Download:
html
From: Hyler, James [
[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday,
May 03, 2007 3:33 PM
To: Potter, Rachel F.
Cc: Esters,
Lorenzo; Arrington, Angela; Goetz, Braden
Subject: FW: OMB comments on
smaller learning communities application (1810-0676)
Follow Up
Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Purple
Rachel: Please see below -- Braden Goetz's email --
OESE's answers to your questions about the 1810-0676 Smaller Learning
Communities grant application.
Additionally, OESE is circulating their NFP for
internal ED clearance, and -- based on public comments -- they have included a
few of what I believe to be relatively minor changes that I share below after
Braden's answers. The most significant of these is the first one,
which Braden includes in his answer to your first question
below.
As
Braden notes below, OESE is on a tight timeline and we look forward to receiving
clearance. Thanks! James
- The
Supporting Statement does a good job of outlining the rationale for replacing
the existing priority with a postsecondary/career (without remediation) goal.
Grantees would still be required to report on postsecondary outcomes,
but the career (wages) outcome no longer has a corresponding performance
measure. I understand the difficulty in collecting wage information, but
has ED considered other proxies for determining SLC's impact on career
outcomes? Or what about a measure focusing on remediation?
Response: We did consider other options, but concluded that enrollment in
postsecondary education should remain our focus because attaining a
postsecondary credential will have the greatest impact on employment and
earnings outcomes. Nearly all high
school graduates who do not pursue further learning after high school find some
type of employment simply out of necessity. It is not clear that high schools should
be given credit for this outcome.
Moreover, one of the studies financed by the 2004 National Assessment of
Vocational Education found that the only career and technical education (CTE)
"concentrators" who experienced earnings gains as a result of their
participation in CTE were those who enrolled in postsecondary education after
high school.
In response to public comments, however, we are proposing to collect data
on student enrollment in advanced training and registered
apprenticeships.
We agree that collecting data on the extent to which students are placed
in remedial courses would be valuable. During the first 6 months of the
technical assistance contract we will award in September, our contractor will be
researching the availability of postsecondary outcome data in each state,
including postsecondary enrollment, placement in remedial courses, second
semester retention, and second-year retention. Depending upon what we find, we are
interested in establishing an additional postsecondary indicator, probably on a
pilot basis with a subset of grantees, in the second or third year of the grant
period. We will submit a
revision to the collection once we have a better sense of our
plans.
- The application includes a placeholder for the due
date. What will the due date
be? How long will ED give
applicants to respond?
Response: Our goal is to
give applicants 60 days to respond, but we may have to reduce the time period to
45 days depending upon when the notice is cleared and published. At a minimum, applicants will have 45
days to respond.
1.
Revising the proposed performance indicator to include, in addition to student
enrollment in postsecondary education, enrollment in advanced training or
registered apprenticeships;
2. require applicants to set aside funds within their proposed
budgets to attend Department meetings in each year of the project period, rather
than in the first and second years only;
3.
revised requirement
for applicants to set aside funds to support participation of at least
two individuals from each high school included in an application in technical
assistance meetings hosted by the Department, instead of the original
requirement of five key staff attending;
4. revised original requirement "to
allow
an LEA to apply only on behalf of a school or schools that will not receive
funds through an SLC implementation grant that has a performance period that
extends beyond the current fiscal year" by deleting the "will not receive funds"
as that reference to school's receipt of funds was ambiguous and could be
interpreted in ways inconsistent with ED intent;
and
5. Reduced
the maximum number of schools an LEA may include in its application from ten to
eight, as ED agrees that managing as many as ten schools may be difficult.
Braden: Please see the OMB questions below from
Rachel Potter regarding your IC submission.
Please forward your responses to me and I will send
back to Rachel. Please don't hesitate to call if u have
questions.
Thanks! James
OMB has the
following comments on 1810-1676. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
- The
Supporting Statement does a good job of outlining the rationale for
replacing the existing priority with a postsecondary/career (without
remediation) goal. Grantees would still be required to report on
postsecondary outcomes, but the career (wages) outcome no longer has a
corresponding performance measure. I understand the difficulty in
collecting wage information, but has ED considered other proxies for
determining SLC's impact on career outcomes? Or what about a measure
focusing on remediation?
- The
application includes a placeholder for the due date. What will the due date be? How long will ED give applicants to
respond?
Rachel F. Potter
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs
Office of Management and
Budget
Tel: (202) 395-5887
Fax: (202) 395-6974
| File Type | text/html |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 0000-00-00 |