32440 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

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) 

by contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll 

free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

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: June 3, 2010. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13783 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Full-Service Community Schools 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.215J 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

announces priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the 

Full-Service Community Schools (FSCS) 

program. The Secretary may use these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2010 and later years. We 

take this action to focus Federal 

assistance on supporting collaboration 

among schools and entities within a 

community in the provision of 

comprehensive academic, social, and 

health services for students, students’ 

family members, and community 

members. We intend the priorities to 

support the improvement of student 

outcomes through their promotion of 

strong school-community partnerships 

that support effective resource 

coordination and service delivery. The 

FSCS program is a ‘‘place-based’’ 

program that can leverage investments 

by focusing resources in targeted places, 

drawing on the compounding effects of 

well-coordinated actions. Place-based 

approaches can also streamline 

otherwise redundant and disconnected 

programs. 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are effective July 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill 

Staton, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 

4W245, Washington, DC 20202–5970. 

Telephone (202) 401–2091 or by e-mail: 

FSCS@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The Fund for the 

Improvement of Education (FIE), which 

is authorized by section 5411 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 

supports nationally significant programs 

to improve the quality of elementary 

and secondary education at the State 

and local levels and help all children 

meet challenging academic content and 

academic achievement standards. The 

FSCS program, which is funded under 

FIE, encourages coordination of 

academic, social, and health services 

through partnerships among (1) public 

elementary and secondary schools; (2) 

the schools’ local educational agencies 

(LEAs); and (3) community-based 

organizations, non-profit organizations, 

and other public or private entities. The 

purpose of this collaboration is to 

provide comprehensive academic, 

social, and health services for students, 

students’ family members, and 

community members that will result in 

improved educational outcomes for 

children. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7243– 

7243b. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for this program in the 

Federal Register on February 8, 2010 

(75 FR 6188–6192). That notice 

contained background information and 

our reasons for proposing the particular 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

There are differences between the 

notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions and selection 

criteria (NPP) and this notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria (NFP) as discussed in 

the Analysis of Comments and Changes 

section elsewhere in this notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 11 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes, or 

suggested changes the law does not 

authorize us to make under the 

applicable statutory authority. In 

addition we do not address general 

comments that raised concerns not 

directly related to the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria since 

publication of the notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria follows. We discuss 

substantive issues under the title of the 

item to which they pertain. 

Absolute Priority—Eligible Services 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that services provided under the FSCS 

program include strong alignment of 

academic supports and enrichment 

activities with existing resources for 

remedial programming. In addition, one 

commenter noted the importance of 

aligning remedial education and 

academic enrichment activities with 

State standards, curricula, and academic 

achievement data to ensure stronger 

connections between school day and 

after-school activities. 

Discussion: We agree that remedial 

education, academic supports, and 

enrichment activities should be clearly 

and deliberately aligned with other key 

components of successful schools (e.g., 

a State’s high academic standards; 

rigorous curricula; effective teachers; 

effective school leadership; welldesigned assessments and 

accountability systems; positive school 

climates; and strong professional 

development) and are modifying the 

absolute priority accordingly. We 

believe that such coordination and 

alignment are likely to support student 

academic success by promoting costeffective school-community 

partnerships that are tailored to the 

needs of students and schools. 

Changes: We have revised the service 

category regarding remedial education 

in the absolute priority. This category 

now reads ‘‘Remedial education, aligned 

with academic supports and other 

enrichment activities, providing 

students with a comprehensive 

academic program.’’ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32441 

1Chang, Hedy; Romero, Mariajose. Present, 

Engaged and Accounted For: The Critical 

Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence in the 

Early Grades. The Annie E. Casey Foundation; 

National Center for Children in Poverty (2008). 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the FSCS program require the use 

of a standardized social-emotional 

curriculum for grades K–12 and require 

grantees to implement the resiliencybased after-school activities based on 

the 40 developmental assets from the 

Search Institute’s Healthy Communities/ 

Healthy Students program. 

Discussion: We decline to adopt the 

changes suggested by the commenter 

because we believe that mandating the 

use of specific curricula or frameworks 

would unduly restrict the flexibility of 

applicants to develop FSCS projects that 

are most appropriately suited to their 

particular circumstances. Applicants are 

free to select models, which may 

include those suggested by the 

commenter, that they deem most 

appropriate to address the needs of their 

proposed project. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that while family literacy and parental 

involvement are related activities, they 

are distinct in scope and execution and 

therefore, should not be grouped into a 

single service category. The commenter 

further stated that parent education and 

parent leadership programs are related, 

yet distinct, and should be listed 

separately in the final notice. 

Discussion: We decline to adopt the 

changes suggested by the commenter 

because we believe that family literacy, 

parental involvement, parent education, 

and parent leadership are related in that 

they seek to meaningfully engage 

parents in ways that support their 

children’s learning. Services and 

activities coordinated or provided by 

the FSCS should be based on identified 

needs and aligned with clearly 

articulated outcomes, regardless of the 

comprehensive nature of the service 

category itself. Because we believe these 

services are so inter-related, we are 

revising the absolute priority to 

consolidate them under one broad 

service category of family engagement. 

Changes: In the absolute priority, we 

have combined the parental 

involvement, family literacy activities, 

parent education, and parent leadership 

program service categories into one 

service category, which now reads 

‘‘Family engagement, including parental 

involvement, parent leadership, family 

literacy, and parent education 

programs.’’ 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommended that in addition to 

parental involvement and family 

literacy activities, family services 

include linking families to a wide range 

of supports, including public health 

insurance options, social service 

programs (e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, 

and Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families), and programs that encourage 

family financial stability (e.g., benefit 

screenings, assistance in claiming 

eligible tax credits and income supports, 

financial literacy programs, employment 

services, and asset-building programs). 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that the receipt of 

information about health insurance 

options, social service programs, and 

programs that promote family financial 

stability can contribute to the overall 

well-being of a family. Providing 

information about health insurance 

options is an eligible activity under the 

primary health care service category in 

the absolute priority. We believe that 

using FSCS grant funds for activities 

that improve access to and use of social 

services programs and programs that 

promote family financial stability is also 

consistent with the purpose of the FSCS 

program, and are adding these activities 

to the absolute priority. It is important 

to note, however, that FSCS Federal 

grant funds are of greatest benefit when 

used to coordinate existing resources 

and services. Community schools 

cannot be sustained if administrators 

rely entirely on Federal FSCS funds to 

provide services. 

Changes: We have added a new 

service category to the absolute priority 

that provides for activities that improve 

access to and use of social service 

programs and programs that promote 

family financial stability. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the needs of students who have 

been chronically absent from school 

should receive greater prominence in 

the list of eligible services in the 

absolute priority. The commenter noted 

that chronic absenteeism during the 

early elementary school years can 

significantly affect a student’s future 

academic success. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that chronic absenteeism 

can significantly affect academic 

success. We note that there is a growing 

body of national research linking 

chronic absence (missing 10 percent or 

more of school due to excused or 

unexcused absences) to poor academic 

achievement, dropping out of school, 

and other negative outcomes. A report 

conducted by the National Center for 

Children in Poverty in 2008 examined 

the prevalence, consequences, and 

potential contributing factors associated 

with chronic absence in grades K–3 and 

noted that one in ten kindergarten and 

first-grade students is chronically absent 

nationally.1 The effects of chronic 

absence can be magnified for children 

living in poverty because they tend to 

have access to fewer resources at home 

to make up for lost time in school. We 

will, therefore, add to the service 

category in the absolute priority, 

programs that provide assistance to 

students who have been chronically 

absent. 

Changes: We have revised the service 

category regarding programs that 

provide assistance to students who have 

been truant, suspended, or expelled, to 

include students who have been 

chronically absent. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended modifying the service 

category regarding nutrition services to 

include a reference to physical 

education classes. The commenter 

asserted that nutrition, physical activity, 

and physical education are equally 

important in ensuring the healthy 

physical development of a child and his 

or her academic success. 

Discussion: We agree that physical 

activity and physical education are 

important to the healthy development of 

a child. An underlying goal of the FSCS 

program, however, is to supplement the 

in-school curriculum with additional 

services, supports, and opportunities, 

not to supplant it. We consider physical 

education to be a component of the inschool curriculum that, and as such, 

should not be supported using FSCS 

grant funds. Physical activities, 

however, are allowable if carried out in 

association with nutrition services or 

with mentoring and youth development 

services. We will, therefore, add 

physical activities to the nutrition 

services category in the absolute 

priority. 

Changes: We have revised the 

nutrition services category to include 

physical activities. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that while primary health care and 

dental care are related to each other, 

they should be listed as separate eligible 

activities and that the need for and 

delivery of one or both of these services 

should be based on the results of a 

needs assessment. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that the provision of 

primary health care or dental care 

should be based on the needs of 

students, students’ family members, and 

community members. We decline, 

however, to adopt the changes suggested 

by the commenter. Listing primary 

health care and dental care in one 

service category is unlikely to affect the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32442 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

coordination or delivery of these 

services by grantees under this program. 

All services and activities coordinated 

or provided by the FSCS should be 

based on identified needs and aligned 

with clearly articulated outcomes, 

regardless of the comprehensive nature 

of the service category itself. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that vision care and the 

provision of corrective eyewear be 

explicitly included as an element of the 

primary health and dental care service 

category since vision problems can 

interfere with students’ academic 

attainment. The commenter noted that 

undiagnosed and untreated vision 

problems are especially problematic 

among low-income and minority 

children. 

Discussion: We agree that access to 

vision care can affect students’ success 

in school. Vision screening and vision 

care, including the provision of 

corrective eyewear, are allowable 

activities under the primary health care 

and dental care service category. 

Therefore, it is unnecessary to make the 

changes suggested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that in addition to counseling services, 

clinical mental health services should 

be included as an eligible service 

because many students in lowperforming schools also live in highpoverty neighborhoods with increased 

rates of trauma due to violence, drug 

use, and other environmental stressors. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that addressing the mental 

health needs of students and their 

family members supports social and 

academic development and that these 

services may be broader than the 

proposed ‘‘mental health counseling 

services.’’ We recognize that mental 

health services encompass a broad range 

of school- and community-based 

services, including but not limited to 

clinical mental health services, and that 

the types of interventions may vary and 

should be based on the needs of the 

service recipient. We are, therefore, 

modifying the service category for 

mental health counseling services to be 

more general, which will allow 

applicants to define the appropriate 

range of mental health interventions 

needed to meet the needs of their target 

population. 

Change: We have revised the mental 

health counseling services service 

category to read ‘‘Mental health 

services.’’ 

Competitive Preference Priority— 

Strategies That Support Turning 

Around Persistently Lowest-Achieving 

Schools 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern that the competitive 

preference priority for Strategies that 

Support Turning Around Persistently 

Lowest-Achieving Schools may result in 

the Department making awards to a 

cohort of grantees that is limited to only 

those Title I schools identified as 

persistently lowest-achieving. Some 

commenters stated that the competitive 

preference priority should not be 

limited only to the persistently lowestachieving schools but, instead, be more 

broadly defined to include all schools 

that are eligible for Title I funding. 

Several commenters contended that it 

takes significantly more time, effort, and 

resources for persistently lowestachieving schools to move through the 

developmental stages of a community 

school and to demonstrate results. In 

order to select projects with the greatest 

potential for success, one commenter 

suggested that the Department select a 

subset of applicants with schools that 

are persistently lowest-achieving from 

among the overall applicant pool in 

order to provide a more balanced 

portfolio of grantees. 

Another commenter stated that the 

Department’s School Improvement 

Grants (SIG) program already prioritizes 

persistently lowest-achieving schools 

and provides a significant amount of 

financial resources to support 

implementation of the school 

intervention models. Other commenters 

stated that the competitive preference 

priority should be eliminated and that 

the FSCS program should support the 

development of the highest-quality fullservice community schools, regardless 

of Title I funding status. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concerns. This competitive 

preference priority is aligned with the 

Department’s reform goal of improving 

achievement in low-performing schools 

through intensive support and effective 

interventions. Persistently lowestachieving schools are most vulnerable 

and in need of a well-coordinated and 

integrated set of services to support 

their turnaround efforts. 

With respect to the SIG program, we 

note that FSCS program funds can be 

used to strengthen implementation of 

the intervention models authorized 

under the SIG program by leveraging 

resources that support a comprehensive 

academic program and qualify as one or 

more of the allowable FSCS services. 

FSCS funds cannot be used for direct 

implementation of the SIG 

interventions. 

In response to commenters’ concerns 

that establishing a competitive 

preference priority for these schools 

would prevent support for the 

development of the highest quality fullservice community schools, we note 

that including this competitive 

preference priority will not restrict 

funding only to those applications that 

are eligible to receive competitive 

preference. All applications will be 

evaluated and awarded points based on 

a number of selection criteria. Further, 

applications will be assessed under this 

competitive preference priority 

depending on how well an application 

meets the priority. We believe the 

inclusion of this competitive preference 

priority will allow for a balanced 

portfolio of funded applicants, 

including but not limited to, our most 

educationally disadvantaged, 

persistently lowest-achieving schools. 

For these reasons we have concluded 

that no changes to the competitive 

preference priority should be made. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether a school that used to be a 

persistently lowest-achieving school but 

is no longer a persistently lowestachieving school is eligible to receive 

the competitive preference. The 

commenter suggested that a school that 

was formerly identified as a persistently 

lowest-achieving school should be 

eligible for the competitive preference if 

it can demonstrate that it has taken 

steps within the last five years to 

become a full-service community 

school. 

Discussion: Applications that include 

schools that are not persistently lowestachieving may still apply for funds 

under the FSCS program, but would not 

be eligible for the competitive 

preference. In order to meet the 

competitive preference applicants must 

propose to serve schools currently 

identified by the State as persistently 

lowest-achieving schools that are 

currently implementing or plan to 

implement one of three school 

intervention models (as defined in this 

notice) to become full-service 

community schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked if 

one of the three school intervention 

models must be in place for an entity to 

be eligible to apply for a grant under the 

FSCS program. 

Discussion: Applications that propose 

to serve persistently lowest-achieving 

schools that are planning to implement 

or are currently implementing one of the 

three school intervention models are 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32443 

eligible for the competitive preference. 

Applications that do not propose to 

serve persistently lowest-achieving 

schools implementing or planning to 

implement one of the three school 

intervention models may still apply for 

an FSCS grant; however, such 

applications will not be eligible to 

receive the competitive preference. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended adding other priorities. 

One commenter suggested adding a 

competitive preference for applicants 

that demonstrate an intention or plan to 

use site-based work and experience to 

catalyze district-wide change. The 

commenter noted that the presence of 

systems-level support and strong 

infrastructure is likely to result in the 

institutionalization of community 

school strategies. Another commenter 

recommended adding a competitive 

preference priority for applicants that 

collaborate with State educational 

agencies (SEAs) to develop mutually 

agreed upon performance measures for 

demonstrating the impact of community 

school interventions. 

Discussion: We agree that there is 

greater potential impact when fullservice community schools have a 

strong infrastructure in place to sustain 

the overall effort and expand the 

number of FSCS program sites 

throughout an LEA or State. Applicants 

have the flexibility to develop projects 

most appropriately suited to the needs 

and context of their target population. 

Accordingly, applicants are free to 

select models—including site-based 

management—they deem most 

appropriate to the needs of their 

proposed projects. Rather than adding a 

separate priority to address systemic 

support and infrastructure, we will 

revise the application requirements to 

focus on the importance of strong 

infrastructures to support full-service 

community schools. 

In response to the commenter’s 

recommendation that we add a 

competitive preference priority for 

applicants that collaborate with SEAs to 

develop mutually agreed upon 

community school performance 

measures, we decline to add this 

priority because applicants have the 

flexibility to partner with SEAs to 

develop a set of mutually defined 

performance measures but we do not 

believe this should be a priority. 

Changes: We have revised application 

requirement (4), regarding 

organizational capacity, to require 

applicants to include a description of 

the existing or proposed infrastructure 

that will support the implementation 

and sustainability of the full-service 

community school. 

Application Requirements 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: In the course of reviewing 

application requirement (1), regarding a 

description of the needs of students, 

students’ family members, and 

community members to be served, we 

determined that requiring information 

about basic demographic characteristics 

of the target population would 

strengthen our understanding of the 

service recipients beyond their status as 

students, students’ family members, and 

community members. Therefore, we 

have revised requirement (1) to require 

applicants to provide information about 

basic demographic characteristics of the 

population to be served. 

Changes: We have revised application 

requirement (1) to require applicants to 

describe the needs of the students, 

students’ family members, and 

community members to be served, 

including basic demographic 

characteristics of the students, students’ 

family members, and community 

members. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended strengthening the 

language in application requirement (2), 

which would require an applicant to 

provide a list of partner entities, to 

underscore the importance of realigning 

existing services and resources in 

support of the full-service community 

school. The commenters noted that 

community schools cannot be sustained 

if administrators rely entirely on the 

Federal FSCS program or any single 

funding stream. 

Discussion: We agree that applicants 

should describe how they will realign 

existing resources to sustain the efforts 

of a full-service community school. We 

further believe that an applicant’s 

primary emphasis should be on 

coordinating and integrating existing 

services and leveraged resources. 

Change: We have revised application 

requirement (2), to provide that an 

applicant must describe how existing 

resources and services will be 

coordinated and integrated with new 

resources and services. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that we revise 

application requirement (3), regarding 

the memorandum of understanding, to 

provide that the memorandum of 

understanding include information 

about the services to be provided by 

partner entities and the results they will 

work toward, in addition to the role 

each partner entity will assume. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

memorandum of understanding should 

include information about the role of 

each partner entity and the resources 

and services it will provide. This will 

help ensure that applicants have 

agreements in place to coordinate 

existing resources and leverage other 

resources. Such agreements contribute 

to the long-term sustainability of a 

community school effort. We will 

change the language in the final 

requirements accordingly. 

Changes: We have revised application 

requirement (3) to require applicants to 

provide in their applications the 

memorandum of understanding between 

the applicant and all partner entities, 

describing the role each partner will 

assume, the services or resources it will 

provide, and the desired results and 

outcomes. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department revise application 

requirement (4), regarding 

organizational capacity, to require 

applicants to include in their 

applications a description of the 

existence of an infrastructure to support 

community schools at the LEA level. 

The commenter asserted that systemwide support promotes 

institutionalization of community 

schools as a strategy that will be 

sustained by the LEA over time. 

Discussion: As discussed earlier, we 

agree that system-level support for 

community schools can promote better 

alignment of LEA policies, practices, 

and resources with the activities and 

intended outcomes of community 

schools. We also agree that requiring 

applicants to address this aspect of 

organizational capacity would enhance 

our ability to identify high-quality 

applications that are capable of 

achieving the desired results and 

outcomes. We are therefore modifying 

this requirement to require applicants to 

describe the existing or proposed 

infrastructure as part of an overall 

description of the applicant’s 

experience partnering with the target 

school(s) and other partner entities, 

including the LEA. 

Changes: We have revised application 

requirement (4) to provide that 

applicants must include in their 

applications a description of the 

existing or proposed infrastructure to 

support implementation and 

sustainability of the full service 

community school. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department require applicants 

to include a ‘‘logic model’’ in their 

applications. The commenter asserted 

that inclusion of a logic model promotes 

strong alignment of the goals, activities, 

objectives, performance measures, and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32444 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

outcomes of the project, resulting in a 

more coherent evaluation plan. 

Discussion: We agree that clearly 

articulated and well-aligned goals, 

activities, objectives, performance 

measures, and project outcomes are 

critical to the design of an effective 

community school and are modifying 

the application requirements to make 

this clear. Applicants have the 

flexibility to select a logic model or use 

an alternative approach of their choice 

to describe their projects’ well-aligned 

goals, activities, objectives, performance 

measures, and project outcomes. 

Changes: We have revised application 

requirement (5), regarding a 

comprehensive plan, to require that 

applicants submit a comprehensive plan 

that includes a description of wellaligned goals, services, activities, 

objectives, performance measures, and 

project results and outcomes. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that application requirement (6), which 

requires applicants to provide a list and 

description of eligible services to be 

provided, be revised. The commenter 

recommended that we require 

applicants to include a description of 

the applicant’s approach to integrating 

the existing and new programs and 

services with the school’s core 

instructional program. 

Discussion: We agree that there 

should be intentional alignment among 

key components of a full-service 

community school, including the 

school’s core instructional program, and 

are revising this requirement 

accordingly. A full-service community 

school should work with its partners to 

provide a coordinated, integrated, and 

results-focused set of programs and 

services in response to the needs of its 

students, students’ family members, and 

community members. Such alignment is 

needed for a full-service community 

school to be successful in achieving a 

range of results and outcomes, including 

student academic success. 

Changes: We have revised application 

requirement (6) to require applicants to 

include a description of the applicant’s 

approach to integrating new and 

existing programs and services with the 

school’s (or schools’) core instructional 

program and identification of the 

intended results and outcomes. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising application requirement (7), 

which requires applicants to provide a 

description of how the applicant will 

use data to drive decision-making and 

measure success. The commenter 

recommended that we expand the data 

collection rubric to require applicants to 

track results of health, social, and family 

support indicators, in addition to the 

proposed academic and community 

support indicators. 

Discussion: We agree that applicants 

should collect data for a range of project 

and program indicators to monitor and 

assess progress toward achieving project 

results and outcomes and that those 

indicators should align with the 

proposed project’s goals, objectives, 

services, and outcomes. As noted in the 

NIA, published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register, all grantees are 

required to collect and report on a 

program-level performance measure 

relevant to the individuals served by the 

project. However, we also believe that it 

is important for an applicant’s data plan 

to include information related to project 

services as well as the recipients of 

those services and are revising the 

requirement accordingly. Applicants 

may design their plans based on the 

design of their projects. We further 

believe that it is important to emphasize 

in this requirement the need for 

applicants to ensure that their data 

collections and use of data comply with 

applicable Federal, State, and other 

privacy laws and requirements. 

Changes: We have revised application 

requirement (7) to require applicants to 

include a description in their 

applications of their plans to monitor 

and assess outcomes of the eligible 

services provided and coordinated by 

the FCSC project as well as the number 

of individuals served. We also have 

revised this requirement to specify that 

an applicant’s plan must provide for 

compliance with Federal, State, and 

other privacy laws and requirements. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

revising application requirement (8), 

regarding the role and responsibilities of 

the full-service community school 

coordinator. The commenter 

recommended that we emphasize the 

need for the FSCS coordinator to be an 

active member of a joint planning effort 

consisting of key stakeholders from the 

school and community to guide the 

overall community school strategy and 

promote a sense of shared responsibility 

among all partners. Another commenter 

suggested requiring the FSCS 

coordinator to be a full-time position. 

Discussion: We agree that the FSCS 

coordinator should work closely with 

school leadership and community 

stakeholders to plan and implement a 

community school strategy that aligns 

with and strengthens core instruction. 

Further, the role of the FSCS 

coordinator should be closely linked to 

the leadership and management of the 

school, beyond simply coordinating 

additional programs and services. Such 

joint planning encourages (1) 

identification of and support for 

mutually defined results and outcomes 

that are responsive to students’ needs, 

(2) alignment of services with those 

needs, and (3) shared accountability for 

achieving intended outcomes and 

results. We also agree that performing 

the duties of an FSCS coordinator 

entails a full-time commitment and are 

revising the requirement accordingly. 

Changes: We have revised application 

requirement (8) to require that the FSCS 

coordinator be employed full-time in 

that position at the full-service 

community school and that the 

applicant include a description of its 

proposed approach to ensuring that the 

FSCS coordinator engages in joint 

planning with the principal and key 

community stakeholders to guide the 

proposed full-service community 

school. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that all full-service community schools 

be required to be open from 7:00 a.m. 

to 10:00 p.m. so as to expand 

community access to the facilities in 

order to achieve maximum utilization of 

available resources. 

Discussion: We agree that full-service 

community schools should consider 

creative ways to expand learning 

opportunities and access to services and 

supports, including by extending hours 

of building facilities. However, we 

believe that such decisions are best left 

to applicants to determine based on the 

unique circumstances in their schools 

and communities. 

Changes: None. 

Eligible Applicants 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

broaden the definition of Eligible 

Applicants to include a consortium of 

schools or an LEA because, as the 

requirement is currently written, a 

consortium of schools in a particular 

LEA could not apply without the 

approval of its LEA. 

Discussion: Eligible applicants under 

the FSCS program are consortia 

consisting of an LEA and one or more 

community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public or 

private entities. A public elementary or 

secondary school that has the 

independent authority to apply for a 

grant from the Department may do so. 

Generally, however, an individual 

school does not have independent 

authority to apply for a grant from the 

Department, or make the commitments 

required of a consortium partner. 

Consequently, in most cases, public 

elementary and secondary schools, 

while they can serve as FSCS sites, 

cannot be consortium partners or lead 

applicants and will need their LEA to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32445 

2 Krenichyn, Kira, Helene Clark, and Lymari 

Benitez (2008). Children’s Aid Society 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers After-School 

Programs at Six Middle Schools: Final Report of a 

Three-Year Evaluation, 2004–2007. New York: 

ActKnowledge. 

3Quinn, Jane, and Joy Dryfoos (2009). Freeing 

teachers to teach: Students in full-service 

community schools are ready to learn. American 

Educator, Summer 2009:16–21. 

4Whalen, Samuel (2007). Three Years Into 

Chicago’s Community Schools Initiative (CSI): 

Progress, Challenges, and Emerging Lessons. 

Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved 

April 9, 2010, from http://www.aypf.org/ 

documents/CSI_ThreeYearStudy.pdf. 

form a consortium and submit an 

application to the Department. 

Changes: None. 

Planning 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested amending the language for the 

optional planning year to direct 

applicants to devote adequate funding 

for comprehensive planning, capacity 

building, technical assistance, and 

evaluation. One commenter stated that 

grantees implementing one of the three 

school intervention models should be 

required to devote adequate funding for 

the first year of the project period to 

plan and obtain intensive technical 

assistance to build capacity for 

implementing a full-service community 

school. The commenter noted that 

schools undergoing significant 

restructuring tend to require intensive 

support for planning and 

implementation. 

Discussion: We agree that including 

capacity-building activities as an 

allowable use of funds during the 

planning year will help address some of 

the technical assistance needs of 

projects that are in various stages of 

readiness and are modifying the 

requirement to provide this 

clarification. We believe that including 

comprehensive program planning and 

capacity-building as allowable activities 

in the first year of the project period 

will make those activities sufficiently 

broad in scope to cover the diverse 

needs of FSCS applicants, including the 

need for intensive technical assistance. 

Changes: We have revised the 

requirement regarding the optional 

planning year to allow applicants to use 

FSCS funds for capacity building and 

establishing results-focused 

partnerships, as well as comprehensive 

program planning. 

Definitions 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding definitions to describe the 

concepts of ‘‘results-focused 

partnerships’’ and ‘‘conditions for 

learning’’ to provide greater context for 

the FSCS program. 

Discussion: We agree that defining 

‘‘results-focused partnerships’’ would 

highlight the importance of partners 

working collaboratively to achieve 

shared results and outcomes. In this 

regard, we believe that it is important 

for school-community partnerships to 

be based on identified needs and 

organized around a set of mutually 

defined results and outcomes. We are 

adding a definition of results-focused 

partnerships that reflects these key 

concepts. 

In terms of defining ‘‘conditions for 

learning,’’ we acknowledge that in order 

for students and the members of the 

communities in which they reside to 

thrive, their schools must be effective. 

Effective schools create learning 

environments that support student 

academic success and other outcomes. 

When characterized by stable leadership 

and a strong instructional program, fullservice community schools have been 

associated with improved attendance 

and student achievement,2 increased 

family and community engagement,3

and improved student behavior and 

youth development.4 However, we 

decline to add a definition of this term 

because we believe there are numerous 

factors that contribute to effective 

learning and defining the term might 

limit applicants’ flexibility in 

developing their proposals. 

Changes: We have added the term 

results-focused partnerships to the 

Definitions section of this notice and 

defined it to mean collaboration 

between a full-service community 

school and one or more nonprofit 

organizations (including communitybased organizations) based on identified 

needs and organized around a set of 

mutually defined results and outcomes 

for increasing student success and 

improving access to family and 

community services. We have added 

this term throughout this notice, where 

appropriate. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising the definition of a full-service 

community school to highlight the 

importance of providing integrated 

services in response to identified needs. 

The commenter also recommended 

revising the definition of full-service 

community school coordinator to 

underscore the FSCS coordinator’s role 

in planning jointly with the school 

principal. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

commenter’s suggested edits strengthen 

and clarify the meaning of full-service 

community school and FSCS 

coordinator and are revising the 

definitions accordingly. 

Changes: We have revised the first 

sentence of the definition of full-service 

community school to indicate that 

services must be integrated as well as 

coordinated. We have also revised the 

definition of full-service community 

school coordinator to provide that the 

FSCS coordinator works closely and 

plans jointly with the school principal 

to drive the development and 

implementation of the full-service 

community school. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising the definition of student to 

include all children eligible to attend 

the school served by the FSCS grant, not 

just those enrolled. 

Discussion: We believe it is 

unnecessary to revise the definition of 

student because a child residing in the 

community served by the full-service 

community school could be eligible for 

services under the definitions of either 

student’s family member or community 

member. A student means a child 

enrolled in a public elementary or 

secondary school served by the FSCS 

grant. A child who lives in the 

community and has a sibling or any 

other related individual living in the 

same household as the student would 

fall under the definition of student’s 

family member and, therefore, would be 

eligible for services under that 

definition. A child who does not meet 

the definition of student or student’s 

family member, but who lives in the 

community served by the FSCS grant, 

would be eligible for services under the 

definition of community member. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criteria—Quality of 

Management Plan 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising selection criterion (c)(ii), 

Quality of the Management Plan, to 

include consideration of the applicant’s 

plan to obtain technical assistance for 

community school planning and 

implementation. 

Discussion: We do not believe 

applicants should be required to obtain 

technical assistance, but if an applicant 

were to propose using FSCS funds to 

obtain technical assistance, then that 

would be evaluated along with other 

proposed uses of funds. Applicants 

should determine for themselves their 

need for technical assistance in 

planning and implementing their 

proposed project. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criteria—Quality of Project 

Services 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise selection criterion 

(d)(2)(ii), Quality of Project Services, to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32446 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

provide for consideration of the 

likelihood that the services to be 

provided will lead to improvements in 

children’s social and emotional 

outcomes in addition to outcomes 

related to student achievement. 

Discussion: We agree that a child’s 

academic, social, and emotional 

development can contribute to the 

child’s long-term economic and social 

success. We decline, however, to revise 

selection criterion (d)(2)(ii), Quality of 

Project Services, in order to maintain 

focus on the Department’s reform goal of 

improving the academic achievement of 

students. We also believe that 

consideration of the complete range of 

supports and the desired results and 

outcomes of a proposed project is best 

addressed in other selection criteria, 

such as Quality of the Project Design. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding a selection 

criterion that would be used to judge the 

extent to which applicants create and 

expand technology infrastructure to 

support the work of community schools. 

Discussion: We agree that use of 

technology infrastructure can support 

attainment of student outcomes as well 

as support program management by 

enhancing a grantee’s ability to use data 

to drive decision-making and measure 

success. However, we do not believe it 

is necessary to add a selection criterion 

specifically focused on technology 

infrastructure because technology 

infrastructure may be addressed in an 

applicant’s responses to other selection 

criteria, such as Quality of the Project 

Design, Adequacy of Resources, and 

Quality of the Management Plan. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities 

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. 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, as specified by 34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3), we consider only 

applications that meet the priority. 

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: With an 

invitational priority, we signal our 

interest in receiving applications that 

meet the priority; however, consistent 

with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not 

give an application that meets an 

invitational priority preference over 

other applications. 

Final Priorities: The Secretary 

establishes the following priorities for 

the Full-Service Community Schools 

program. We may apply these priorities 

in any year in which this program is in 

effect. 

Absolute Priority—Projects That 

Establish or Expand Full-Service 

Community Schools 

This absolute priority supports 

projects that propose to establish or 

expand (through collaborative efforts 

among local educational agencies, 

community-based organizations, 

nonprofit organizations, and other 

public and private entities) full-service 

community schools, as defined in this 

notice, offering a range of services. To 

meet this priority, an applicant must 

propose a project that is based on 

scientifically based research—as defined 

in section 9101(37) of the ESEA—and 

that establishes or expands a full-service 

community school. Each applicant must 

propose to provide at least three of the 

following eligible services at each 

participating full-service community 

school included in its proposed project: 

1. High-quality early learning 

programs or services. 

2. Remedial education, aligned with 

academic supports and other 

enrichment activities, providing 

students with a comprehensive 

academic program. 

3. Family engagement, including 

parental involvement, parent 

leadership, family literacy, and parent 

education programs. 

4. Mentoring and other youth 

development programs; 

5. Community service and service 

learning opportunities. 

6. Programs that provide assistance to 

students who have been chronically 

absent, truant, suspended, or expelled. 

7. Job training and career counseling 

services. 

8. Nutrition services and physical 

activities. 

9. Primary health and dental care. 

10. Activities that improve access to 

and use of social service programs and 

programs that promote family financial 

stability. 

11. Mental health services. 

12. Adult education, including 

instruction of adults in English as a 

second language. 

Competitive Preference Priority— 

Strategies That Support Turning 

Around Persistently Lowest-Achieving 

Schools 

We give competitive preference to 

applications that propose to serve 

persistently lowest-achieving schools, as 

defined in this notice, and are currently 

implementing or plan to implement one 

of three school intervention models, as 

defined in this notice, to enable these 

schools to become full-service 

community schools. Applicants seeking 

to receive this priority must describe (a) 

the school intervention model that 

would be or is being implemented to 

improve academic outcomes for 

students; (b) the academic, social, and/ 

or health services that would be 

provided and why; and (c) how the 

academic, social and/or health services 

provided would align with and support 

the school intervention model 

implemented. 

Requirements 

Requirements: The Secretary 

establishes the following requirements 

for the FSCS program. We may apply 

these requirements in any year in which 

this program is in effect. 

In order to receive funding, an 

applicant must include the following in 

its application: 

1. A description of the needs of the 

students, students’ family members, and 

community members to be served, 

including information about (a) the 

basic demographic characteristics of the 

students, students’ family members, and 

community members; (b) the magnitude 

or severity of the needs to be addressed 

by the project; and (c) the extent to 

which specific gaps or weaknesses in 

services, infrastructures, or 

opportunities have been identified and 

will be addressed by the proposed 

project. 

2. A list of entities that will partner 

with the applicant to coordinate existing 

services or to provide additional 

services that promote successful 

student, family, and community results 

and outcomes. The applicant must 

describe how existing resources and 

services will be coordinated and 

integrated with new resources and 

services. 

3. A memorandum of understanding 

between the applicant and all partner 

entities, describing the role each partner 

will assume, the services or resources 

each one will provide, and the desired 

results and outcomes. 

4. A description of the organizational 

capacity of the applicant to provide and 

coordinate eligible services at a fullservice community school that will 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32447 

support increased student achievement. 

The description must include the 

applicant’s experience partnering with 

the target school(s) and other partner 

entities; examples of how the applicant 

has responded to challenges working 

with these schools and entities; lessons 

learned from similar work or previous 

community-school efforts, and a 

description of the existing or proposed 

infrastructure to support the 

implementation and sustainability of 

the full-service community school. 

Applicants must also describe their past 

experience (a) building relationships 

and community support to achieve 

results; and (b) collecting and using data 

for decision-making and continuous 

improvement. 

5. A comprehensive plan based on 

results-focused partnerships, as defined 

in this notice, that includes a 

description of well-aligned goals, 

services, activities, objectives, 

performance measures, and project 

results and outcomes. In addition, the 

plan must include the estimated total 

number of individuals to be served, 

disaggregated by the number of 

students, students’ family members, and 

community members, and the type and 

frequency of services to be provided to 

each group. 

6. A list and description of the eligible 

services to be provided or coordinated 

by the applicant and the partner 

entities; a description of the applicant’s 

approach to integrating new and 

existing programs and services with the 

school’s (or schools’) core instructional 

program; and identification of the 

intended results and outcomes. 

7. A description of how the applicant 

will use data to drive decision-making 

and measure success. This includes a 

description of the applicant’s plans to 

monitor and assess outcomes of the 

eligible services provided and 

coordinated by the FSCS project, as well 

as the number of individuals served, 

while complying with Federal, State, 

and other privacy laws and 

requirements. 

8. A description of the roles and 

responsibilities of a full-time FSCS 

coordinator and the proposed approach 

to ensuring that the FSCS coordinator 

engages in joint planning with the 

principal and key community 

stakeholders to guide the proposed fullservice community school. 

Eligible Applicants 

To be eligible for a grant under this 

competition, an applicant must be a 

consortium consisting of a local 

educational agency and one or more 

community-based organizations, 

nonprofit organizations, or other public 

or private entities. 

Cost-Sharing or Matching 

To be eligible for an award, a portion 

of the services provided by the 

applicant must be supported through 

non-Federal contributions, either in 

cash or in-kind donations. The 

applicant must propose the amount of 

cash or in-kind resources to be 

contributed for each year of the grant. 

Planning 

Interagency collaborative efforts are 

highly complex undertakings that 

require extensive planning and 

communication among partners and key 

stakeholders. Partnerships should be 

based on identified needs and organized 

around a set of mutually-defined results 

and outcomes. As a result, applicants 

under this program may devote funds 

received during the first year of the 

project period to comprehensive 

program planning, establishing resultsfocused partnerships, and capacity 

building. Funding received by grantees 

during the remainder of the project 

period must be devoted to program 

implementation. 

Definitions 

The Secretary uses the following 

definitions for this program. We may 

apply these definitions in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Community member means an 

individual who is not a student or a 

student’s family member, as defined in 

this notice, but who lives in the 

community served by the FSCS grant. 

Full-service community school means 

a public elementary or secondary school 

that works with its local educational 

agency and community-based 

organizations, nonprofit organizations, 

and other public or private entities to 

provide a coordinated and integrated set 

of comprehensive academic, social, and 

health services that respond to the 

needs of its students, students’ family 

members, and community members. In 

addition, a full-service community 

school promotes family engagement by 

bringing together many partners in order 

to offer a range of supports and 

opportunities for students, students’ 

family members, and community 

members. 

Full-service community school 

coordinator means an individual who 

works closely and plans jointly with the 

school’s principal to drive the 

development and implementation of the 

FSCS effort and who, in that capacity, 

facilitates the partnerships and 

coordination and integration of service 

delivery. 

Persistently lowest-achieving school 

means, as determined by the State under 

the School Improvement Grants 

program (pursuant to the final 

requirements for the School 

Improvement Grants program, 74 FR 

65618, published in the Federal 

Register on December 10, 2009)— 

(1) Any Title I school in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that— 

(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five 

percent of Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring or the lowest-achieving 

five Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring in the 

State, whichever number of schools is 

greater; or 

(ii) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years; and 

(2) Any secondary school that is 

eligible for, but does not receive, Title 

I funds that— 

(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five 

percent of secondary schools or the 

lowest-achieving five secondary schools 

in the State that are eligible for, but do 

not receive, Title I funds, whichever 

number of schools is greater; or 

(ii) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years. 

Results-focused partnership means a 

partnership between a full-service 

community school and one or more 

nonprofit organizations (including 

community-based organizations) that is 

based on identified needs and organized 

around a set of mutually defined results 

and outcomes for increasing student 

success and improving access to family 

and community services. 

School intervention model means one 

of the following three specific 

interventions described in the final 

requirements for the School 

Improvement Grants program, 74 FR 

65618, published in the Federal 

Register on December 10, 2009 and 

summarized as follows: 

(1) Turnaround model, which 

includes, among other actions, replacing 

the principal and rehiring no more than 

50 percent of the school’s staff, adopting 

a new governance structure, and 

implementing an instructional program 

that is research-based and vertically 

aligned from one grade to the next as 

well as aligned with a State’s academic 

standards. 

(2) Restart model, in which a local 

educational agency converts the school 

or closes and reopens it under the 

management of a charter school 

operator, a charter management 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32448 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

organization, or an education 

management organization that has been 

selected through a rigorous review 

process. 

(3) Transformation model, which 

addresses four specific areas critical to 

transforming persistently lowestachieving schools: (i) Replace the 

principal and take steps to increase 

teacher and school effectiveness; (ii) 

institute comprehensive instructional 

reforms; (iii) increase learning time and 

create community-oriented schools; (iv) 

provide operational flexibility and 

sustained support. 

Student means a child enrolled in a 

public elementary or secondary school 

served by the FSCS grant. 

Student’s family member means the 

student’s parents/guardians, siblings, 

and any other related individuals living 

in the same household as the student 

and not enrolled in the school served by 

the FSCS grant. 

Selection Criteria 

Final Selection Criteria 

The Secretary establishes the 

following selection criteria for 

evaluating an application under the 

FSCS 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, the 

application package, or both, we will 

announce the maximum possible points 

assigned to each criterion. 

(a) Quality of the Project Design. 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the design of the proposed 

project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

design of the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the extent to which 

the proposed project consists of a 

comprehensive plan that includes a 

description of— 

(i) The project objectives; 

(ii) The students, students’ family 

members, and community to be served, 

including information about the 

demographic characteristics and needs 

of the students, students’ family 

members, and other community 

members and the estimated number of 

individuals to be served; and 

(iii) The eligible services (as listed in 

the Absolute Priority described 

elsewhere in this notice) to be provided 

or coordinated by the applicant and its 

partner entities, how those services will 

meet the needs of students, students’ 

family members, and other community 

members, and the frequency with which 

those services will be provided to 

students, students’ family members, and 

community members. 

(b) Adequacy of Resources. 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

adequacy of resources for the proposed 

project. 

(2) In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(i) The adequacy of support, including 

facilities, equipment, supplies, and 

other resources to be provided by the 

applicant and consortium partners; 

(ii) The relevance and demonstrated 

commitment of each partner in the 

proposed project to the implementation 

and success of the project; and 

(iii) The extent to which costs are 

reasonable in relation to the number of 

persons to be served and services to be 

provided. 

(c) Quality of the Management Plan. 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the management plan for the 

proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

management plan for the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(i) The extent to which the proposed 

project consists of a comprehensive plan 

that includes a description of planning, 

coordination, management, and 

oversight of the eligible services (as 

listed in the Absolute Priority described 

elsewhere in this notice) to be provided 

at each school to be served, including 

the role of the school principal, the 

FSCS coordinator, partner entities, 

parents, and community members; 

(ii) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

FSCS coordinator and other key project 

personnel including prior performance 

of the applicant on similar or related 

efforts; and 

(iii) The extent to which the time 

commitments of the project director, the 

FSCS coordinator, and other key project 

personnel are appropriate and adequate 

to meet the objectives of the proposed 

project. 

(d) Quality of Project Services. 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the services to be provided by 

the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

project services, the Secretary considers 

the following: 

(i) The extent to which the services to 

be provided by the proposed project 

reflect up-to-date knowledge from 

research and effective practice; and 

(ii) The likelihood that the services to 

be provided by the proposed project 

will lead to improvements in the 

achievement of students as measured 

against rigorous academic standards. 

(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation. 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the evaluation to be 

conducted of the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

extent to which the proposed 

evaluation— 

(i) Sets out methods of evaluation that 

include the use of objective performance 

measures that are clearly related to the 

intended outcomes of the project and 

will produce quantitative and 

qualitative data to the extent possible; 

(ii) Will provide timely and valid 

information on the management, 

implementation, or efficiency of the 

project; and 

(iii) Will provide guidance on or 

strategies for replicating or testing the 

project intervention in multiple settings. 

Factors Applicants May Wish to 

Consider in Developing an Evaluation 

Plan. 

The quality of the evaluation plan is 

one of the selection criteria by which 

applications in this competition will be 

judged. A strong evaluation plan should 

be included in the application narrative 

and should be used, as appropriate, to 

shape the development of the project 

from the beginning of the project period. 

The plan should include benchmarks to 

monitor progress toward specific project 

objectives and also outcome measures to 

assess the impact on teaching and 

learning or other important outcomes 

for project participants. More 

specifically, the plan should identify the 

individual or organization that has 

agreed to serve as evaluator for the 

project and describe the qualifications 

of that evaluator. The plan should 

describe the evaluation design, 

indicating: (1) What types of data will 

be collected; (2) when various types of 

data will be collected; (3) what methods 

will be used; (4) what instruments will 

be developed and when; (5) how the 

data will be analyzed; (6) when reports 

of results and outcomes will be 

available; and (7) how the applicant will 

use the information collected through 

the evaluation to monitor progress of the 

funded project and to provide 

accountability information both about 

success at the initial site and about 

effective strategies for replication in 

other settings. Applicants are 

encouraged to devote an appropriate 

level of resources to project evaluation. 

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 these final priorities and one or more 

of these final requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32449 

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 final 

regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this final 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 final regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

final 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 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: June 3, 2010. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13775 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 2210–194] 

Appalachian Power Company; Notice 

of Application for Amendment of 

License and Soliciting Comments, 

Motions to Intervene, and Protests 

June 1, 2010. 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection: 

a. Type of Application: Non-project 

use of project lands and waters. 

b. Project Number: 2210–194. 

c. Date Filed: May 6, 2010. 

d. Applicant: Appalachian Power 

Company. 

e. Name of Project: Smith Mountain 

Lake Hydroelectric Project. 

f. Location: The project is located in 

Pittsylvania, Bedford, Franklin, and 

Roanoke Counties, Virginia. The 

proposed action would occur in Bedford 

County approximately 0.5 mile south of 

State Route 823. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a) 825(r). 

h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Elizabeth 

Parcell, Appalachian Power Company, 

996 Old Franklin Turnpike, Rocky 

Mount, VA 24151, phone: (540) 489– 

2540. 

i. FERC Contact: Any questions on 

this notice should be addressed to 

Christopher Yeakel at (202) 502–8132, 

or e-mail address: 

christopher.yeakel@ferc.gov. 

j. Deadline for filing comments and or 

motions: July 1, 2010. 

Comments, protests and interventions 

may be filed electronically via the 

Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 

on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ 

link. The Commission strongly 

encourages electronic filings. 

To paper-file, an original and eight 

copies should be mailed to: Secretary, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. Please include the project 

number (P–2210–194) on any comments 

or motions filed. 

The Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure require all interveners 

filing documents with the Commission 

to serve a copy of that document on 

each person whose name appears on the 

official service list for the project. 

Further, if an intervener files comments 

or documents with the Commission 

relating to the merits of an issue that 

may affect the responsibilities of a 

particular resource agency, they must 

also serve a copy of the document on 

that resource agency. A copy of any 

motion to intervene must also be served 

upon each representative of the 

Applicant specified in the particular 

application. 

k. Description of Request: The 

licensee proposes to permit Crystal 

Shores Yachting Community, LLC to 

reconstruct an existing 32-slip dock that 

was damaged during the winter. The 

replacement dock would be a covered 

fixed dock constructed of wood, 

arranged parallel to the shoreline, and 

would occupy the same footprint as the 

existing dock, 505.7 feet long and 48.4 

feet wide. The dock would be attached 

to the shoreline via the existing 

bulkhead. 

l. Locations of the Application: A 

copy of the application is available for 

inspection and reproduction at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 

2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling 

(202) 502–8371. This filing may also be 

viewed on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ 

link. Enter the docket number (P–2210) 

excluding the last three digits in the 

docket number field to access the 

document. You may also register online 

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 

related to this or other pending projects. 

For assistance, call 1–866–208–3376 or 

e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, 

for TTY, call (202) 502–8659. A copy is 

also available for inspection and 

reproduction at the address in item (h) 

above. 

m. Individuals desiring to be included 

on the Commission’s mailing list should 

so indicate by writing to the Secretary 

of the Commission. 

n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to 

Intervene—Anyone may submit 

comments, a protest, or a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

requirements of Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. 

In determining the appropriate action to 

take, the Commission will consider all 

protests or other comments filed, but 

only those who file a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

Commission’s Rules may become a 

party to the proceeding. Any comments, 

protests, or motions to intervene must 

be received on or before the specified 

comment date for the particular 

application. 

o. Filing and Service of Responsive 

Documents—Any filings must bear in 

all capital letters the title 

‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES