27892 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 111 / Thursday, June 11, 2009 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Striving Readers 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.371A. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

announces priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria under 

the Striving Readers program grant 

competition. The Assistant Secretary 

may use these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2009 

and later years. We take this action to 

support the implementation and 

evaluation of intensive, supplemental 

literacy interventions for struggling 

adolescent readers. 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are effective July 13, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marcia J. Kingman, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Room 3E106, Washington, DC 20202– 

6400. Telephone: (202) 401–0003 or by 

e-mail: Marcia.Kingman@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 purposes of 

the Striving Readers program are to raise 

the literacy levels of adolescent students 

in schools that are eligible for assistance 

under Title I, Part A of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

as amended (ESEA), and that enroll 

significant numbers of students reading 

below grade level and to build a strong, 

scientific research base for identifying 

and replicating strategies that improve 

adolescent literacy instruction. The 

program supports expanding the 

implementation of locally or regionally 

developed adolescent literacy 

initiatives, as well as the 

implementation of commercially 

published supplemental literacy 

interventions, for struggling readers. 

Additional information about the 

Striving Readers program can be found 

at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/ 

strivingreaders/index.html. 

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

Applicable Program Regulations: The 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

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

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

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria (NPP) for this 

competition in the Federal Register on 

April 8, 2009 (74 FR 15949–15954). 

That notice contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the particular priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. In addition to some minor 

editorial changes, there are several 

substantive differences between the NPP 

and this notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria (NFP). These changes are 

explained in the Analysis of Comments 

and Changes section elsewhere in this 

notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 21 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities. We did not receive any 

comments on the proposed 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the NFP since publication of 

the NPP follows. 

We group comments according to the 

priorities. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Priority 1—Supplemental Literacy 

Intervention for Struggling Readers in 

the Middle Grades 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that we require projects to 

implement a schoolwide adolescent 

literacy initiative in addition to offering 

struggling readers an intensive, 

supplemental literacy intervention. 

Through a schoolwide literacy 

intervention, teachers in all academic 

disciplines would teach literacy skills 

within the curriculum of their content 

area and all students would receive 

instruction in how to improve their 

literacy skills. 

Discussion: We agree that all 

secondary school students, including 

struggling readers, could benefit from a 

school-wide literacy initiative and that 

such initiatives are important in 

ensuring that all students graduate from 

high school with the literacy skills they 

will need to succeed in postsecondary 

education and careers. However, 

because a lesser amount of funds is 

available for new grants in FY 2009 as 

compared to previous years and what 

will be available in FY 2010, we have 

limited the focus of the priority to 

intensive, supplemental literacy 

interventions for struggling readers. In 

future competitions, the Department 

hopes to support projects that 

implement both schoolwide literacy 

initiatives for all students and intensive, 

supplemental literacy interventions for 

struggling readers. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we revise Priority 1 to require that 

the intensive, supplemental literacy 

intervention be aligned with the regular 

literacy instruction for all students in 

both content and pedagogy. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

intensive, supplemental intervention 

should complement and be consistent 

with the regular literacy instruction that 

all students in the school receive. We 

expect, however, that this will be a key 

consideration for each applicant as it 

reviews and selects the intervention that 

it will propose to implement in its 

project. For this reason, we do not 

believe it is necessary to revise the 

priority to make this a requirement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed the view that some developed 

interventions, such as those that may be 

purchased ‘‘off the shelf,’’ are not 

created to identify and build on 

individual students’ strengths or 

address their specific needs. In order to 

maximize the effectiveness of each 

intervention, they recommended that 

the priority be revised to require the use 

of highly skilled reading specialists who 

can vary instructional decisions 

according to individual student needs. 

Discussion: We agree that, to be most 

effective, interventions should have the 

capacity to identify and build on 

individual students’ strengths and 

address their individual needs because 

the cause of an adolescent’s difficulties 

in reading may differ significantly from 

student to student. A number of 

intensive, supplemental interventions 

for struggling readers do include the use 

of highly skilled reading specialists for 

these and other reasons, while other 

interventions address these issues 

through the use of other trained 

personnel or through other means. Since 

one of the selection criteria that peer 

reviewers will use to evaluate 

applications requires each applicant to 

provide research and other empirical 

evidence that demonstrate that the 

supplemental literacy intervention it 

proposes to implement is likely to be 

effective in improving the reading skills 

of struggling readers, we do not believe 

it is necessary to mandate the use of 

highly skilled reading specialists or 

establish other mandates with regard to 

the personnel who will be involved in 

delivering the intervention. 

In addition, although one of our 

requirements is that applicants 

implement a fully developed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 111 / Thursday, June 11, 2009 / Notices 27893 

intervention, we are not requiring that 

the intervention be one that can be 

bought ‘‘off the shelf.’’ We support the 

implementation of locally or regionally 

developed adolescent literacy 

interventions as well as commercially 

published adolescent literacy 

interventions. 

Consistent with the purposes of this 

program, however, we do not support an 

intervention that is in the research stage 

and has not yet been fully developed, 

and we do not support interventions 

that have already been evaluated 

through large-scale experimental 

evaluations unless the proposed 

evaluation of such an intervention 

would substantially increase knowledge 

about the effectiveness of the 

intervention among a population 

different than those studied in previous 

experimental evaluations. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we revise the 

priority to require that projects give 

priority to serving English language 

learners and language minority learners. 

Discussion: The struggling readers 

who will be served by the supplemental 

literacy intervention will be identified 

through the use of a nationally normed, 

reliable, and valid screening reading 

assessment. We expect that English 

language learners will comprise a 

significant proportion of the students 

who will be served by Striving Readers 

projects because these students are 

overrepresented among struggling 

readers. The 2007 National Assessment 

of Educational Progress reading 

assessment found that 71 percent of 

eighth-grade English language learners 

enrolled in public schools scored below 

the Basic achievement level (National 

Center for Education Statistics, 2007). 

Accordingly, we do not believe it is 

necessary to add this type of 

requirement to the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested we clarify in the priority the 

meaning of the word ‘‘supplemental’’ in 

the term ‘‘supplemental literacy 

intervention.’’ 

Discussion: We use the word 

‘‘supplemental’’ to describe how the 

literacy intervention will fit into a 

student’s daily school schedule. 

Struggling students will enroll in a 

supplemental intervention as an add-on 

or appendix to their regular course 

schedule of mathematics, science, social 

studies, and English. A supplemental 

literacy intervention would most likely 

appear as an elective in the student’s 

schedule. 

We also recognize that, in some 

Response to Intervention (RTI) models, 

the term ‘‘supplemental’’ may be used to 

describe particular types of 

interventions that are implemented at 

different tiers of the model. 

‘‘Supplemental,’’ for example, may be 

the adjective used to describe 

interventions that are implemented in 

the third tier of an RTI model. However, 

our use of the term ‘‘supplemental’’ is 

not intended to refer to any particular 

tier or class of interventions in an RTI 

model. We use it only to indicate that 

the intervention must be delivered as a 

supplement to the regular academic 

instruction that students would 

ordinarily receive. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the priority be 

amended to include high school 

students, as well as students in the 

middle grades, arguing that the need for 

intensive, supplemental literacy 

interventions is as great in grades 9 

through 12 as in grades 6 through 8. The 

commenters also noted that State needs 

for improving instruction in the middle 

grades and at the high school level vary 

and that the priority should give 

applicants the option of using Striving 

Readers funds in whatever secondary 

school grades the needs are the greatest. 

Discussion: We agree that applicants 

should be given the option of using 

Striving Readers funds at whatever 

secondary grade level would most 

benefit the State’s students. 

Changes: Priority 1 has been changed 

to include students in grades 6 through 

12. To reflect this change in the range 

of students, we have made conforming 

changes to paragraph (i) of Priority 2; 

paragraph (b) of the requirement 

regarding eligible schools; and 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition 

of eligible school. 

Priority 2—Rigorous and Independent 

Evaluation 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged us to set a higher minimum 

threshold for the number of schools 

included in each project. We had 

proposed to require projects to include 

a minimum of five schools in order to 

meet evaluation needs. The commenter 

suggested that setting a higher minimum 

would help define these literacy 

projects as State initiatives and would 

add credibility to the evaluation results. 

Discussion: We encourage applicants 

to serve as many schools as possible; 

however, we do not believe that a higher 

minimum number of schools is needed. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that we reduce the number of struggling 

readers (75) per school that we require 

as the minimum number of students 

needed to support a rigorous, 

experimental evaluation. 

Discussion: We proposed the 

requirement of a minimum of 75 

struggling readers per school per year to 

ensure that the process of student-level 

random assignment yields treatment 

and control group samples that are 

comparable. Student-level random 

assignment in schools with fewer than 

75 eligible struggling readers is more 

likely to result in treatment and control 

groups that are not comparable. 

However, we have revised Priority 1 to 

give applicants the option of including 

students in grades 9 through 12, as well 

as in grades 6 through 8. Because high 

schools typically have significantly 

larger enrollments than middle or junior 

high schools, this change may enable 

more applicants to identify 5 or more 

schools that have 75 or more struggling 

readers. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

screening students for placement in 

supplemental interventions through the 

administration of a nationally normed 

assessment would require careful 

planning and coordination by the 

evaluator and school administrators. 

The commenter expressed the view that 

the timing of the screening would most 

likely require that screening tests be 

administered in the school year prior to 

the year of full program 

implementation. The commenter asked 

about the timing of grant awards. 

Discussion: We will make awards by 

September 30, 2009, and we expect the 

supplementary literacy intervention to 

be fully implemented in all schools 

included in a project by the start of 

school year 2010–11. The time period 

that precedes full program 

implementation will be used to prepare 

for evaluation and implementation. The 

Department has set aside funds for 

technical assistance to evaluators. 

Project directors and evaluators will 

cooperate with technical assistance 

providers by completing a series of 

plans for screening students for 

eligibility, randomizing students or 

schools, collecting data, providing 

professional development, and planning 

for other crucial processes identified by 

the technical assistance provider. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters proposed 

that we require evaluations to include 

the direct collection of implementation 

data, data on the level of student 

participation, and an assessment of the 

quality of professional development. In 

addition, one of the commenters noted 

that evaluations need to employ a wider 

set of statistical tools such as sampling, 

staggered starting time, and the use of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2

27894 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 111 / Thursday, June 11, 2009 / Notices 

more effective measures and that 

evaluations need to provide for the 

evaluation of fidelity of instruction for 

the control group. The commenter also 

suggested that a local literacy specialist 

be involved in collecting data for the 

evaluation. 

Discussion: The Institute of Education 

Sciences will review all of the 

evaluation plans to help ensure that the 

impact reports produced by evaluators 

meet rigorous standards for scientific 

evidence and will consider these 

comments in the course of that review. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter asked about 

the availability of funds to cover 

administrative costs incurred by the 

State educational agency in 

implementing and evaluating the 

supplemental literacy interventions. 

Discussion: Grant funds are available 

to cover reasonable and necessary 

expenses incurred in carrying out the 

project, which may include State 

administrative costs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: We specified in the NPP 

that to be considered eligible an 

applicant must include in its evaluation 

design a sample size that includes no 

fewer than 750 struggling readers 

enrolled in no fewer than 5 schools in 

each year of the evaluation. After the 

publication of the NPP, we realized that 

applicants would benefit from a 

clarification of the required sample size. 

Changes: Although, we have not made 

a substantive change in the definition of 

the sample size as it appeared in 

paragraph (h) of Priority 2, we have 

added two sentences that expand on the 

definition by including examples of an 

adequate sample size. 

Requirements and Definitions—Eligible 

Schools 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: We specified in the NPP 

that to be considered an eligible school 

under this program, an applicant must 

include in its application, among other 

things, assessment data for the 2007–08 

and 2008–09 school years that 

demonstrate that a minimum of 75 

students in the grades to be served by 

the supplemental literacy intervention 

were struggling readers. After the NPP 

was published, we realized that the 

2008–09 State assessment data may not 

be available in time for applicants to 

include these data in their applications. 

We have modified this requirement to 

provide that an applicant must include 

the 2007–08 and 2008–09 data or data 

for the most recent two years for which 

data are available. We have made a 

similar change in the definition of 

eligible schools. 

Changes: The requirement for eligible 

schools and the definition of eligible 

schools have been changed to provide 

that an applicant must include in its 

application the 2007–08 and 2008–09 

assessment data or data for the two most 

recent years for which data are 

available. 

Requirements and Selection Criteria— 

Supplemental Literacy Intervention 

Logic Model and Assessment 

Requirements; Project Design 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: We proposed in the NPP 

that to be considered for an award under 

this competition, an applicant must 

include in its application evidence 

regarding the screening, diagnostic, and 

outcome reading assessments of student 

literacy skills that the applicant would 

use to inform the identification of 

struggling readers and the content of 

their instruction. We also proposed in 

the Project Design criterion that the 

Secretary would evaluate applications 

in part on the extent to which the 

proposed project using reading 

assessments for screening struggling 

readers and for diagnosing individual 

student needs. Although we identified 

the purposes of two of the three kinds 

of assessments (screening and 

diagnostic) in both of these sections, we 

did not specify the purpose of the 

outcome reading assessment. To correct 

this omission, we have modified this 

requirement and the Project Design 

selection criterion to indicate that the 

purpose of the outcome reading 

assessment is to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the supplemental 

literacy intervention. 

Changes: We have modified 

paragraph (c) of the Supplemental 

Literacy Intervention Logic Model and 

Assessment Requirements and 

paragraph (4) of the Project Design 

selection criterion to indicate that the 

purpose of the outcome reading 

assessment is to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the supplemental 

literacy intervention. 

Final Priorities 

Priority 1—Supplemental Literacy 

Intervention for Struggling Readers in 

Middle and High School Grades 

To be eligible for consideration under 

this priority, an applicant must propose 

to implement a supplemental literacy 

intervention during the second, third, 

and fourth years of the project period 

that— 

(a) Will be provided to struggling 

readers (as defined elsewhere in this 

notice) in any of grades 6 through 12 in 

no fewer than 5 eligible schools; 

(b) Supplements the regular English 

language arts instruction students 

receive; 

(c) Provides instruction exclusively or 

primarily during the regular school day, 

but that may be augmented by afterschool instruction; 

(d) Is at least one full school year in 

duration; 

(e) Includes the use of a nationally 

normed, reliable, and valid screening 

reading assessment (as defined 

elsewhere in this notice) to identify 

struggling readers; 

(f) Includes the use of a nationally 

normed, reliable, and valid diagnostic 

reading assessment (as defined 

elsewhere in this notice) to pinpoint 

students’ instructional needs; 

(g) Uses a research-based literacy 

model that is flexible enough to meet 

the varied needs of struggling readers, is 

intense enough to accelerate the 

development of literacy skills, and 

includes, at a minimum, the following 

practices: 

(1) Explicit vocabulary instruction. 

(2) Direct and explicit comprehension 

strategy instruction. 

(3) Opportunities for extended 

discussion of text meaning and 

interpretation. 

(4) Instruction in reading foundational 

skills, such as decoding and fluency (for 

students who need to be taught these 

skills). 

(5) Course content intended to 

improve student motivation and 

engagement in literacy learning. 

(6) Instruction in writing; and 

(h) Has been implemented in at least 

one school in the United States during 

the preceding five years. 

Priority 2—Rigorous and Independent 

Evaluation 

To be eligible for consideration under 

this priority, an applicant must propose 

to support a rigorous experimental 

evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

supplemental literacy intervention it 

implements under Priority 1 

(Supplemental Literacy Intervention for 

Struggling Readers in Middle and High 

School Grades) during the second, third, 

and fourth years of the project that 

will— 

(a) Be carried out by an independent 

evaluator whose role in the project is 

limited solely to conducting the 

evaluation; 

(b) Use a random lottery to assign 

eligible struggling readers in each 

school in the project either to the 

supplemental literacy intervention or to 

other activities in which they would 

otherwise participate, such as a study 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 111 / Thursday, June 11, 2009 / Notices 27895 

hall, electives, or another activity that 

does not involve supplemental literacy 

instruction; 

(c) Include rigorous and appropriate 

procedures to monitor the integrity of 

the random assignment of students, 

minimize crossover and contamination 

between the treatment and control 

groups, and monitor, document, and, 

where possible, minimize student 

attrition from the sample; 

(d) Measure outcomes of the 

supplemental literacy intervention 

using, at a minimum: 

(1) The reading/language arts 

assessment used by the State to 

determine whether a school has made 

adequate yearly progress under part A of 

title I of the ESEA. 

(2) A nationally normed, reliable, and 

valid outcome reading assessment (as 

defined elsewhere in this notice) that is 

closely aligned with the literacy skills 

targeted by the supplemental literacy 

intervention; 

(e) Use rigorous statistical models to 

analyze the impact of the supplemental 

literacy intervention on student 

achievement, including the use of 

students’ prior-year test scores as a 

covariate in the model to improve 

statistical precision and also including 

appropriate statistical techniques for 

taking into account the clustering of 

students within schools; 

(f) Include an analysis of the fidelity 

of implementation of the critical 

features of the supplemental literacy 

intervention based on data collected by 

the evaluator; 

(g) Include measures designed to 

ensure that the evaluator obtains high 

response rates to all data collections; 

(h) Include no fewer than 750 

struggling readers per year in all of the 

schools and grades served by the 

supplemental literacy intervention. To 

meet the eligibility requirements, an 

applicant with 5 schools would need an 

average of 150 struggling readers in all 

grades served by the intervention per 

school. An applicant with 10 schools 

would also meet the eligibility 

requirements if each school had 75 

struggling readers in all grades served 

by the intervention; and 

(i) Be designed to detect not less than 

a 0.10 standard deviation impact of the 

supplemental literacy intervention on 

student achievement, which represents 

approximately 3 to 5 months’ growth in 

reading achievement on standardized 

assessments for the typical student in 

grades 6 through 12. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Requirements 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

establishes the following requirements 

for this program. We may apply these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Eligible Applicants: To be considered 

for an award under this competition, an 

applicant must be a State educational 

agency (SEA) that applies on behalf of 

itself and one or more LEAs that have 

governing authority over the eligible 

schools (as defined elsewhere in this 

notice) that the applicant proposes to 

include in the project. 

Eligible schools: To be considered for 

an award under this competition, an 

eligible applicant must include in its 

application the following with respect 

to each school it proposes to include in 

the project: 

(a) The school’s name, location, and 

enrollment disaggregated by grade level 

for the 2008–09 school year. 

(b) State or other assessment data that 

demonstrate that, during each of the 

2007–08 and 2008–09 school years (or 

the most recent two years for which data 

are available), a minimum of 75 

students in the grades to be served by 

the supplemental literacy intervention 

were struggling readers (as defined 

elsewhere in this notice). 

(c) Evidence that the school is eligible 

to receive funds under part A of title I 

of the ESEA, pursuant to section 1113 

of the ESEA. 

(d) A letter from the superintendent of 

the LEA that has governing authority 

over the school and the principal of the 

school in which they— 

(1) Agree to implement the proposed 

supplemental literacy intervention 

during the 2010–11, 2011–12, and 

2012–13 school years, adhering strictly 

to the design of the intervention; 

(2) Agree to allow eligible struggling 

readers to be randomly assigned (by 

lottery) to either the supplemental 

literacy intervention curriculum or to 

other activities in which they would 

otherwise participate, such as a study 

hall, electives, or other activity that does 

not involve supplemental reading 

instruction; and 

(3) Agree to participate in the 

evaluation, including in the evaluator’s 

collection of data on student outcomes 

and program implementation. 

Supplemental Literacy Intervention 

Logic Model and Assessment 

Requirements: To be considered for an 

award under this competition, an 

applicant must include in its 

application the following evidence with 

respect to the supplemental literacy 

intervention it proposes to implement 

and evaluate: 

(a) Evidence that the supplemental 

literacy intervention has been 

implemented in at least one school in 

the United States during the preceding 

five years. 

(b) A one-page logic model that shows 

a clear, logical pathway leading from the 

project inputs and activities, through 

classroom instruction, to the expected 

impacts on students. 

(c) The nationally normed, reliable, 

and valid screening, diagnostic, and 

outcome reading assessments (as these 

reading assessments are defined 

elsewhere in this notice) of student 

literacy skills that the applicant would 

use to inform the identification of 

struggling readers and the content of 

their instruction, and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the supplemental 

literacy intervention. 

Definitions 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

establishes several definitions that will 

help clarify the population of students 

eligible for services under this 

competition and the tools to be used to 

identify those eligible students. We may 

apply one or more of these definitions 

in any year in which this program is in 

effect. 

Diagnostic reading assessment means 

an assessment that is— 

(a) Valid, reliable, and based on 

scientifically based reading research; 

and 

(b) Used for the purpose of— 

(1) Identifying a child’s specific areas 

of strength and weakness; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2

27896 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 111 / Thursday, June 11, 2009 / Notices 

(2) Determining any difficulties that a 

child may have in learning to read and 

the potential cause of such difficulties; 

and 

(3) Helping to determine possible 

reading intervention strategies and 

related special needs. 

Eligible school means a school that— 

(a) Is eligible to receive funds under 

part A of title I of the ESEA, pursuant 

to section 1113 of the ESEA; 

(b) Serves students in any of grades 6 

through 12; and 

(c) Enrolled not fewer than 75 

students in the grades that will be 

served by the supplemental literacy 

intervention during the 2007–08 and 

2008–09 school years (or the two most 

recent years for which data are 

available) whose reading skills were two 

or more years below grade level. 

Outcome reading assessment means 

an assessment that is— 

(a) Valid, reliable, and nationally 

normed; 

(b) Closely aligned with the literacy 

skills targeted by the supplemental 

literacy intervention; and 

(c) Used for the purpose of— 

(1) Measuring student reading 

achievement; and 

(2) Evaluating the effectiveness of the 

supplemental literacy intervention. 

Screening reading assessment means 

an assessment that is— 

(a) Valid, reliable, and based on 

scientifically based reading research; 

and 

(b) A brief procedure designed as a 

first step in identifying children who 

may be at high risk for delayed 

development or academic failure and in 

need of further diagnosis of their need 

for special services or additional literacy 

instruction. 

Struggling readers means readers 

who— 

(a) Have only partial mastery of the 

prerequisite knowledge and skills that 

are fundamental for reading at grade 

level; and 

(b) Are reading two or more grades 

below grade level when measured on an 

initial screening reading assessment. 

Selection Criteria 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

establishes the following selection 

criteria for evaluating an application 

under this program. We may apply one 

or more of these criteria in any year in 

which this program is in effect. In the 

notice inviting applications or the 

application package or both we will 

announce the maximum possible points 

assigned to each criterion. 

(a) Significance. 

(1) The potential contribution of the 

project to the development and 

advancement of theory, research, and 

practices in the field of adolescent 

literacy, including— 

(i) In the case of a supplemental 

literacy intervention that has not been 

evaluated through a large-scale 

experimental evaluation, the extent to 

which other empirical evidence (such as 

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

intervention on student achievement) 

demonstrates that the intervention is 

likely to be effective in improving the 

reading skills of struggling readers; or 

(ii) In the case of a supplemental 

literacy intervention that has been 

evaluated by one or more large-scale 

experimental evaluations, the extent to 

which those evaluations provide 

evidence that demonstrates that the 

intervention is likely to be effective in 

improving the reading skills of 

struggling readers and that the proposed 

evaluation would increase substantially 

knowledge in the field of adolescent 

literacy, such as by studying the 

effectiveness of the intervention among 

a different population than studied in 

previous experimental evaluations or by 

using an improved evaluation design 

(such as one that has a marked increase 

in statistical power). 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

supplemental literacy intervention can 

be replicated in a variety of settings 

without significant modifications. 

(b) Project Design. 

(1) The extent to which the 

supplemental literacy intervention uses 

a research-based literacy model that is 

flexible enough to meet the varied needs 

of struggling readers, is intense enough 

to accelerate the development of literacy 

skills, and includes, at a minimum, the 

following practices: 

(i) Explicit vocabulary instruction; 

(ii) Direct and explicit comprehension 

strategy instruction; 

(iii) Opportunities for extended 

discussion of text meaning and 

interpretation; 

(iv) Instruction in reading 

foundational skills, such as decoding 

and fluency (for students who need to 

be taught these skills); 

(v) Course content designed to 

improve student motivation and 

engagement in literacy learning; and 

(vi) Instruction in writing. 

(2) The extent to which the 

professional development model 

proposed for the project has sufficient 

intensity (in terms of the number of 

hours or days). 

(3) The extent to which the provider 

of the professional development 

identified in the application has the 

appropriate experience and knowledge 

to provide high-quality professional 

development. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project uses nationally normed, valid, 

and reliable screening reading 

assessments for screening struggling 

readers, diagnostic reading assessments 

for identifying individual student needs, 

and outcome assessments for evaluating 

the effectiveness of the supplemental 

literacy intervention. 

(c) Project Evaluation. 

(1) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan includes data from the reading/ 

English language arts assessment used 

by the State to measure adequate yearly 

progress under part A of title I of the 

ESEA and from a second, evaluatoradministered, nationally normed, 

reliable, and valid measure of student 

reading achievement that is closely 

aligned with the goals of the 

intervention. 

(2) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan describes an objective and 

appropriate method for the independent 

evaluator to conduct random 

assignment of students to treatment and 

control conditions; rigorous and 

appropriate methods for monitoring the 

integrity of random assignment and for 

minimizing crossover and 

contamination between the treatment 

and control groups; and rigorous and 

appropriate methods for monitoring, 

documenting, and, where possible, 

minimizing, student attrition from the 

sample. 

(3) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan includes a clear, well-documented, 

and rigorous method for measuring the 

fidelity of implementation of the critical 

features of the intervention. 

(4) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan describes rigorous statistical 

procedures for the analysis of the data 

that will be collected, including: 

(i) A clear discussion of the 

relationship between hypotheses, 

measures, and independent and 

dependent variables. 

(ii) Appropriate statistical techniques 

for taking into account the clustering of 

students within schools. 

(iii) The use of data on students’ 

achievement in prior years as a 

covariate to improve statistical 

precision. 

(iv) In the case of qualitative data 

analyses, the use of appropriate and 

rigorous methods to index, summarize, 

and interpret data. 

(5) The extent to which the 

independent evaluator identified in the 

application has experience in 

conducting scientifically based reading 

research and in designing and 

conducting experimental evaluations. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 111 / Thursday, June 11, 2009 / Notices 27897 

(6) The extent to which the proposed 

budget allocates sufficient funds to carry 

out a high-quality evaluation of the 

proposed project. 

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 priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we invite 

applications through a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice 

has been reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 

of the order, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 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. 

We summarized the costs and benefits 

of this regulatory action in the notice of 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive Order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

Order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Delegation of Authority: The Secretary 

of Education has delegated authority to 

Joseph C. Conaty, Director, Academic 

Improvement and Teacher Quality 

Programs for the Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education, to perform 

the functions of the Assistant Secretary 

for Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

Dated: June 5, 2009. 

Joseph P. Conaty, 

Director, Academic Improvement and 

Teacher Quality Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–13754 Filed 6–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education; Overview Information; 

Striving Readers; Notice Inviting 

Applications for New Awards for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2009 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.371A. 

Dates: 

Applications Available: June 11, 2009. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent To 

Apply: July 1, 2009. 

Date of Pre-Application Meeting: The 

application package on the Striving 

Readers Web site at http://www.ed.gov/ 

programs/strivingreaders/index.html 

includes specific dates and times for 

technical assistance workshops that will 

instruct applicants in completing the 

application package. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: August 10, 2009. 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Program: The purposes of 

the Striving Readers program are to raise 

the literacy levels of adolescent students 

in schools that are eligible for assistance 

under Title I, Part A of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

as amended (ESEA), and that enroll 

significant numbers of students reading 

below grade level and to build a strong, 

scientific research base for identifying 

and replicating strategies that improve 

adolescent literacy instruction. 

Priorities: These priorities are from 

the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for this program, published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2009 and 

any subsequent year in which we make 

awards from the list of unfunded 

applicants from this competition, these 

priorities are absolute priorities. Under 

34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only 

applications that meet these priorities. 

These priorities are: 

Absolute Priority 1—Supplemental 

Literacy Intervention for Struggling 

Readers in Middle and High School 

Grades 

To be eligible for consideration under 

this priority, an applicant must propose 

to implement a supplemental literacy 

intervention during the second, third, 

and fourth years of the project period 

that— 

(a) Will be provided to struggling 

readers (as defined elsewhere in this 

notice) in any of grades 6 through 12 in 

no fewer than 5 eligible schools; 

(b) Supplements the regular English 

language arts instruction students 

receive; 

(c) Provides instruction exclusively or 

primarily during the regular school day, 

but that may be augmented by afterschool instruction; 

(d) Is at least one full school year in 

duration; 

(e) Includes the use of a nationally 

normed, reliable, and valid screening 

reading assessment (as defined 

elsewhere in this notice) to identify 

struggling readers; 

(f) Includes the use of a nationally 

normed, reliable, and valid diagnostic 

reading assessment (as defined 

elsewhere in this notice) to pinpoint 

students’ instructional needs; 

(g) Uses a research-based literacy 

model that is flexible enough to meet 

the varied needs of struggling readers, is 

intense enough to accelerate the 

development of literacy skills, and 

includes, at a minimum, the following 

practices: 

(1) Explicit vocabulary instruction. 

(2) Direct and explicit comprehension 

strategy instruction. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2