TO: PEP Grant Applicants

FROM: Artie Kamiya

SUBJECT: New Proposed PEP Grant Priorities

Background: This document outlines a series of new proposed Carol M. White PEP Grant priorities and requirements. Please note that these new priorities and requirements will necessitate:

  • A much higher level of involvement by school districts to complete the grant application,
  • A variety of signed assurances by your Central Office, and
  • A greater level of student assessment on the part of PE teachers.
  • There is one new absolute priority, two new competitive priorities, and nine new requirements.

For a Complete Copy of the New Proposed PEP Priorities, please see –http://www2.ed.gov/programs/whitephysed/applicant.html, under “Federal Register Notices.”

(A) Proposed Absolute Priority: Under this proposed priority, an applicant would be required to develop, expand, or improve its physical education program and address its State’s physical education standards by undertaking the following activities:

(1) instruction in healthy eating habits and good nutrition and
(2) physical fitness activities that must include at least one of the following: (a) fitness education and assessment to help students understand, improve, or maintain their physical well-being; (b) instruction in a variety of motor skills and physical activities designed to enhance the physical, mental, and social or emotional development of every student; (c) development of, and instruction in, cognitive concepts about motor skills and physical fitness that support a lifelong healthy lifestyle; (d) opportunities to develop positive social and cooperative skills through physical activity participation; or (e) opportunities for professional development for teachers of physical education to stay abreast of the latest research, issues, and trends in the field of physical education.

(B) Proposed Competitive Preference 1 — Collection of Body Mass Index Measurement. Grantees that receive funds under this priority would be required to provide parents with the choice to have their child opt out of this assessment as part of the development and implementation of their BMI measurement practice, and to inform parents of this choice.

(C) Proposed Competitive Preference – 2 — Partnerships Between Applicants and Supporting Community Entities. We propose giving a competitive preference priority to an applicant that includes in its application an agreement that details the participation of required partners, as defined in this notice. For an LEA applicant, we propose that this partnership agreement must include: (1) the LEA; (2) at least one CBO; (3) a local public health entity, as defined in this notice; (4) the LEA’s food service or child nutrition director; and (5) the head of the local government, as defined in this notice.

(D) Proposed Requirement 1 – Modules 1-4 School Health Index. We propose that applicants be required to complete the physical activity and nutrition questions in Modules 1-4 of the CDC’s SHI self-assessment tool and to develop project goals and plans that address the identified needs.

(E) Proposed Requirement 2 –Nutrition- and Physical Activity-Related Policies. Research also shows that policy interventions and environmental changes can promote desirable behaviors and discourage negative behaviors.

(F) Proposed Requirement 3 – Linkage with Local Wellness Policies.
We propose that applicants that are participating in a program authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 must describe in their applications their school district’s established local wellness policy and how the proposed PEP project will align with and support, complement, and enhance the implementation of the applicant’s local wellness policy.

(G) Proposed Requirement 4 –Linkages with Federal, State, and Local Initiatives. We propose that applicants and PEP-funding projects must complement, rather than duplicate, existing, ongoing or new efforts whose goals and objectives are to promote physical activity and healthy eating or help students meet their State standards for physical education.

(H) Proposed Requirement 5 –Updates to Physical Education and Nutrition Instruction Curricula. We propose that applicants that plan to use grant-related funds, including Federal and non-Federal matching funds, to create, update, or enhance their physical education or nutrition education curricula be required to use the Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) and Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT).

(I) Proposed Requirement 6 –Equipment Purchases. We propose that purchases of equipment with PEP funds or related to grant activities (including equipment purchased with funds offered to meet the program’s matching requirement) must be aligned with the curricular components of the applicant’s physical education and nutrition program.

(J) Proposed Requirement 7 –Increasing Transparency and Accountability. We propose that grantees create or use existing reporting mechanisms to provide information on students’ progress, in the aggregate, on the key program indicators.

(K) Proposed Requirement 8 –Participation in a National Evaluation. The applicant must provide documentation of its commitment to participate in the U.S. Department of Education’s evaluation. An LEA applicant must include a letter from the research office or research board approving its participation in the evaluation (if approval is needed), and a letter from the Authorized Representative agreeing to participate in the evaluation.

(L) Proposed Requirement 9 -Required Performance Measures and Data Collection Methodology. Grantees would be required to collect and report data on three GPRA measures using uniform data collection methods.

  • Measure One would assess physical activity levels: The number of students that engage in 60 minutes of daily physical activity. Grantees would be required to use pedometers for students in grades K-12 and an additional 3-Day Physical Activity Recall (3DPAR) instrument to collect data on students in grades 5-12.
  • Measure Two would focus on student fitness levels: The number of students who achieve age-appropriate cardiovascular fitness levels. Grantees would be required to use the 20-meter shuttle run to assess cardiovascular fitness in middle and high school students.
  • Measure Three would require grantees to measure the percentage of students served by the grant who consumed fruit two or more times per day and vegetables three or more times per day. Programs serving high school students would be required to use the nutrition-related questions from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey to determine the number of students who meet these goals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s