving the reading skills of 

struggling readers and that the proposed 

evaluation would increase substantially 

knowledge in the field of adolescent 

literacy, such as by studying the 

effectiveness of the intervention among 

a different population than studied in 

previous experimental evaluations or by 

using an improved evaluation design 

(such as one that has a marked increase 

in statistical power); 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

supplemental literacy intervention can 

be replicated in a variety of settings 

without significant modifications. 

(b) Project Design. 

(1) The extent to which the 

supplemental literacy intervention uses 

a research-based literacy model that is 

flexible enough to meet the varied needs 

of struggling readers, is intense enough 

to accelerate the development of literacy 

skills, and that includes, at a minimum, 

the following practices: 

(i) Explicit vocabulary instruction; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
15954 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 

(ii) Direct and explicit comprehension 

strategy instruction; 

(iii) Opportunities for extended 

discussion of text meaning and 

interpretation; 

(iv) Instruction in reading 

foundational skills, such as decoding 

and fluency (for students who need to 

be taught these skills); 

(v) Course content designed to 

improve student motivation and 

engagement in literacy learning; and 

(vi) Instruction in writing. 

(2) The extent to which the 

professional development model 

proposed for the project has sufficient 

intensity (in terms of the number of 

hours or days). 

(3) The extent to which the provider 

of the professional development 

identified in the application has the 

appropriate experience and knowledge 

to provide high-quality professional 

development. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project uses nationally normed, valid, 

and reliable screening reading 

assessments for screening struggling 

readers and for diagnosing individual 

student needs. 

(c) Project Evaluation. 

(1) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan includes data from the reading/ 

English language arts assessment used 

by the State to measure adequate yearly 

progress under part A of title I of the 

ESEA and from a second, evaluatoradministered, nationally normed, 

reliable, and valid measure of student 

reading achievement that is closely 

aligned with the goals of the 

intervention; 

(2) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan describes an objective and 

appropriate method for the independent 

evaluator to conduct random 

assignment of students to treatment and 

control conditions; rigorous and 

appropriate methods for monitoring the 

integrity of random assignment and for 

minimizing crossover and 

contamination between the treatment 

and control groups; and rigorous and 

appropriate methods for monitoring, 

documenting, and, where possible, 

minimizing, student attrition from the 

sample; 

(3) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan includes a clear, well-documented, 

and rigorous method for measuring the 

fidelity of implementation of the critical 

features of the intervention; 

(4) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan describes rigorous statistical 

procedures for the analysis of the data 

that will be collected, including: 

(i) A clear discussion of the 

relationship between hypotheses, 

measures, and independent and 

dependent variables. 

(ii) Appropriate statistical techniques 

for taking into account the clustering of 

students within schools. 

(iii) The use of data on students’ 

achievement in prior years as a 

covariate to improve statistical 

precision. 

(iv) In the case of qualitative data 

analyses, the use of appropriate and 

rigorous methods to index, summarize, 

and interpret data; 

(5) The extent to which the 

independent evaluator identified in the 

application has experience in 

conducting scientifically based reading 

research and in designing and 

conducting experimental evaluations; 

and 

(6) The extent to which the proposed 

budget allocates sufficient funds to carry 

out a high-quality evaluation of the 

proposed project. 

Final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria: 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice 

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 

proposed regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action 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 proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

proposed 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. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

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. 

Delegation of Authority: The Secretary 

of Education has delegated authority to 

Joseph C. Conaty, Director, Academic 

Improvement and Teacher Quality 

Programs for the Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education, to perform 

the functions of the Assistant Secretary 

for Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

Dated: April 3, 2009. 

Joseph C. Conaty, 

Director, Academic Improvement and 

Teacher Quality Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–7995 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES