65570 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education and the Office of Vocational

and Adult Education; Smaller Learning

Communities Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities,

application requirements, and selection

criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for

Elementary and Secondary Education

and the Assistant Secretary for

Vocational and Adult Education

announce final priorities, application

requirements, and selection criteria for

the Smaller Learning Communities

(SLC) program for fiscal year (FY) 2001.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities,

application requirements and selection

criteria are effective January 18, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information on the program and to

download an application, you may

access the SLC program web site at

www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SLCP/. If you

have questions pertaining to the

application, you may send an e-mail to

smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov. If

you need further assistance and need to

speak with someone in the SLC

program, you may contact Andrew

Abrams, (202) 260–7430, 330 C Street,

SW., MES Bldg., Room 5512,

Washington, DC 20202. You may also

contact Diane Austin (202) 260–1280,

400 Maryland Ave., SW., Room 5C149,

Washington, DC 20202–6200. Requests

for applications may also be sent by fax

to (202) 260–8969.

Individuals who use the

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternative

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact persons listed

above.

Note: This notice of final priorities,

application requirements, and selection

criteria does not solicit applications. A notice

inviting applications under this competition

is published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register. The notice inviting

applications will specify the deadline date by

which applications for an award must be

mailed or hand-delivered to the Department.

Background

Research suggests that the positive

outcomes associated with smaller

schools stem from the schools’ ability to

create close, personal environments in

which teachers can work

collaboratively, with each other and

with a small set of students, to challenge

students and support learning. A variety

of structures and complementary

strategies are thought to provide

important supports for smaller learning

environments; some data suggest these

approaches offer substantial advantages

to both teachers and students (Ziegler

1993; Caroll 1994).

The Smaller Learning Communities

program is authorized under section

10105 of part A of title X of the

Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965 (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 8005).

Title X, Part A authorizes the Secretary

to support nationally significant

programs and projects to: (1) Improve

the quality of education; (2) assist all

students in meeting challenging State

content standards; and (3) contribute to

achieving National Education Goals.

The purpose of the Smaller Learning

Communities program is to support the

planning, implementation, or expansion

of small, safe, and successful learning

environments in large public high

schools through competitive grants to

local educational agencies (LEAs). LEAs

may apply on behalf of large high

schools including large high schools

funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA schools). For the purposes of this

program, a large high school is defined

as a school that includes grades 11 and

12 and enrolls at least 1,000 students in

grades 9 and above.

Methods for recasting large schools as

a set of smaller learning communities

are included in the Conference Report

for the Consolidated Appropriations

Act, 2000 [Pub. L. 106–113, H.R.

Conference Report No. 106–479, at 1240

(1999)]. Such restructuring methods

include establishing small learning

clusters, ‘‘houses,’’ career academies,

magnet programs, or schools-within-aschool. Strategies that complement a

restructured large high school include

block scheduling, freshman transition

activities, advisory or adult advocate

systems, academic teaming, multi-year

groupings, and other innovations

designed to create a more personalized

high school experience for students and

thus, improve student achievement.

In FY 2000, Congress appropriated

$45 million, of which the Department

awarded $42.3 million in support of 149

grants to local educational agencies. The

Secretary awarded 84 one-year planning

grants and 65 three-year implementation

grants. A total of 349 schools, serving

over 450,000 students, benefited during

the first year of the program. The

Secretary reserved the remaining

$2,250,000 to fund national leadership

activities.

Congress appropriated $125 million

for this program in FY 2001. The

Administration is not requesting funds

for the Smaller Learning Communities

program in FY 2002. Rather, the

Administration is proposing a new

Choice and Innovation State Grants

program under which States and LEAs

would have greater flexibility in using

funds for activities, such as the creation

of smaller learning communities, that

will support educational reform and

improvement.

Prospective applicants are encouraged

to review the Program Web site for nonregulatory guidance, information about

current grantees, and to review

successful applications at: www.ed.gov/

offices/OESE/SLCP. Written questions

may be submitted through the Internet

at: smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov.

Public Comments: The Department

published a notice of proposed

priorities, application requirements, and

selection criteria for this competition in

the Federal Register on July 19, 2001,

(66 FR 37871–37876).

In response to the Assistant

Secretaries’ invitation to comment, five

parties submitted comments on the

proposed priorities, application

requirements, and selection criteria. An

analysis of the comments and of the

changes in the priorities, application

requirements, and selection criteria

since publication of the July 19, 2001,

notice follows.

We discuss substantive issues under

the priority, requirement, or criterion to

which they pertain. Generally, we do

not address technical changes, minor

changes, and suggested changes the law

does not authorize the Assistant

Secretaries to make under the applicable

statutory authority.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

Competitive Priorities

Comment: A commenter suggested

that giving competitive preference to

existing Smaller Learning Communities

planning grantees is unfair to schools

that have had to progress through the

planning process on their own, without

additional federal funds to do so.

Discussion: We agree that current

Smaller Learning Communities

planning grantees should not receive a

competitive priority when they apply

for implementation grants, based solely

on their status as a current planning

grantee.

Changes: This notice of final

priorities, application requirements, and

selection criteria does not include the

proposed competitive priority for

current planning grantees.

Comment: A commenter proposed

that schools already in the process of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2001 / Notices 65571

institutionalizing reform strategies

aimed toward the creation of smaller

learning communities should receive

priority points.

Discussion: The Program is designed

to help schools plan, implement, or

expand smaller learning communities.

Schools that are already in the

implementation stage should be in a

position to submit a strong application

for an implementation grant. The

Department does not believe a priority

for these schools is necessary.

Changes: None.

Comment: A commenter suggested

that we expand the proposed priority for

low-performing schools to include

schools that may have groups of lowperforming students with respect to

gaps among diverse groups of students.

Discussion: The intent of this program

is to improve student achievement for

all students; therefore, the Assistant

Secretaries believe that the competitive

priority, as written, provides the

appropriate level of targeting for lowperforming schools under this program.

Changes: None.

Comment: A commenter

recommended that we give competitive

priority points to schools based on the

size of their student body over 1,000

students.

Discussion: At this time there is not

sufficient research evidence to support

priority points for high schools that

exceed a specific size.

Changes: None.

Application Requirements

Comment: A commenter disagreed

with eliminating planning grants from

the SLC competition stating that smaller

learning communities are a new concept

for many schools and local educational

agencies (LEAs), and that LEAs need

time to research best practices and plan

before implementing.

Discussion: We are in agreement that

planning grants should remain a part of

the Smaller Learning Communities

program. LEAs and their cooperating

schools need time to decide on the best

strategies to use at their sites, to develop

support for those strategies among all

stakeholders, and to plan for the

implementation of those strategies.

Changes: The Department will invite

applications for planning grants as well

as for implementation grants in the FY

2001 competition.

Comment: A commenter suggested

that the Department allow consortia of

LEAs with ten or more districts to apply

under a single grant application.

Discussion: The Department proposed

that LEAs may include a maximum of

ten schools within one application

submitted by an LEA or consortium of

LEAs. This proposal was based on a

maximum award per application of

$250,000 for planning grants and

$2,500,000 for implementation grants.

LEAs or consortia of LEAs may submit

multiple applications requesting funds

for up to ten schools within each

application. We believe that an LEA or

consortium applying for a single grant

on behalf of more than ten schools will

not have sufficient funds to carry out

their proposed tasks, based on the

funding scale.

Changes: None.

Selection Criteria

Comment: A commenter suggested

that the program recognize efforts that

support nationally recognized issues

such as the disparity in performance for

minority students, teacher shortages,

and varying levels of teacher

preparedness.

Discussion: The Smaller Learning

Communities program statute focuses

on increasing student academic

achievement through the creation of

smaller learning environments, as a

strategy in and of itself. Many schools,

particularly low-performing schools, are

likely to exhibit the problems identified

by the commenter, and individual

applicants are encouraged to address

these problems in their applications for

funding.

Changes: None.

General Comments

Comment: A commenter proposed

that applicants be required to address

State content and performance

standards as well as the role of the

district in implementing the Smaller

Learning Communities program.

Discussion: In accordance with

section 10105(a)7 of the Program statute,

the Department requires that applicants

describe how the goals and objectives of

the activities for which they are

requesting funding are geared to

meeting high State content standards

and performance standards. Also, under

section 10105(10), the application must

include a description of the

administrative and managerial

relationship between the local

educational agency and the smaller

learning community or communities,

including how such agency will

demonstrate a commitment to the

continuity of the smaller learning

community or communities.

Changes: None.

Comment: A commenter suggested

that the Department encourage adult

education and career education as a

resource for low-performing schools as

well as partnerships between secondary

and adult programs.

Discussion: While we agree that

grantees should have a variety of

strategies from which to choose, the

focus of this program is to provide

resources for LEAs that have large high

schools. Schools have the flexibility to

focus on career-specific curricula if that

is what they choose to do.

Changes: None.

Comment: A commenter proposed

that reducing school violence be an

explicit program goal.

Discussion: We agree that creating

smaller high schools holds great

potential for improving school safety,

and encourage applicants to include

reducing school violence as a goal of

their grant. In the selection criteria for

implementation grants, incidents of

violence and disciplinary actions are

included among the factors peer

reviewers will consider under the

criterion of need for the project, and

designing an effective method for

describing progress toward the

implementation of safe and successful

smaller learning communities is

included among the factors under the

criterion for quality of the project

evaluation.

Changes: None.

Competitive Priority

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), the

Secretary gives a competitive priority to

applications that request funding to

support smaller learning communities

in low-performing high schools that

meet all other eligibility requirements

for the competition. Applicants will

receive up to five additional points

based on the proportion of participating

schools included in the application that

are identified as low-performing. These

points are in addition to any points the

applicant earns under the selection

criteria of the program. Low-performing

schools can be identified by local and

State educational agencies using the

criteria in Title I, Part A, section 1116(c)

of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, which identifies for

improvement any Title I school that has

not made continuous and sustained

progress over two years. In addition, for

the purposes of this program, States and

LEAs that have their own established

criteria for identifying low-performing

schools may use those criteria to

provide evidence for the competitive

priority. Applicants must specify the

method used to identify schools as lowperforming.

Application Requirements

The Secretary announces the

following application requirements for

the Smaller Learning Communities

program. These are in addition to the

65572 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2001 / Notices

content that all Smaller Learning

Communities grant applicants must

include in their applications as required

by the program statute under section

10105(a) of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act. A discussion

of each requirement follows:

A. Proof of Eligibility

To be considered for funding, LEAs

must include the name(s) of the eligible

school(s) and the number of students

enrolled in each school. Enrollment

must be based upon data from the

current school year or data from the

most recently completed school year.

LEAs applying on behalf of schools that

are being constructed and do not have

an active student enrollment at the time

of application are not eligible under this

program.

B. Types and Ranges of Awards

The Secretary will award both

planning and implementation grants

under this year’s competition.

Applicants pursuing planning grants

must not yet have developed a viable

plan for creating smaller learning

communities. To apply for

implementation funds, applicants must

be prepared either to implement a new

smaller learning community program

within each targeted high school, or to

expand an existing smaller learning

community program.

For a one-year planning grant, LEAs

may receive, on behalf of a single

school, $25,000 to $50,000 per project.

LEAs applying on behalf of a group of

eligible schools may receive up to

$250,000 per planning grant. As this

program is designed to finance direct

student services and local redesign and

improvement efforts, districts should

stay within the minimum and maximum

school allocations when determining

their group award request. Therefore, in

order to ensure sufficient planning

funds at the local level, LEAs may not

request funds for more than 10 schools

under a single application.

The chart below provides eligible

ranges for awards under the planning

grant:

Number of schools

in LEA application Award ranges

One School ........... $25,000–$50,000

Two Schools ......... $50,000–$100,000

Three Schools ...... $75,000–$150,000

Four Schools ........ $100,000–$200,000

Five Schools ......... $125,000–$250,000

Six Schools ........... $150,000–$250,000

Seven Schools ...... $175,000–$250,000

Eight Schools ........ $200,000–$250,000

Nine Schools ........ $225,000–$250,000

Ten Schools .......... $250,000

To ensure maximum flexibility and

competitiveness, LEAs may submit

multiple applications targeting distinct

schools within each funding category.

However, LEAs may not apply on behalf

of a single high school in more than one

application. Schools that received

support through planning grants in the

2000 competition are not eligible to

receive additional planning grants

under the 2001 competition.

For a three-year implementation

grant, LEAs may receive, on behalf of a

single school, $250,000 to $500,000 per

project. LEAs applying on behalf of a

group of eligible schools may request up

to $2,500,000 per implementation grant.

As this program is designed to finance

direct student services and local

redesign and improvement efforts,

districts should stay within the

minimum and maximum school

allocations when determining their

group award request. Therefore, in order

to ensure sufficient implementation

funds at the local level, LEAs may not

request funds for more than 10 schools

under a single application.

The chart below provides eligible

ranges for awards under the

implementation grant:

Number of schools

in LEA application Award ranges

One School ........... $250,000–$500,000

Two Schools ......... $500,000–$1,000,000

Three Schools ...... $750,000–$1,500,000

Four Schools ........ $1,000,000–$2,000,000

Five Schools ......... $1,250,000–$2,500,000

Six Schools ........... $1,500,000–$2,500,000

Seven Schools ...... $1,750,000–$2,500,000

Eight Schools ........ $2,000,000–$2,500,000

Nine Schools ........ $2,250,000–$2,500,000

Ten Schools .......... $2,500,000

To ensure maximum flexibility and

competitiveness, LEAs may submit

multiple applications targeting distinct

schools within each application.

However, LEAs may not apply on behalf

of a single high school in more than one

application. Schools that benefited from

FY 2000 implementation awards are not

eligible to receive additional support

under this competition. The total

amount an LEA may receive, in any

fiscal year under this program, may not

exceed $5 million.

C. Project Period

Planning grants will fund activities up

to 12 months. Implementation grants

will fund activities up to 36 months.

Note: Applicants for multi-year awards

must provide detailed, yearly budget

information for the total grant period

requested. Understanding the unique

complexities of implementing a program that

affects a school’s organization, physical

design, curriculum, instruction, and

preparation of teachers, the Secretary

anticipates awarding the entire grant amount

for implementation projects at the time of the

initial award. This will provide the applicant

with the capacity to effectively carry out the

comprehensive long-term activities involved

in model development, documentation,

evaluation, and dissemination of products

and practices developed through the federal

grant. Uninterrupted access to funds will

depend upon a grantee’s close adherence to

its yearly budget projections as well as

submission of an annual performance report,

showing adequate progress, during the threeyear period of the grant.

D. Page Limits

Applicants should limit the

application narrative to no more than 25

double-spaced pages using the following

standards:

(1) A page is 8.5′′ x 11′′, on one side

only;

(2) The page limit includes all

narrative, titles, headings, footnotes,

quotations, references, and captions, as

well as charts, tables, figures, and

graphs. Charts, tables, figures, and

graphs may be single-spaced;

(3) The font should be 11-point or

larger;

(4) The page limit does not apply to

the Application for Federal Education

Assistance Form (424); the SLC cover

page; the Budget Information Form (ED

524) and attached itemization of costs;

any other required or supplementary

application forms and attachments to

those forms; the assurances and

certifications; the table of contents; the

one-page abstract (which should

precede the narrative section and

provide enrollment data for each

eligible high school and a short

description of the project);

documentation of the extent to which

the applicant meets the competitive

priority for the competition; or

appendices. Appendices used should

relate directly to the selection criteria

and project activities. Pages should be

numbered.

E. Reporting Requirements and

Expected Outcomes

For both planning and

implementation grants, applicants must

describe their:

(a) Project objectives;

(b) Measures of student outcomes and

performance; and

(c) Indicators to gauge progress

toward meeting project objectives.

In addition, the Secretary requires

implementation grantees to collect data

that address the performance indicators

for this program in order to produce

annual performance reports. These

reports will document the grantees’

yearly progress toward expected project

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2001 / Notices 65573

objectives. The Secretary will use these

reports to measure the success of each

grantee’s project, as well as the effects

of the Department of Education’s

Smaller Learning Communities program

nationwide. A copy of the Smaller

Learning Communities Annual

Performance Report for implementation

grantees is included in the application

package. Planning grantees will be

required to submit a performance report,

including their implementation plan, at

the end of their project.

Applicants must submit initial

baseline data for each student outcome

measure described below. Baseline data

should come from either the current or

previous school year. Applicants must

report this data as an appendix. Upon

notification of award, grantees will be

required to submit student outcome data

for three years preceding the baseline

year.

Required student outcome measures

include:

I. Student Achievement

(a) The number of students scoring at

each proficiency level for each subject

measured by a State assessment (district

assessments may substitute where State

assessments do not yet exist) in grades

9–12;

(b) The number of students taking the

SAT and ACT, and their average scores;

II. Academic Rigor and Student

Retention

(a) The number of students who take

courses for which they receive both high

school and college credit;

(b) The number of students

completing high school;

(c) The overall reported average daily

attendance for October.

III. School Climate

(a) The number of incidents of student

violence, alcohol and drug use;

(b) The number of expulsions,

suspensions, or other serious

disciplinary actions; and

(c) The number of students involved

in extracurricular activities.

Note: Percentages may be used in place of

number of students where appropriate.

F. Definitions

(a) Definitions in EDGAR—Definitions

defined in 34 CFR 77.1 are applicable to

this program.

(b) Other definitions—The following

definitions also apply to this program:

BIA school is a school operated or

supported by the Bureau of Indian

Affairs.

A group of schools is two or more

schools that each meet the definition of

a large high school.

A large high school is an entity that

includes grades 11 and 12 and has an

enrollment of 1,000 or more students in

grades 9 and above.

A low-performing school is a school

identified by local and State educational

agencies under section 1116(c) of the

Elementary and Secondary Education

Act. Under current law, any Title I

school that has not made ‘‘adequate

yearly progress’’ over two years is

identified by its LEA for improvement.

In addition, for the purpose of this

program, States and LEAs that have

established criteria for identifying such

schools may use their criteria to meet

the competitive priority preference.

Selection Criteria

Under the Smaller Learning

Communities program competition, a

peer review panel will make a careful

evaluation of applications. Each panelist

will evaluate the applications against

the criteria listed below. The panel

results are advisory in nature and not

binding on the Secretary. The Secretary

will use the following selection criteria

and associated point values in

evaluating applications for planning and

implementation grants:

(a) The maximum score for all of these

criteria is 100 points. Applicants that

meet the competitive priority eligibility

requirements may receive up to 105

points.

(b) The maximum score for each

criterion is indicated in parentheses.

Within each criterion, the Secretary

evaluates each factor equally.

The Secretary will base final funding

decisions on the panel review ranking of

applications. Geographic balance is no

longer a consideration in funding

decisions.

Planning Grants

(a) Need for the project. (25 points) In

determining the need for the proposed

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(1) The description and

documentation of the targeted schools’

need for the services provided and the

need for the activities carried out by the

proposed project consistent with the

educational problems generally

associated with the impersonal nature of

large high schools. Need may consider

factors such as: enrollment; attendance

and drop-out rates; incidents of

violence, drug and alcohol use, and

disciplinary actions; percentage of

students who pass graduation exams or

State assessments (local assessments

may be substituted in states that do not

yet administer State assessments), enroll

in advanced level courses, register for

college entrance exams, and matriculate

into postsecondary institutions or

training; percentage of students who

have limited English proficiency, who

are migrant youth, who come from lowincome families, or are otherwise

disadvantaged; the applicant’s fiscal

capacity to fund programs described

here without Federal assistance; or other

local need factors as described by the

applicant.

(2) The extent to which specific gaps

or weaknesses [including the nature and

magnitude of those gaps and

weaknesses] in services, infrastructure,

or opportunities have been identified by

the applicant and will be addressed by

the proposed project.

(b) Foundation for planning. (20

points) In determining the merit of the

proposed process for developing a

viable implementation plan, the

Secretary considers the extent to which

the application:

(1) Involves and documents the

support of stakeholders both within the

school community (e.g. administrators,

staff, students, and parents) and within

the greater community (e.g.

representatives of institutions of higher

education, employers, workforce

investment boards, youth councils, and

community-based organizations).

(2) Provides clear evidence of teacher

involvement and support, particularly

of those teachers who will be directly

affected by the implementation plan.

(3) Indicates the collection and use of

data that describe school needs.

(4) Documents the use of researchbased findings in the proposed

restructuring of the learning

environment.

(c) Feasibility and soundness of the

planning process. (45 points) In

determining the feasibility and

soundness of the planning process as a

means of producing a viable

implementation plan, the Secretary

considers the extent to which the

planned activities:

(1) Are based on a commitment to

meeting the needs of all students and

ensuring the successful completion of

their education or career goals.

(2) Will lead to the establishment of

smaller learning communities having

clear goals and objectives connected to

a mission statement and to student

needs.

(3) Follow a timeline appropriate to

the goals and objectives to be achieved.

(4) Involve key personnel who are

qualified to undertake project activities.

(d) Commitment of resources to the

planning effort. (10 points) In

determining the commitment of

resources to the planning effort the

Secretary considers the extent to which:

65574 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2001 / Notices

(1) The requested budget adequately

supports the proposed activities.

(2) State, local, and other Federal

funds will be used to support the

development of the plan.

(3) The administrative and managerial

relationship between the LEA, the

school(s), and the smaller learning

community(ies) demonstrates a

commitment to the concept of a smaller

learning community and the planning

process.

Implementation Grants

(a) Need for the project. (25 points) In

determining the need for the proposed

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(1) The description and

documentation of the targeted schools’

need for the services provided and the

need for the activities carried out by the

proposed project consistent with the

educational problems generally

associated with the impersonal nature of

large high schools. Need may consider

factors such as: enrollment; attendance

and drop-out rates; incidents of

violence, drug and alcohol use, and

disciplinary actions; percentage of

students who pass graduation exams or

State assessments (local assessments

may be substituted in states that do not

yet administer State assessments), enroll

in advanced level courses, register for

college entrance exams, and matriculate

into postsecondary institutions or

training; percentage of students who

have limited English proficiency, who

are migrant youth, who come from lowincome families, or are otherwise

disadvantaged; the applicant’s fiscal

capacity to fund programs described

here without Federal assistance; or other

local need factors as described by the

applicant.

(2) The extent to which specific gaps

or weaknesses (including the nature and

magnitude of those gaps and

weaknesses) in services, infrastructure,

or opportunities have been identified by

the applicant and will be addressed by

the proposed project.

(b) Foundation for implementation.

(15 points) In determining the quality of

the implementation plan, the Secretary

considers the extent to which the

application:

(1) Documents the involvement and

support of stakeholders both within the

school community (e.g., administrators,

staff, students, and parents) and within

the greater community (e.g.

representatives of institutions of higher

education, employers, workforce

investment boards, youth councils, and

community-based organizations).

(2) Provides clear evidence of teacher

involvement and support, particularly

of those teachers who will be directly

affected by the implementation plan.

(3) Uses research-based findings and

outside technical assistance in the

proposed restructuring and in

determining appropriate strategy(ies) to

be implemented.

(c) Feasibility and soundness of the

plan. (35 points) In determining the

quality of the proposed project, the

Secretary considers the extent to which:

(1) The goals and objectives of the

smaller learning communities

correspond to identified needs and are

written in terms of student outcomes,

including academic achievement.

(2) The curriculum and instructional

practices within each smaller learning

community are aligned with its goals,

theme, and emphases, where they exist.

(3) The proposed smaller learning

communities intervention(s) will benefit

all students in the school and enable

them to reach challenging State content

standards and performance standards,

ensuring their successful completion of

high school and preparation for

postsecondary education or a career.

(4) Professional development

activities offered to teachers, noninstructional school staff, and others are

aligned with smaller learning

community goals.

(5) The applicant provides a rationale

for—

• Identifying grade levels and ages of

students to be served by the smaller

learning community(ies); and

• The methods and timetable for

placing students in the smaller learning

community(ies). Note: Students are not

to be placed according to ability,

performance, or any other measure of

merit. The Department expects that all

students will benefit from the SLC

intervention.

(6) The management plan appears

capable of achieving the objectives of

the proposed project on time and within

budget, including:

• The past experience, training, and

clearly defined responsibilities of

personnel who have key roles in

carrying out the project; and

• The timelines and milestones for

accomplishing project tasks.

(d) Quality of the project evaluation.

(15 points) In determining the quality of

the evaluation, the Secretary considers

whether the applicant has designed an

effective method for:

(1) Collecting student performance

data, including:

• Required data for annual

performance reports,

• Baseline data (to be included as an

Appendix; refer to ‘‘Reporting

Requirements and Expected

Outcomes’’), and data for three years

preceding the baseline (the latter due

upon award); and

• A process for monitoring and

understanding changes in student

outcomes for continuous improvement.

(2) Describing, on an annual basis, the

progress towards implementing smaller

learning communities and

implementing related program changes

undertaken to make the smaller learning

communities safe and successful. This

information will be reported in the

Annual Performance Report.

(3) Disseminating best practices and

products designed under this grant.

(e) Adequacy of resources. (10 points)

In determining the adequacy of

resources for the proposed project, the

Secretary considers the extent to which:

(1) State, local, foundation, and other

Federal funds will be used to support

the implementation of the plan.

(2) The applicant will limit

equipment, administrative costs, and

other purchases in order to maximize

the amount spent on delivery of services

to students.

(3) The applicant demonstrates a

commitment to sustain the project

beyond the period covered by the

Federal grant.

Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs

This program is subject to the

requirements of Executive Order 12372

(Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs) and the regulations in 34 CFR

part 79.

The objective of the Executive order is

to foster an intergovernmental

partnership and to strengthen

federalism by relying on State and local

processes for State and local

government coordination and review of

proposed Federal financial assistance.

Applicants must contact the

appropriate State Single Point of

Contact to find out about, and to comply

with, the State’s process under

Executive Order 12372. Applicants

proposing to perform activities in more

than one State should immediately

contact the Single Point of Contact for

each of those States and follow the

procedures established in each State

under the Executive Order.

If you want to know the name and

address of any State Single Point of

Contact (SPOC), see the latest list

official SPOC list on the OMB Web site

of the Office of Management and Budget

at the following address: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants.

In States that have not established a

process or chosen a program for review,

State, area-wide, regional, and local

entities may submit comments directly

to the Department.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2001 / Notices 65575

Any State Process Recommendation

and other comments submitted by a

State Single Point of Contact and any

comments from State, area-wide,

regional, and local entities must be

mailed or hand-delivered by the date

indicated in this notice to the following

address: The Secretary, E.O. 12372–

CFDA #84.215L, U.S. Department of

Education, Room 7E200, 400 Maryland

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202–

0125.

We will determine proof of mailing on

the same basis as we determine proof of

mailing for applications (see 34 CFR

75.102). Recommendations or comments

may be hand-delivered until 4:30 p.m.

(Washington, DC time) on the date

indicated in this notice. Please Note

That the Above Address Is Not the Same

Address as the One to Which the

Applicant Submits Its Completed

Application. Do not Send Applications

to the Above Address.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this document, as well

as all other Department of Education

documents published in the Federal

Register, in text or Adobe Portable

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet

at the following site: www.ed.gov/

legislation/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://access.gpo.gov/nara/

index.html

(Catalogue of Federal Assistance Number:

84.215L Smaller Learning Communities

program)

Dated: December 14, 2001.

Susan B. Neuman,

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and

Secondary Education.

Carol D’Amico,

Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult

Education.

[FR Doc. 01–31273 Filed 12–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No. 84.215L]

Smaller Learning Communities

Program

ACTION: Notice inviting applications for

new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2001.

Purpose of Program: The Smaller

Learning Communities program will

support the planning, implementation

or expansion of small, safe, and

successful learning environments in

large public high schools to help ensure

that all students graduate with the

knowledge and skills necessary to make

successful transitions to college and

careers. These grants are authorized by

title X, part A, section 10105 of the

Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965 (ESEA)(20 U.S.C. 8005).

Eligible Applicants: Local educational

agencies (LEAs), applying on behalf of

large high schools, or schools funded by

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA

schools), are eligible to apply. For

purposes of this program, a large high

school is defined as a school that

includes grades 11 and 12 and enrolls

at least 1,000 students in grades 9 and

above.

Applications Available: December 19,

2001.

Deadline for Transmittal of

Applications: February 19, 2002.

Deadline for Intergovernmental

Review: April 18, 2002.

Estimated Available Funds:

$96,700,000.

Types and Ranges of Awards: The

Secretary will award both planning

grants and implementation grants under

this notice. LEAs may apply on behalf

of one or more eligible schools. For a

one-year planning grant, an LEA may

receive, on behalf of a single school,

$25,000 to $50,000 per project. LEAs

applying on behalf of a group of eligible

schools may receive funds up to

$250,000 per planning grant. For a

three-year implementation grant, an

LEA may receive, on behalf of a single

school, $250,000 to $500,000 per

project. LEAs applying on behalf of a

group of eligible schools may receive

funds up to $2,500,000 per

implementation grant. LEAs may submit

multiple applications targeting up to ten

distinct schools under a single

application. However, an LEA may not

apply on behalf of an eligible high

school in more than one application.

Schools that benefited from FY 2000

implementation awards are not eligible

to receive additional implementation

support under this competition. Schools

that benefited from FY 2000 planning

awards are not eligible to receive

additional planning support under this

competition, but may apply for an

implementation grant. The total amount

an LEA may receive through any

combination of awards, in any fiscal

year of this program, may not exceed $5

million.

Note: The size of awards will be based on

a number of factors. These factors include the

scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the

proposed program; the size of the population

to be served; and the recommended range of

awards indicated in the application.

Estimated Number of Awards: The

Secretary anticipates making

approximately 190 new planning grant

awards and approximately 90 new

implementation awards under this

competition.

Note: The Department of Education is not

bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Planning grants will

fund activities up to 12 months.

Implementation grants will fund

activities up to 36 months.

Note: Applicants for multi-year awards

must provide detailed, yearly budget

information for the total grant period

requested. Understanding the unique

complexities of implementing a program that

affects a school’s organization, physical

design, curriculum, instruction, and

preparation of teachers, the Secretary

anticipates awarding the entire grant amount

for implementation projects at the time of the

initial award. This will provide the applicant

with the capacity to effectively carry out the

comprehensive long-term activities involved

in model development, documentation,

evaluation, and dissemination of products

and practices developed through the federal

grant. Uninterrupted access to funds will

depend upon a grantee’s close adherence to

its yearly budget projections as well as

submission of an annual performance report,

showing adequate progress, during the threeyear period of the grant.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in

34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85,

86, 97, 98, and 99; and (b) the

regulations in the notice of final

priorities, application requirements, and

selection criteria for FY 2001 as

published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register.

Competitive Priority—Low-Performing

Schools

This competition gives a competitive

priority to projects that meet the priority

in the Notice of the Final Priorities for

this program, which is published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information on the program and to

download an application, you may

access the SLC program web site at