16082 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Notices 

bridge and construction of the new 

bridge. 

Environmental Issues and Resources To 

Be Examined 

The EIS will evaluate the potential 

environmental effects associated with 

each of the alternatives. Issues to be 

addressed include, but are not limited 

to; geology, topography and soils, 

hydrology and water quality, biological 

resources, cultural resources, land use, 

visual resources, socioeconomics and 

environmental justice, traffic, air 

quality, noise, public health and safety, 

services and utilities, and coastal zone 

management. Relevant and reasonable 

measures that could alleviate 

environmental effects will be 

considered. 

Schedule 

Comments on the scope of this EIS 

must be received by April 30, 2010. The 

Department of the Navy will publish a 

Notice of Availability (NOA) in the 

Federal Register and local media when 

the Draft EIS is issued for public review. 

A 45-day public comment period will 

start upon publication of the NOA in the 

Federal Register. The Department of the 

Navy will consider and respond to all 

comments received on the Draft EIS 

when preparing the Final EIS. The 

Department of the Navy expects to issue 

the Final EIS in July 2011, which will 

be available for a 30-day public 

comment period. The Department of the 

Navy will consider all comments 

received on the Final EIS in preparing 

for the Record of Decision. 

Other Agency Involvement 

The Department of the Navy will 

undertake appropriate consultations 

with regulatory entities pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act, Clean Water 

Act, National Historic Preservation Act, 

and any other applicable law or 

regulation. Consultation will include 

but is not limited to the following 

Federal, State, and local agencies: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Fisheries; State Historic 

Preservation Officer; American Indian 

Tribes; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

all local Historic Site Boards and 

Heritage organizations; California 

Regional Water Quality Control Board; 

California Coastal Commission; San 

Diego Air Pollution Control District; and 

the County of San Diego, Department of 

Environmental Health. 

Dated: March 25, 2010. 

A.M. Vallandingham, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7183 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Smaller Learning Communities 

Program 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.215L. 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes priorities, requirements, a 

definition, and selection criteria under 

the Smaller Learning Communities 

(SLC) program. The Assistant Secretary 

will use these priorities, requirements, 

definition, and selection criteria, in 

addition to any other previously 

established priorities and requirements, 

for a competition using fiscal year (FY) 

2009 funds and may use them in later 

years. We take this action to focus 

Federal financial assistance on an 

identified national need. We intend 

these priorities, requirements, 

definition, and selection criteria to 

enhance the effectiveness of SLC 

projects in improving academic 

achievement and helping to prepare 

students for postsecondary education 

and careers. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definition, and selection criteria to 

Angela Hernandez-Marshall, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., LBJ, Room 3E308, 

Washington, DC 20202–6200. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

through the Internet, use the following 

address: 

smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov. 

You must include the term ‘‘SLC 

Proposed Requirements’’ in the subject 

line of your electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela Hernandez-Marshall. Telephone: 

(202) 205–1909 or by e-mail: 

smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

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 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definition, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, 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 priorities, requirements, 

definition, and selection criteria. Please 

let us know of any further ways we 

could 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 this notice in room 3E308, 400 

Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, 

DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 

4:00 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 SLC program 

awards discretionary grants to local 

educational agencies (LEAs) to support 

the restructuring of large public high 

schools (i.e., schools with enrollments 

of 1,000 or more students) into smaller 

units for the purpose of improving 

academic achievement in large public 

high schools. These smaller units 

include freshman academies, multigrade academies organized around 

career interests or other themes, 

‘‘houses’’ in which small groups of 

students remain together throughout 

high school, and autonomous schoolswithin-a-school. These structural 

changes are typically complemented by 

other personalization strategies, such as 

student advisories, family advocate 

systems, and mentoring programs. 

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

Applicable Program Regulations: (a) 

The Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Notices 16083 

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

85, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The final priority, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria published in the Federal 

Register on April 28, 2005 (70 FR 

22233) (the 2005 SLC NFP). (c) The 

notice of final priority, requirements, 

and selection criteria published in the 

Federal Register on May 18, 2007 (72 

FR 28426) (the 2007 SLC NFP). 

Background: Creating a more 

personalized learning experience for 

students has been a prominent part of 

high school improvement efforts in 

recent years. Several evaluations have 

found, generally, that the 

implementation of SLCs and 

complementary personalization 

strategies can reduce disruptive 

behavior, create a more orderly 

environment for learning, and increase 

student attendance and graduation rates 

(Lee and Smith 1995; Wasley et al., 

2000; McMullan, Sipe, and Wolf, 1994; 

Quint, 2006; National Research Council, 

2004). Dropout Prevention: A Practice 

Guide, published in 2008 by the 

Institute of Education Sciences’ What 

Works Clearinghouse, recommended 

that schools implement SLCs and other 

personalization strategies as part of a 

comprehensive approach to reducing 

the dropout rate (Institute of Education 

Sciences, 2008). 

However, evaluation data have not 

shown that these structural changes and 

personalization strategies, by 

themselves, 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). 

For these reasons, we are proposing 

priorities and selection criteria that are 

specifically intended to promote the 

close integration of SLC implementation 

with systematic efforts to improve 

curriculum and instruction. We also 

propose certain other requirements and 

a definition to clarify statutory 

provisions, improve the management of 

grant activities, facilitate the review of 

applications, and promote the equitable 

distribution of limited SLC grant funds. 

Note: As used in this notice, the terms 

smaller learning community and large high 

school have the meanings assigned to them 

in the 2005 SLC NFP. 

Proposed Priorities: This notice 

contains two proposed priorities. These 

proposed priorities would be in 

addition to the priority established in 

the 2007 SLC NFP (Preparing All 

Students to Succeed in Postsecondary 

Education and Careers). 

Proposed Priority 1: Common Planning 

Time for Teachers 

Background: Providing teachers with 

regular and ongoing opportunities for 

structured collaboration and planning 

during or immediately following the 

school day is considered by many 

researchers and practitioners to be key 

to improving instruction and ensuring 

that students receive the academic and 

personal supports they need to achieve 

at high levels. For example, this practice 

is common among many highperforming schools, including, 

particularly, those with high 

concentrations of economically 

disadvantaged or low-achieving 

students (Mass Insight Education and 

Research Institute, 2007; Odden, 2007; 

Dyke, 2008; Herman, et al., 2008; 

Education Resource Strategies, 2009; 

Perlman and Redding, 2009; Strozier, 

2009). In these high-performing schools, 

common planning time is used for a 

variety of activities, including the 

analysis of student work and outcome 

data, collaborative professional 

development and instructional 

coaching, and developing or 

coordinating the implementation of 

curricula and assessments. By providing 

teachers with regular and ongoing 

opportunities for collaboration, these 

schools also promote a strong sense of 

shared responsibility among teachers for 

improving student academic 

achievement (Louis and Marks, 1998; 

Symonds, 2004; Mass Insight Education 

and Research Institute, 2007; Silva, 

2009). 

For these reasons, we propose a 

priority to allow grantees to use SLC 

funds to pay the necessary personnel 

and other costs associated with 

increasing common planning time for 

teachers. Under the proposed priority, 

applicants could, for example, propose 

to use grant funds to hire additional 

teachers, pay substitute teachers, or 

extend the school day in order to 

provide teachers with more time for 

common planning and collaboration. 

Under the proposed priority, we 

would not require that grantees increase 

common planning time for all teachers 

within a school. Instead, grantees could 

choose to focus on a single grade level, 

such as ninth grade, or on particular 

content areas. 

We believe that this proposed priority 

will help enhance the effectiveness of 

SLC projects in improving academic 

achievement and the preparation of 

students for postsecondary education 

and careers by ensuring that students 

receive the academic and personal 

supports they need to achieve. 

Proposed Priority 1—Common Planning 

Time for Teachers 

This proposed priority would support 

projects that increase the amount of 

time regularly provided to teachers who 

share the same students or teach the 

same academic subject for common 

planning and collaboration during or 

immediately following the school day 

without decreasing the amount of time 

provided to teachers for individual 

planning and preparation. To meet this 

priority, the common planning time 

must be used for one or more of the 

following activities: 

(1) Structured examination of student 

work and outcome data. 

(2) Collaborative professional 

development and coaching, including 

classroom observation. 

(3) Identifying instructional and other 

interventions for struggling students. 

(4) Curriculum and assessment 

development. 

Proposed Priority 2: Persistently 

Lowest-Achieving Schools—Secondary 

Schools 

Background: The Secretary has 

established a goal of turning around, 

over the next five years, the 5,000 

lowest-achieving schools nationwide as 

part of a comprehensive strategy for 

dramatically reducing the drop-out rate, 

improving high school graduation rates, 

and increasing the number of students 

who graduate prepared for success in 

college and the workplace. 

The SLC program can be an important 

source of funding to support turnaround 

efforts in a State’s persistently lowestachieving high schools. For this reason, 

we propose to establish a priority for 

SLC projects that include one or more 

schools that have been identified by a 

State as a persistently lowest-achieving 

school. 

Proposed Priority 2—Persistently 

Lowest-Achieving Schools—Secondary 

Schools 

This proposed priority would support 

SLC projects that include one or more 

schools that have been identified by a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
16084 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Notices 

State as a persistently lowest-achieving 

school. 

For the purpose of this priority, the 

term ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving 

school’’ is defined as it is under the 

Department’s State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund Program (see 74 FR 58436, 58487), 

School Improvement Grants (see 74 FR 

65618, 65652), and Race to the Top 

Fund (see 74 FR 59836, 59840). 

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 either (1) awarding 

additional points, depending on 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 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 

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. 

Note: These proposed requirements would 

be in addition to the application 

requirements required under title V, part D, 

subpart 4, section 5441(b) of the ESEA, and 

the following requirements established in the 

2005 SLC NFP and the 2007 SLC NFP: 

Requirement Notice 

Consortium Applications and Educational Service 

Agencies.

2005 SLC NFP. 

Student Placement .... 2005 SLC NFP. 

Including All Students 2005 SLC NFP. 

Indirect Costs ............ 2007 SLC NFP. 

Required Meetings 

Sponsored by the 

Department.

2007 SLC NFP. 

Previous Grantees .... 2007 SLC NFP. 

Proposed Requirement 1—Budget and 

Performance Periods 

Background: In the 2007 SLC NFP, we 

established a requirement pursuant to 

which SLC grant funds were awarded in 

two increments over a 60-month 

performance period: An initial award 

for the first 36 months of the 

performance period and a continuation 

award for the remaining 24 months of 

the performance period. Through this 

Proposed Budget and Performance 

Periods requirement, we would reduce 

the duration of the initial award from 36 

to 24 months and make continuation 

awards annually thereafter. We propose 

this change because making the initial 

award for a period of 24 months would 

give grantees until the end of the second 

school year after the award is made (i.e., 

the 2011–12 school year) to implement 

all or most of the components of their 

projects and demonstrate substantial 

progress. As we do not expect to make 

new awards until after the start of the 

2010–2011 school year, we recognize 

that grantees likely will need more than 

12 months to implement their projects 

fully and demonstrate substantial 

progress. Further, we propose the 

change to 24 months, based on our 

belief that, an SLC grantee that requires 

more than an initial 24 months to show 

progress is likely experiencing 

significant management problems and 

may not merit continued funding. For 

similar reasons, we are proposing to 

make continuation awards annually 

after this initial 24 month budget 

period. SLC grantees should be able to 

demonstrate each year that they are 

continuing to make substantial progress 

in implementing their projects. In 

addition, making continuation awards 

on an annual basis will better ensure 

that SLC grantees do not receive more 

funds than they are able to expend to 

implement their projects. For a variety 

of reasons, some SLC grantees have been 

unable to expend all of the funds they 

requested at the time they submitted 

their applications. As a result, a number 

of SLC grantees have returned 

significant amounts of funds to the 

United States Treasury when their 

grants have ended. 

Proposed Budget and Performance 

Periods: Grantees will be awarded 

implementation grants for a period up to 

60 months, with the initial award to 

provide funding for the first 24 months 

of the performance period. Funding for 

the remainder of the performance period 

will be made annually, 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. 

In its application, the applicant must 

provide detailed, yearly budget 

information for the total grant period 

requested. 

Proposed Requirement 2—Maximum 

Award Amounts and Number of 

Schools 

Background: In order to ensure that 

applicants have sufficient funding for 

the personnel expenditures likely 

needed to meet the requirements of 

Proposed Priority 1—Common Planning 

Time for Teachers (i.e., increasing the 

amount of time that teachers are 

provided regularly for common 

planning and collaboration), we are 

proposing to increase the maximum, 60- 

month award amounts per school by 

$750,000. Based on our informal 

consultations with LEA and school 

officials in different parts of the country, 

we believe that this additional $750,000 

should be sufficient to support a 

significant increase in common 

planning time for teachers in at least 

one grade level of the school. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

reduce the number of schools that an 

LEA may apply on behalf of in a single 

application from eight to five because, 

in the past, many grantees have 

experienced great difficulties managing 

and overseeing project activities at more 

than five schools. In such cases, 

implementation progress has been slow 

and uneven and several grantees 

decided to remove one or more schools 

from their grants. 

Finally, through this requirement, we 

are proposing that applications 

requesting 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. In previous SLC competitions, 

some applicants requested more funds 

than the amount that we indicated 

would be available for a grant. These 

applications included activities that 

could only be implemented if the 

applicants received a funding amount 

that exceeded the maximum amount 

specified by the Department. This 

strategy put at a competitive 

disadvantage other applicants that 

requested funds within the 

Department’s specified funding range 

and proposed a less extensive set of 

activities. For this reason, we propose to 

review only those applications that 

request an amount that does not exceed 

the maximum amounts specified for the 

grants. 

Proposed Maximum Award Amounts 

and Number of Schools: An eligible 

LEA may receive, on behalf of a single 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Notices 16085 

school, up to $2,500,000 of SLC grant 

funds, depending upon student 

enrollment in the school, for the entire 

60-month project period. 

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 ........ $1,750,000–$2,000,000 

2,001–3,000 

Students ........ 1,750,000–2,250,000 

3,001 and Up .... 1,750,000–2,500,000 

An LEA may include up to five 

schools in a single application for a SLC 

grant. Therefore, an LEA applying on 

behalf of a group of eligible schools 

would be able to receive up to 

$12,500,000 for its SLC grant. 

Applications requesting 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 has the 

option of reviewing applications that 

requested funds exceeding the 

maximum amounts specified. Under 

this requirement, if the Secretary 

chooses to fund any of the additional 

applications, selected applicants will be 

required to work with the Department to 

revise their proposed budgets to fit 

within the appropriate funding range. 

Proposed Requirement 3—Performance 

Indicators 

Background: 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. Therefore, it is important 

that assistance provided under the SLC 

program support and enhance the efforts 

of LEAs and schools to improve student 

academic achievement and preparation 

for and enrollment in postsecondary 

education. 

In order to ensure that SLC projects 

ultimately achieve these important 

outcomes, we must ensure that each 

funded SLC project measures its 

progress in improving student academic 

achievement and related outcomes. For 

this reason, we propose to continue to 

measure the progress of grantees using 

two indicators: (1) Student performance 

on reading/language arts and 

mathematics assessments and (2) high 

school graduation rates (these two 

indicators are reflected in paragraphs (1) 

and (2) of the Performance Indicators 

included in the 2007 SLC NFP). These 

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. We propose that performance 

objectives for these indicators 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. Because school-level data 

for these indicators are now available to 

the Department through using the EDEN 

Submission System (ESS), it is 

unnecessary for the Department to 

continue to collect them directly from 

grantees. 

We also propose to continue 

measuring the extent to which the 

graduates of each school included in an 

SLC grant enter postsecondary 

education in the semester following 

high school graduation. Because 

enrolling in postsecondary education is 

a nearly universal aspiration among 

high school students and their parents, 

we believe that this measurement 

continues to be useful and we believe 

that grantees should be held 

accountable for helping them achieve 

this goal. We propose that performance 

objectives for this indicator 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 

students with limited English 

proficiency. Because data for this 

indicator are not reported by SEAs 

through ESS (an electronic system that 

facilitates the efficient and timely 

transmission of data from SEAs to the 

Department), we propose to continue to 

require grantees to provide these data on 

an annual basis. We further propose to 

require grantees to use administrative 

records that document student 

enrollment in postsecondary education 

as the principal source of data for this 

indicator because these data are likely to 

be more accurate and less costly to 

obtain than information gathered 

through student and parent surveys. 

Because these administrative records 

may not provide data on all of a school’s 

graduates (e.g., in the case of most State 

longitudinal databases, students who 

enroll in postsecondary education in 

another State), we propose to permit 

grantees to supplement the data 

obtained from administrative records 

with information gathered through 

surveys that are administered after high 

school graduation. 

Proposed Performance Indicators: 

Each applicant must identify in its 

application the following specific 

performance indicators as well as the 

annual performance objectives to be 

used for each of these indicators. 

Specifically, each applicant must use 

the following performance indicators to 

measure the progress of each school 

included in its application: 

(a) 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: 

(1) Major racial and ethnic groups. 

(2) Students with disabilities. 

(3) Students with limited English 

proficiency. 

(4) Economically disadvantaged 

students. 

(b) The school’s graduation rate, as 

defined in the State’s approved 

accountability plan for Part A of Title I 

of the ESEA, as well as the graduation 

rates for the following subgroups: 

(1) Major racial and ethnic groups. 

(2) Students with disabilities; 

(3) Students with limited English 

proficiency; and 

(4) Economically disadvantaged 

students; and 

(c) The percentage of all graduates 

who enroll in postsecondary education 

in the semester following high school 

graduation, as well as the percentage 

disaggregated by the following 

subgroups: 

(1) Major racial and ethnic groups. 

(2) Students with disabilities. 

(3) Students with limited English 

proficiency. 

(4) Economically disadvantaged 

students. 

Each applicant must identify in its 

application its performance objectives 

for each of these indicators for each year 

of the project period and provide 

baseline data for the third indicator 

(postsecondary enrollment). The 

Department will obtain baseline data for 

the first and second performance 

indicators (student performance on 

reading/language arts and mathematics 

assessments and the graduation rate) 

and data on the extent to which each 

school included in a grant achieves its 

annual performance objectives for each 

year of the project period from the data 

that are now reported to the Department 

by SEAs using the EDEN Submission 

System (ESS). Grantees are not required 

to provide these data. 

Each grantee must report to the 

Department annually on the extent to 

which each school in its grant achieves 

its performance objectives for the third 

proposed indicator (postsecondary 

enrollment). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
16086 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Notices 

Finally, grantees must use 

administrative records maintained by 

State, national, or regional entities that 

already collect data on student 

enrollment in postsecondary education 

as the principal source of data for this 

performance indicator. These 

administrative records include, for 

example, data available through State 

longitudinal databases or other sources. 

Grantees may supplement these records 

with data collected through surveys 

administered to students or parents after 

graduation. 

Proposed Requirement 4—School 

Report Cards 

Background: In the 2005 SLC NFP, we 

established a requirement for the SLC 

program pursuant to which applicants 

were required to include school report 

cards with their applications to verify 

the accuracy of the student achievement 

they reported. This requirement created 

a significant paperwork burden for 

many applicants because, in some States 

and LEAs, school report cards are 

expansive, extending over 10 to 20 

pages. With school-level student 

achievement data now available to the 

Department through ESS, it is no longer 

necessary to require applicants to 

provide school report cards to verify the 

accuracy of the student achievement 

data they report in their applications. 

Proposed School Report Cards 

Requirement: No applicant is required 

to include in its application any report 

card for the schools included in its 

application. 

Proposed Requirement 5—Evidence of 

Eligibility 

Background: We propose to require 

each applicant to provide, along with its 

application, the name of, and other 

identifying information about, each 

school included in its application and 

evidence of each such school’s 

enrollment during the current or most 

recently completed school year. This 

information is necessary so that the 

Department can verify that each of the 

schools in the applicant’s application 

meets the program’s eligibility 

requirements. We propose to require 

that evidence of enrollment consist of 

information reported by the LEA to the 

SEA or produced by the SEA so that 

there is no ambiguity for applicants 

about the evidence that they must 

submit to establish school eligibility. 

Proposed Evidence of Eligibility 

Requirement: LEAs, including schools 

funded by the Bureau of Indian 

Education and educational service 

agencies, applying on behalf of large 

public high schools, are eligible to apply 

for a grant. We will not accept 

applications from LEAs applying on 

behalf of schools that are being 

constructed and do not have an active 

student enrollment at the time of 

application. LEAs may apply on behalf 

of no more than five schools. Along 

with its application, each applicant 

must provide, for each school included 

in its application: 

(a) The school’s name, postal mailing 

address, and the 12-digit identification 

number assigned the school by the 

National Center for Education Statistics; 

and 

(b) Evidence that, during the current 

school year or the most recently 

completed school year, the school is a 

large public high school (i.e., an entity 

that includes grades 11 and 12 and has 

an enrollment of 1,000 or more students 

in grades 9 and above (see Definitions in 

2005 SLC NFP) and, thus, is eligible to 

receive assistance under this program. 

To meet this requirement, the 

enrollment figures provided in the 

evidence must be based upon data from 

the current school year or the most 

recently completed school year. In 

addition, this evidence must include a 

copy of either: 

(a) The form or report that the LEA 

submits to the SEA to report the 

school’s student enrollment (or student 

membership, as it is sometimes 

described) on or around October 1 of 

each year. 

(b) A document provided by the SEA 

that identifies the school’s enrollment 

on or around October 1 of each year. 

Proposed Requirement 6—Evaluation 

Background: In the 2005 SLC NFP, we 

established requirements that each SLC 

grantee support an independent, 

formative evaluation of its project that 

reported its findings to the grantee (i.e., 

its LEA) on not less than an annual 

basis. Each grantee was required to 

provide each annual evaluation report 

to the Department at the same time it 

reported annually on its progress in 

implementing its project. The purpose 

of this requirement was to provide the 

project director and other LEA and 

school personnel information that 

would be useful in gauging the project’s 

progress and identifying areas for 

improvement. The Department also 

provided grantees with technical 

assistance materials to help them secure 

qualified evaluators and evaluations 

that would produce information to more 

effectively manage their projects. After 

carefully reviewing the annual 

evaluation reports that have been 

submitted by grantees since FY 2006, 

we have concluded that, generally, this 

requirement has not achieved its 

intended purpose. For the most part, 

grantees have not chosen to commission 

evaluations that provide them with 

useful implementation information or 

have not used the information provided 

by these evaluations to improve their 

management of their projects. Instead, 

many grantees have commissioned 

evaluations chiefly to comply with our 

requirement. Given the often 

considerable cost of these evaluations 

and their limited usefulness to grantees, 

we believe it would be prudent to cease 

to require grantees to commission them. 

A grantee may still choose to use grant 

funds to support a project evaluation if 

the evaluation is related clearly to the 

goals of the project and necessary for the 

proper and efficient performance and 

administration of the grant award. 

Proposed Evaluation Requirement: 

We propose to eliminate the 

requirement established by the 2005 

SLC NFP that each applicant provide 

assurances that it will support an 

evaluation of the project that will 

produce an annual report for each year 

of the performance period. 

Proposed Requirement 7—Grant Award 

Administration 

Background: The responsibilities of a 

project director for an SLC grant include 

coordinating grant activities to ensure 

that they are carried out on time and 

within budget, overseeing the fiscal 

management of the project, and 

fulfilling performance reporting and 

other requirements established by the 

Department. We propose to establish a 

minimum time commitment for this 

position to ensure that the project 

director has sufficient time to carry out 

these responsibilities. In our experience, 

many of the grants in which the time 

commitment of the project director was 

less than the minimum we are 

proposing have experienced significant 

implementation delays. In some cases, 

these grant recipients were unable to 

implement key elements of their 

approved applications. We note that 

under our proposal, applicants could 

continue to include the salary and other 

costs of the project director in their 

proposed budgets. 

Proposed Grant Award 

Administration: Grantees must 

designate a single project director who 

will be principally responsible for 

overseeing the implementation of the 

proposed project and communicating 

with the Department. 

Each grantee must ensure that its 

designated project director—for a grant 

that includes one school—be not less 

than fifty percent of a full-time 

equivalent (FTE) position and that the 

time commitment of a project director 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Notices 16087 

for a grant that includes more than one 

school be not less than one FTE. 

Proposed Requirement 8—Use of Funds 

for Equipment 

Background: While we recognize that 

equipment can be an effective tool for 

enhancing instruction and improving 

student achievement and is essential to 

carrying out a variety of administrative 

activities, numerous other sources of 

funds are available to LEAs and schools 

to acquire equipment. We, therefore, 

propose to limit the use of SLC grant 

funds for the purchase or use of 

equipment in order to focus grant funds 

on the personnel, technical assistance, 

professional development and other 

costs related to implementing 

significant structural and instructional 

reforms that will improve student 

academic achievement and preparation 

for postsecondary education. 

Proposed Use of Funds for Equipment 

Requirement: For each budget period of 

the grant award, a grantee may not use 

more than one percent of the total grant 

award for the acquisition of equipment 

(as that term is defined in this notice). 

Proposed Definition: 

Background: We are proposing to 

define the term equipment because we 

propose to limit the use of SLC grant 

funds for the purchase of equipment 

elsewhere in this notice. Under Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A–87, 

Cost Principles for State, Local, and 

Indian Tribal Governments, an item is 

considered to be ‘‘equipment’’ if, among 

other things, it is nonexpendable, 

tangible personal property having a 

useful life of more than one year and 

has an acquisition cost which equals or 

exceeds the lesser of the capitalization 

level established by the governmental 

unit for financial statement purposes, or 

$5,000. We are proposing to reduce the 

acquisition cost threshold to the lesser 

of the capitalization level established by 

the governmental unit for financial 

statement purposes or $500 in order to 

include laptop and desktop computers, 

printers, and other office and classroom 

equipment that some SLC grantees have 

sought to purchase with grant funds. 

Proposed Definition: 

In addition to the definitions set out 

in the authorizing statute, 34 CFR 77.1, 

and the 2005 SLC NFP, we propose that 

the following definition also apply to 

this program: 

Equipment means an article of 

nonexpendable, tangible personal 

property that has a useful life of more 

than one year and that has an 

acquisition cost which equals or 

exceeds the lesser of the capitalization 

level established by the governmental 

unit for financial statement purposes, or 

$500. It includes, but is not limited to, 

office equipment and furnishings, 

modular offices, telephone networks, 

information technology equipment and 

systems, air conditioning equipment, 

reproduction and printing equipment, 

and motor vehicles. 

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. These proposed 

selection criteria are intended to replace 

the selection criteria established for the 

SLC program in the 2005 SLC NFP and 

the 2007 SLC NFP. 

In the notice inviting applications or 

the application package or both we will 

announce the maximum possible points 

assigned to each criterion. 

(a) 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 professional development in 

implementing structural and 

instructional reforms and providing 

effective instruction; and 

(4) The applicant demonstrates that 

the proposed project is aligned with and 

advances a coordinated, district-wide 

strategy to improve student academic 

achievement and preparation for 

postsecondary education and careers 

without need for remediation. 

(b) 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 

multiple 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 to ‘‘catch 

up’’ and attain, maintain and exceed 

proficiency by providing supplemental 

instruction and supports to these 

students during the ninth grade and, to 

the extent necessary, in later grades; 

(4) Increasing the amount of time 

regularly provided to teachers for 

common planning and collaboration 

during or immediately following the 

school day, without decreasing the 

amount of time provided to teachers for 

individual planning and preparation; 

(5) Ensuring, through technical 

assistance, professional development, 

and other means, that teachers use 

opportunities for common planning and 

collaboration effectively to improve 

instruction and student academic 

achievement; 

(6) Increasing the participation of 

students, particularly low-income 

students, in Advanced Placement, 

International Baccalaureate, or dual 

credit courses (such as dual enrollment 

or early college programs) that offer 

students the opportunity to earn 

simultaneously both high school and 

college credit; and 

(7) Increasing the percentage of 

students who enter postsecondary 

education in the semester following 

high school graduation by delivering 

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. 

(c) 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; and 

(2) The project director and other key 

personnel are qualified and have 

sufficient authority to carry out their 

responsibilities, and their time 

commitments are appropriate and 

adequate to implement the SLC project 

effectively. 

(d) Need for the Project. In 

determining the need for the proposed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
16088 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Notices 

project, we will consider the extent to 

which the applicant has identified 

specific gaps and weaknesses in the 

preparation of all students for 

postsecondary education and careers 

without need for remediation, the 

nature and magnitude of those gaps and 

weaknesses, and the extent to which the 

proposed project will address those gaps 

and weaknesses effectively. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definition, and Selection Criteria 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definition, 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, 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 one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definition, 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 

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, definition, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits: 

Elsewhere in this notice we discuss the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definition, and selection criteria under 

the background sections to the 

Priorities, Requirements, Definition, and 

Selection Criteria. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) 

Certain sections of the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definition, 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. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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. 

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. 

Dated: March 26, 2010. 

Thelma Mele ́ndez de Santa Ana, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7255 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Proposed Information Quality 

Guidelines Policy 

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC). 

ACTION: Notice and request for public 

comment on Proposed Information 

Quality Guidelines Policy. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) seeks public 

comment on the Proposed Information 

Quality Guidelines policy. The policy 

outlines the EAC’s directives and 

required procedures to implement the 

OMB Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by Federal Agencies, 67 

FR 8452 (‘‘OMB Guidelines’’). The EAC 

developed the Proposed Information 

Quality Guidelines to meet its 

obligations under the OMB Guidelines 

and to codify its high standards of 

quality in the production of information 

disseminated outside the agency. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before 4 p.m. EDT on 

April 30, 2010. 

Comments: Public comments are 

invited on the information contained in 

the policy. Comments on the proposed 

policy should be submitted 

electronically to HAVAinfo@eac.gov. 

Written comments on the proposed 

policy can also be sent to the U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission, 1201 

New York Avenue, NW., Suite 300, 

Washington, DC 20005, ATTN: 

Proposed Information Quality 

Guidelines Policy. 

Obtaining a Copy of the Policy: To 

obtain a free copy of the policy: (1) 

Access the EAC Website at http:// 

www.eac.gov; (2) write to the EAC 

(including your address and phone 

number) at U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission, 1201 New York Avenue, 

NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005, 

ATTN: Information Quality Guidelines. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Tamar Nedzar, Ms. Karen Lynn-Dyson 

or Ms. Shelly Anderson at (202) 566– 

3100. 

Thomas R. Wilkey, 

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7134 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Notice: Request for Substantive 

Comments on the EAC’s Proposed 

Requirements for the Testing of Pilot 

Voting Systems To Serve UOCAVA 

Voters 

AGENCY: United States Election 

Assistance Commission. 

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

proposed requirements for the testing of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES