[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34202-34227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14391]



[[Page 34201]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 114

June 15, 2015

Part II





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





34 CFR Subtitle A





Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria; 
Charter Schools Program Grants to State Educational Agencies; 
Applications for New Awards; Final Rule and Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 34202]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Subtitle A

[Docket ID ED-2014-OII-0019]


Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria; Charter Schools Program Grants to State Educational Agencies

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.282A

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
under the Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Educational 
Agencies (SEAs). The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of 
these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for 
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions and selection 
criteria are effective July 15, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Meeley, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202-
5970. Telephone: (202) 453-6818 or by email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Assistant Deputy Secretary 
for Innovation and Improvement announces the final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for CSP Grants to 
SEAs. The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of these 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for 
competitions in FY 2015 and later years. We take this action in order 
to support the development of high-quality charter schools throughout 
the Nation by strengthening several components of the CSP Grants to 
SEAs program, including accountability for grantees, accountability and 
oversight for authorized public chartering agencies in a State, and 
support for educationally disadvantaged students.
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: This 
regulatory action announces four priorities, four requirements, four 
definitions, and nine selection criteria that may be used for CSP 
Grants to SEAs competitions in FY 2015 and later years. This regulatory 
action's purpose is to achieve three main goals.
    The first goal is to ensure that CSP funds are directed toward the 
creation of high-quality charter schools. For example, we are creating 
a selection criterion to ask applicants to explain how charter schools 
fit into the State's broader education reform strategy. In addition, 
the selection criteria request information from the SEA regarding how 
it will manage and report on project performance.
    The second goal is to strengthen public accountability and 
oversight for authorized public chartering agencies (also referred to 
as authorizers). The priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria collectively provide incentives for SEAs to 
implement CSP requirements, as well as State law and policies, in a 
manner that encourages authorized public chartering agencies to focus 
on school quality through rigorous and transparent charter approval 
processes. For example, Priority 1--Periodic Review and Evaluation and 
Priority 2--Charter School Oversight give priority to SEAs that take 
steps to improve public accountability and oversight for charter 
schools within the State, including by holding authorized public 
chartering agencies accountable for the quality of the charter schools 
in their portfolios.
    The third goal is to support and improve academic outcomes for 
educationally disadvantaged students. Our commitment to equitable 
outcomes for all students, continued growth of high-quality charter 
schools, and addressing ongoing concerns about educationally 
disadvantaged students' access to and performance in charter schools, 
compel the Department to encourage a continued focus on students at the 
greatest risk of academic failure. A critical component of serving all 
students, including educationally disadvantaged students, is 
consideration of student body diversity, including racial, ethnic, and 
socioeconomic diversity. For example, the selection criteria encourage 
applicants to meaningfully incorporate student body diversity into 
charter school models and practices and ask applicants to describe 
specific actions they would take to support educationally disadvantaged 
students through charter schools.
    In addition to the three goals outlined above, we believe this 
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria (NFP or notice) streamlines the CSP application process. For 
example, selection criterion (f) Dissemination of Information and Best 
Practices combines two statutory criteria that have been used 
separately in previous competitions, asking applicants to describe 
their plans to disseminate best or promising practices of charter 
schools to each local educational agency (LEA) in the State and to 
describe their dissemination subgrant awards processes, thereby 
decreasing the burden on applicants. Additional discussion regarding 
the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
can be found in the Public Comment section of this document.
    Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of 
this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs, which we believe 
will be minimal. This action will not impose cost-bearing requirements 
on participating SEAs apart from those related to preparing an 
application for a CSP grant and would strengthen accountability for the 
use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department awards 
CSP grants to SEAs that are most capable of expanding the number of 
high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students. Please 
refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this NFP for a more detailed 
discussion of costs and benefits.
    Purposes of Program: The purpose of the CSP is to increase national 
understanding of the charter school model by:
    (1) Providing financial assistance for the planning, program 
design, and initial implementation of charter schools;
    (2) Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the 
effects on students, student achievement, student growth, staff, and 
parents;
    (3) Expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available 
to students across the Nation; and
    (4) Encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools 
for facilities financing in an amount more nearly commensurate to the 
amount the States have typically provided for traditional public 
schools.
    The purpose of the CSP Grants to SEAs is to enable SEAs to provide 
financial assistance, through subgrants to eligible applicants, for the 
planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools 
and for the dissemination of information about successful charter 
schools, including practices that existing charter schools have 
demonstrated are successful.

[[Page 34203]]

    Program Authority: The CSP is authorized under Title V, Part B, 
Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7221-7221j); and the Consolidated and Further 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (FY 2015 Appropriations Act), 
Public Law 113-235.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for this program in the Federal 
Register on November 19, 2014 (NPP) (79 FR 68812). That NPP contained 
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
    The Analysis of Comments and Changes section in this NFP describes 
the differences between the priorities, requirements, and definitions 
we proposed in the NPP and these final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 26 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria.
    We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not 
address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not 
address comments that raise concerns not directly related to the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

Priorities

Priority 1--Periodic Review and Evaluation

    Comment: We received several general comments regarding Priority 1. 
One commenter expressed support for the priority. Another commenter 
recommended that we revise the language of Priority 1 to reflect 
language in the FY 2015 Appropriations Act that requires each SEA to 
provide an assurance that authorizers in the State use increases in 
student academic achievement as one of the most important factors, as 
opposed to the most important factor, when determining whether to renew 
or revoke a school's charter. Another commenter suggested that we 
designate this priority as a minimum requirement for applicants rather 
than a priority that the Department may or may not utilize in any 
particular competition year. Finally, several commenters suggested that 
there is overlap between Priority 1 and the other three priorities.
    Discussion: We agree that the priorities, requirements, definitions 
and selection criteria should be consistent with the FY 2015 
Appropriations Act, which was enacted after publication of the NPP in 
the Federal Register. Accordingly, we have modified Priority 2--Charter 
School Oversight and selection criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized 
Public Chartering Agencies to reflect the language in the FY 2015 
Appropriations Act. We decline, however, to make any additional changes 
to Priority 1.
    Regarding the comment that Priority 1 should be a minimum 
requirement, we agree with the commenter that it is important for 
authorizers to conduct periodic reviews to evaluate how well their 
charter schools are performing. This priority is derived largely from a 
priority in the CSP authorizing statute (20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)(2)), and we 
believe that it is appropriate to retain it as a priority in this NFP.
    Finally, we note that each priority can be used independently in 
any given competition. We believe that the overlapping elements across 
some of the priorities emphasize critical factors and provide the 
Department with flexibility to use or not use a particular priority in 
any given year.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that Priority 1 diminishes 
the ability of an authorized public chartering agency (authorizer) to 
tailor charter contracts and performance standards in accordance with 
the needs of the charter school and its students. The commenter also 
suggested that charter schools would act responsibly without this 
priority. Similarly, one commenter stated that Priority 1 removes local 
control of a charter school. Finally, one commenter asserted that the 
priority implies that an authorizer will conduct a review only once 
every five years at the time of charter renewal, and suggested that 
this will weaken authorizer oversight.
    Discussion: This priority is based on section 5202(e)(2) of the 
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)(2)), which requires the Department to give 
priority to SEAs in States that provide for periodic review and 
evaluation of a charter school by its authorizer at least once every 
five years. In addition, we disagree that the priority will diminish an 
authorizer's ability to tailor charter contracts or performance 
standards to a specific charter school. Rather, with this priority, we 
can reward States that provide for periodic review and evaluation of 
each charter school by the authorizer, at a minimum, once every five 
years. Furthermore, while the review provides an opportunity for the 
authorizer to take appropriate action or impose meaningful consequences 
on the school for failing to meet certain performance standards, it 
does not prevent the authorizer from determining a more tailored 
approach under specific circumstances.
    Finally, we note that the priority is designed to strengthen 
authorizer oversight. In specific instances, certain State laws allow 
charters to be awarded for a term of up to 15 years before being 
evaluated for renewal. In such circumstances, this priority is designed 
to promote more frequent reviews and evaluations. An SEA in a State 
that requires authorizers to conduct reviews and evaluations more 
frequently than every five years will not be penalized.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the language of Priority 1 
is unclear and some recommended that we delete the priority. One 
commenter inquired whether Priority 1 is designed to address a specific 
policy concern, stating that they were unaware of any scenario in which 
a State would have a charter school policy in place that is 
inconsistent with existing State law. Another commenter objected to the 
reference to the authorizer taking appropriate action, and also 
recommended that we remove the reference to the student academic 
achievement requirements and goals set forth in a State policy 
exceeding such requirements in State law. Finally, one commenter 
recommended that Priority 1 be revised to ensure that the periodic 
reviews actually take place.
    Discussion: Priority 1 is designed to clarify that performance 
standards for charter schools (including those related to student 
academic achievement) should be established in accordance with a State 
law, a State regulation, or a State policy to ensure the rigor of these 
performance standards across the State. Therefore, we decline to delete 
this priority.
    In addition, we decline to remove from Priority 1 the statement 
that periodic review and evaluation provides an opportunity for 
authorizers to take appropriate action or impose meaningful 
consequences on the charter school, if necessary. Often, the State 
charter school law, regulations, or policies that stipulate performance 
standards applicable to charter schools do not specify actions 
associated with meeting or failing to meet those performance standards. 
Given the underlying premise of charter schools--greater autonomy in 
exchange for accountability--we believe this language is critical to 
ensure that the

[[Page 34204]]

periodic review and evaluation result in deliberate, meaningful action 
if a charter school is failing to meet the standards of its charter or 
State charter law, regulation, or policy.
    Changes: We agree that additional language in Priority 1 is 
necessary to ensure that periodic reviews actually take place. For this 
reason, we have revised Priority 1 to add that, in order to meet the 
priority, SEAs must take steps to ensure that periodic reviews take 
place. We believe this revision is consistent with the intent of the 
relevant priority in the authorizing statute.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: The Department determined through internal review that 
the last sentence of Priority 1 should be clarified to emphasize that 
the authorizer must have an opportunity to take appropriate action in 
order for an SEA to meet this priority.
    Changes: We have revised the last sentence of Priority 1 to clarify 
that periodic review and evaluation must include an opportunity for the 
authorized public chartering agency to take appropriate action or 
impose meaningful consequences on the charter school, if necessary.

Priority 2--Charter School Oversight

    Comment: We received several general comments regarding Priority 
2--Charter School Oversight. One commenter expressed support for the 
priority. One commenter recommended that we designate this priority an 
absolute priority. Another commenter recommended that we revise the 
priority to include language added to the FY 2015 Appropriations Act. 
Specifically, the commenter recommended that paragraph (b) be 
eliminated, and that paragraph (a)(1) refer only to legally binding 
performance contracts rather than to legally binding charters or 
performance contracts. Finally, one commenter expressed concern about 
requiring the use of increases in student academic achievement by 
subgroup as the most important factor in determining whether to renew 
or revoke a charter. The commenter recommended that the Department 
remove this requirement and substitute language that would allow 
greater authorizer discretion in making these renewal or revocation 
decisions.
    Discussion: This NFP establishes the priorities that we may choose 
to use in the CSP Grants for SEAs competitions in FY 2015 and later 
years. We do not designate whether a priority will be absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational in this NFP; we retain the 
flexibility to determine how best to designate the priorities to ensure 
that funded projects address the most pressing areas of need for 
competitions in FY 2015 and later years. When inviting applications for 
a competition using one or more of these priorities, we will designate 
the type of each priority through a notice published in the Federal 
Register.
    We agree that Priority 2 should reflect the language in the FY 2015 
Appropriations Act, which was enacted after publication of the NPP in 
the Federal Register, and have made the appropriate change to Priority 
2. Likewise, in accordance with the FY 2015 Appropriations Act, we 
believe paragraph (b) needs to remain part of Priority 2 and have opted 
to retain the reference to a legally binding charter or performance 
contract in paragraph (a)(1) of Priority 2.
    Changes: In conformance with the FY 2015 Appropriations Act, we 
have revised paragraph (b) of Priority 2 to state that student 
achievement is one of the most important factors, as opposed to the 
most important factor, when determining whether to renew or revoke a 
school's charter.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that Priority 2 require annual 
financial audits and that the information from such audits describe 
public and private contributions. The commenter also suggested that 
this information be made public and that the Department strengthen the 
priority by requiring that charter schools include F-33 survey data 
(i.e., LEA finance survey data on revenues and expenditures) collected 
by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that fiscal responsibility 
and public reporting are critical aspects of charter school oversight. 
Accordingly, the NFP includes a priority and a selection criterion 
regarding authorizer monitoring of operational performance 
expectations, including financial management, and annual public 
reporting of charter school performance (see Priority 3--High-Quality 
Authorizing and Monitoring Processes and selection criterion (g) 
Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies). We note, also, 
that in order for an SEA to meet Priority 2, all charter schools in the 
State must be required to file with their authorizers, on an annual 
basis, independent audits of their financial statements. We believe 
these elements address the commenter's concerns and, therefore, decline 
to revise Priority 2.
    We decline to require that SEAs submit F-33 data for charter 
schools in order to meet this priority. The F-33 survey is a data 
collection and data census effort supported by NCES, whereas Priority 2 
is concerned primarily with charter school oversight by authorized 
public chartering agencies. We do not believe that requiring SEAs to 
complete a census report in order to meet this priority would 
strengthen or otherwise improve charter school oversight.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require SEAs 
to provide an assurance that charter schools will comply with the 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento) (42 U.S.C. 
11301, et seq.) and that charter schools ensure their compliance by 
designating a McKinney-Vento Homeless liaison within the LEA in order 
to meet Priority 2.
    Discussion: In order to qualify for funds under the CSP, a charter 
school must provide all students in the community, including 
educationally disadvantaged students, such as those served under 
McKinney-Vento, with an equal opportunity to attend the charter school. 
Charter schools that are considered to be independent LEAs under the 
applicable State's charter school law must comply with McKinney-Vento 
on the same basis as other LEAs. For these reasons, we decline to 
revise Priority 2 as suggested by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that paragraph (a)(3) of 
Priority 2 would require State law to mandate that every charter school 
demonstrate academic improvement and recommended that the Department 
make this an assurance rather than a priority. The commenter stated 
that it is unlikely that every charter school in a State would 
demonstrate such improvement and that some charter schools may have 
such a high level of achievement that further improvement is not 
possible.
    Discussion: An SEA is not required to demonstrate improved student 
academic achievement in order to meet the priority. First, if 
designated a competitive preference or invitational priority, Priority 
2 would not impose requirements on applicants. While applicants would 
be required to meet an absolute priority, under Priority 2, an SEA 
would have to show only that State law, regulation, or policy requires 
each charter school in the State to demonstrate improved student 
academic achievement.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 34205]]

Priority 3--High-Quality Authorizing and Monitoring Processes

    Comment: We received several general comments regarding Priority 
3--High-Quality Authorizing and Monitoring Processes. One commenter 
expressed support for the priority. Another commenter recommended that 
Priority 3 be mandatory for all applicants. Another commenter 
recommended designating Priority 3 as an invitational priority because 
the priority necessitates oversight and monitoring that could be 
contrary to the practices States have already established. In addition, 
a commenter stated that Priority 3 could favor States with a single 
authorizer and not work to strengthen authorizer diversity.
    Discussion: This priority is designed to provide an incentive to 
States to adopt high-quality authorizing and monitoring processes. As 
discussed above, this NFP is designed only to establish the priorities 
that we may choose to use in the CSP Grants for SEAs competitions in FY 
2015 and later years. Accordingly, we decline to designate this 
priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational in this 
NFP. While Priority 3 is intended to strengthen authorizer quality, it 
is not designed to address authorizer diversity. We believe that States 
with a single authorizer, as well as States with multiple authorizers, 
can meet this priority by focusing on overall authorizer quality.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested we revise Priority 3 to include 
performance benchmarks that would trigger prompt inquiry by an SEA of 
an authorizer that is persistently poor-performing. The commenter also 
suggested revisions that would provide for ongoing public dissemination 
of authorizers' performance information, thus increasing accountability 
for authorizers.
    Another commenter expressed concerns about the disruptive nature of 
charter school closures and suggested that the Department place a 
greater emphasis on high standards for authorizer performance, 
including consequences for persistently poor-performing authorizers. 
The commenter stated that the Department should focus more on the 
charter application phase to ensure that the authorizer's review of 
charter applications is sufficiently rigorous in order to minimize the 
number of charter closures.
    Discussion: We agree that the public should be informed about 
authorizer performance, and that mechanisms should exist to facilitate 
the termination of chartering authority for persistently poor-
performing authorizers. This priority is designed to encourage States 
to ensure quality practices for charter school authorizing and to take 
appropriate action to strengthen charter school authorizing across the 
State, as necessary. It also is designed to accommodate a wide range of 
State contexts, including where the SEA itself is an authorizer, and 
where an SEA may or may not have the authority to revoke the authorizer 
role from an organization. We believe that Priority 3 is sufficiently 
rigorous and fully addresses Congressional intent while still meeting 
the needs of SEAs in varying contexts.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we revise paragraph (a)(2) of 
Priority 3 to state that performance objectives may, rather than must, 
be school-specific. Additionally, the commenter recommended that the 
Department clarify whether the reference to standardized systems that 
measure and benchmark performance of the authorizer in paragraph (b) of 
Priority 3 applies to authorizers or SEAs. Another commenter 
recommended changing standardized systems to standardized reporting in 
this paragraph.
    Discussion: We believe that performance objectives that are 
developed for each charter school and tie to rigorous academic and 
operational performance expectations are critical to the evaluation of 
school performance. While some performance objectives may be used by 
the authorizer for more than one school, a school's performance 
objectives serve as the basis for measuring performance at that 
specific school, and we believe that some of these objectives must be 
school specific in order to evaluate school performance effectively. 
However, to clarify the purpose of this priority, we have revised 
paragraph (a)(2) of Priority 3 to state that performance objectives for 
each charter school must be aligned to the rigorous academic and 
operational performance expectations established by the authorizer.
    We note that paragraph (b) of Priority 3 gives priority to SEAs 
that demonstrate that all authorizers use standardized systems to 
measure and benchmark their performance, and was not intended to imply 
that an entity other than the authorizer would develop or implement 
these systems. We also agree that the term ``standardized systems'' 
could be misunderstood and understand the recommendation that we change 
this reference to ``standardized reporting.'' However, because our 
intent is to require a State to develop clear and specific standards, 
we have revised this section to clarify that, in order for the SEA to 
meet the priority, each authorizer in the State should be measuring and 
benchmarking performance and disseminating the results annually, but 
the SEA does not need to develop a standardized system across all 
authorizers.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (a)(2) of Priority 3--High-
Quality Authorizing and Monitoring Processes to refer to the 
performance objectives for each school instead of school-specific 
performance objectives to clarify that the objectives must be aligned 
to the rigorous academic and operational performance expectations 
established by the authorizer. We also have revised paragraph (b) of 
Priority 3 to specify that authorizers must use clear and specific 
standards and formalized processes that measure and benchmark 
authorizer performance, instead of standardized systems, to clarify our 
intent.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise paragraph (a)(2) 
of Priority 3 to allow charter schools to create school-specific 
performance objectives that meet some or all of the outlined 
expectations rather than all expectations.
    Discussion: We believe that it is important for schools to 
establish performance objectives that are aligned with all academic and 
operational expectations and that high-quality charter schools should 
meet all performance objectives. While a charter school that fails to 
meet all of its performance objectives should not automatically have 
its charter revoked, we believe that authorizers should evaluate a 
charter school's performance based on performance objectives that are 
aligned with the academic and operational performance expectations that 
have been established for the charter school. Periodic review and 
evaluation allows an authorizer to assess a charter school's 
performance with respect to defined expectations and ensures that 
charter schools are held accountable for academic and organizational 
performance objectives. We also note that a charter school or 
authorizer can establish performance expectations and objectives that 
are more rigorous or cover more areas than specified under State law.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested revising paragraph (d) of Priority 
3 to remove the reference to differentiated review based on whether the 
developer has been successful in establishing and operating one or more 
high-quality charter schools. The commenter also suggested removing the 
reference to

[[Page 34206]]

high-quality when referring to charter schools. Another commenter 
stated that, with respect to the concept of differentiated review, 
although applicants' past performance is occasionally a partial 
indicator of an organization's ability to expand successfully, the 
expansion process may raise new and unforeseen challenges that the 
authorizer should consider. Finally, one commenter recommended deleting 
paragraph (d) altogether.
    Discussion: We believe that an applicant could meet Priority 3 if 
authorizers in its State conduct a differentiated review for charter 
school developers who operate charter schools that do not currently 
meet the definition of high-quality charter schools. We agree that 
differentiated review is not exclusive to high-quality charter schools 
and have revised the priority accordingly.
    For purposes of this program, we agree that authorizers should be 
able to exercise discretion in approving charters through a 
differentiated process based on the past performance of charter school 
developers.
    By promoting differentiated review, we intend to encourage 
authorizers to acknowledge that there are additional factors to 
consider when reviewing a charter petition from an existing charter 
school developer versus a charter petition from a charter school 
developer who is not currently operating charter schools. For these 
reasons, we decline to delete the paragraph.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (d) of Priority 3 to clarify 
that an SEA can meet the priority by demonstrating that authorizers in 
the State use authorizing processes that include differentiated review 
of charter petitions to assess whether and the extent to which, the 
charter school developer has been successful, as opposed to basing the 
differentiated review on those considerations.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Priority 3 is generally 
problematic and should be deleted because it promotes undefined 
authorizer practices that do not work well in actual school settings, 
relies on performance data that are neither clear nor objective, and 
expects authorizers to weigh and interpret data to make closure 
decisions. The commenter also stated that standardized systems of 
measurement governing complex decisions regarding renewal or closure 
serve to embolden weak authorizers and interfere with charter school 
autonomy.
    Discussion: We recognize that the authorizing process may not be 
governed by absolutes in all instances. We also recognize that there 
may be certain qualitative data or additional circumstances that 
authorizers consider when determining whether to approve a charter 
petition or to revoke an existing school's charter, and agree that 
authorizers should use the full range of information available. We 
disagree, however, that the factors of Priority 3 are unfounded or 
unlikely to promote the growth and development of a high-quality 
charter school sector.
    Priority 3 encourages authorizers to define quantifiable and clear 
objectives and expectations, both for themselves and charter schools. 
Furthermore, we believe that this priority encourages SEAs and States 
to invest in and develop an infrastructure that fosters the development 
of high-quality charter schools and chartering practices. As a 
secondary benefit, this priority brings together many entities involved 
in the chartering process, which creates a network for effective 
development and dissemination of information. For example, this may 
provide an opportunity for authorizers to share best practices and 
learn from each other within a State.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding language to Priority 3 to 
state that the reporting referenced in paragraph (a)(5) must provide 
information necessary for the State to benchmark performance. The 
commenter also recommended revising paragraph (b) to require SEAs to 
disseminate information on authorizer performance. Additionally, the 
commenter recommended revising paragraph (c) to remove the factor for 
multi-tiered clearance or review and instead focus on an evaluation of 
an applicant's readiness to open and operate. Finally, the commenter 
recommended that the Department delete from paragraph (d) the reference 
to high-quality charter schools, regarding authorizing processes that 
include differentiated review.
    Discussion: With regard to adding language to require the State to 
benchmark performance in paragraph (a)(5), the paragraph already 
requests the use of frameworks and processes to evaluate performance of 
charter schools on a regular basis and, therefore, already includes the 
commenter's suggestion. In response to the recommendation to revise 
paragraph (b) of Priority 3, the intent of the priority is not to ask 
authorizers to disseminate information on performance in general. 
Paragraph (b) already calls for annual dissemination of performance 
information related to standards and formalized processes that measure 
and benchmark the performance of the authorizer. We believe paragraph 
(b), with our previously described revisions, is clear in that respect 
and decline to revise it further.
    We decline to revise paragraph (c) of this priority. Multi-tiered 
clearance or review will often involve making a determination about 
whether a charter school is prepared to open and operate successfully. 
However, there may be scenarios where the multi-tiered clearance or 
review is more involved or examines other elements, and we want to give 
authorizers latitude to consider those elements. For this reason, we 
believe it would be counter-productive to limit the focus of the 
paragraph to the evaluation of readiness to open and operate.
    Finally, we decline to delete the reference to high-quality in 
paragraph (d) because a major purpose of the CSP Grants for SEAs 
program is to foster the development of high-quality charter schools.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (b), as described above, to 
refer to clear and specific standards and formalized processes, instead 
of standardized systems.
    Comment: One commenter suggested several revisions to paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of Priority 3. First, the commenter suggested adding 
language regarding the use of student achievement as a factor in 
renewal and revocation decisions. Additionally, the commenter suggested 
that we revise paragraph (b) to provide additional authority for 
intervention for poor-performing authorizers and to emphasize that SEAs 
should be paying close attention to authorizer performance.
    Discussion: We believe that the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria will provide sufficient incentives 
for SEAs to monitor authorizers and to take appropriate action against 
poor-performing authorizers. As a general rule, authorized public 
chartering agencies are created pursuant to State charter school law 
and, as such, are governed by State law. Therefore, the Department 
defers to States with respect to the oversight of authorizers.
    Changes: None.

Priority 4--SEAs That Have Never Received a CSP Grant

    Comment: We received general comments regarding Priority 4. One 
commenter expressed support for the priority. Another commenter 
recommended that we make Priority 4 invitational.
    Discussion: This NFP establishes the priorities that we may choose 
to use in the CSP Grants for SEAs competitions in

[[Page 34207]]

FY 2015 and later years. We do not designate whether a priority will be 
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational in this NFP; but 
rather, retain the flexibility to designate each priority as 
invitational, competitive preference, or absolute in order to ensure 
that program funds are used to address the most pressing programmatic 
concerns for competitions in FY 2015 and later years. When inviting 
applications for a competition using one or more of these priorities, 
we will designate the type of each priority through the notice inviting 
applications for new awards (NIA).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that Priority 4 penalizes 
States that have established robust charter sectors. One commenter 
stated that the priority is overly broad and would provide an advantage 
to States with new charter school laws that have been unsuccessful in 
previous competitions. Similarly, several commenters stated that the 
Department should be more concerned with directing CSP funds to ensure 
charter school quality and oversight rather than to States that have 
been ineligible to apply for a grant or a State with weak charter 
school laws. One commenter suggested that the priority would favor less 
qualified applications above higher quality applications. Similarly, 
another commenter suggested that the priority would penalize States 
that support innovation or have otherwise demonstrated successful and 
high-quality authorizing practices. Finally, one commenter recommended 
that we remove the priority altogether.
    Discussion: Priority 4 is designed to provide the Department with 
the option to provide incentives to SEAs that have never received a CSP 
grant and might be at a competitive disadvantage due to a limited 
charter school infrastructure or limited record of past performance. 
Additionally, the priority reflects our belief that CSP funds can have 
a greater impact when they help seed a charter sector as a part of a 
State's initial effort to create high-quality public schools.
    We believe that in any year in which we run a competition, the 
combination of priorities, requirements, and selection criteria in the 
NIA will ensure that high-quality applications will have an opportunity 
to receive funding. We disagree that Priority 4 will penalize States 
that support innovation or have demonstrated success in the charter 
school sector. Other priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria will provide an opportunity for States to describe 
their proposed activities, regardless of whether they have received a 
CSP grant in the past.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Priority 4 provides a 
disincentive to States that have invested in the growth of charter 
schools. The commenter recommended that the Department establish a 
bifurcated process to separate States that have not previously received 
a grant from States that have. Similarly, another commenter recommended 
that the Department limit the priority to States that have been 
ineligible rather than unsuccessful in previous grant competitions.
    Discussion: We disagree that the priority should focus on SEAs that 
were ineligible rather than unsuccessful. As written, this priority 
will already apply to a very limited pool of applicants. Only a small 
number of States with charter school laws have not received a CSP grant 
at any point in the past. We do not believe that it is necessary to 
separate unsuccessful applicants from ineligible applicants; we believe 
that our application review process ensures that only the highest 
quality proposals will be recommended for funding. In addition, the 
priority promotes the purposes of the CSP with respect to innovation 
and geographic diversity.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Priority 4 excludes States with 
critical needs to support educationally disadvantaged students; the 
commenter noted that some States have a greater need for funds than 
comparable States that have not previously received an SEA grant. The 
commenter stated that only four SEAs are eligible for points under this 
priority, and that those States would be unlikely to benefit from SEA 
funding. The commenter asserted that charter management organizations 
(CMOs) are reluctant to operate in States that have not received SEA 
grants because the States are isolated, funding is inadequate, or 
talent is limited. A few commenters suggested that SEA funds are better 
expended in States that welcome charter growth and produce conditions 
favorable to charter expansion and that Priority 4 unfairly penalizes 
States that have invested in robust charter sectors and supported 
innovation in the field.
    Several commenters expressed a general concern that the Department 
should not give priority to States that have been unsuccessful in 
receiving a CSP grant over States that have received CSP funding in the 
past. One commenter suggested that Priority 4 would unfairly 
disadvantage States with significant rural school populations, while 
another commenter recommended that we expand the priority to include 
States that submitted applications but were denied funding under the FY 
2011 CSP Grants for SEAs competition. Another commenter recommended 
revising the background statement to state that this priority would 
encourage rather than assist States that have not yet received a CSP 
grant.
    Discussion: We disagree that this priority will exclude States with 
substantial populations of educationally disadvantaged students or that 
States with smaller populations (or more rural communities) will not 
benefit from SEA funding. We do not believe that a developer--including 
a CMO--will be discouraged from operating in a State merely because the 
State has not received a CSP grant previously.
    We also disagree that Priority 4 penalizes States that have 
invested in their charter sectors or that it provides a disincentive 
for SEAs to support innovation in the charter school sector. States in 
both situations will be eligible to respond to this priority if they 
have never received a CSP grant. We do not believe Priority 4 will 
unfairly disadvantage SEAs in States with significant rural 
populations, as the priority does not distinguish between urban and 
rural applicants. Finally, we do not believe that it is appropriate to 
prioritize unsuccessful applicants from the FY 2011 CSP Grants for SEAs 
competition but not give priority to unsuccessful applicants from 
competitions held in other fiscal years. Further, all SEAs that applied 
for funding under the FY 2011 CSP Grants for SEAs competition have 
received CSP grants in the past; therefore, giving priority to those 
States would be contrary to the purpose of Priority 4.
    Changes: None.

Requirements

Lottery and Enrollment Preferences

    Comment: One commenter expressed the view that data on enrollment 
patterns will be essential for understanding the extent to which an 
existing charter school complies with the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance on 
weighted lottery procedures. The commenter asserted that States with 
clusters of specialized charter schools should be required to provide 
assurances that procedures exist to ensure that these charter schools 
do not limit students' access to more inclusive education settings. 
Finally, another commenter stated that the Department should prohibit 
charter schools from having an enrollment preference or exemption that 
would exclude any group of students.

[[Page 34208]]

    Discussion: We agree that equal access for all students is 
important in the context of charter school development and the 
provision of public education generally. The CSP Nonregulatory Guidance 
(www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/nonregulatory-guidance.html) is intended 
to provide information and guidance to CSP grantees on the Department's 
interpretation of various CSP statutory and regulatory requirements. 
The Guidance specifies the circumstances under which a charter school 
receiving CSP funds may use a weighted lottery to give slightly greater 
chances of admission to educationally disadvantaged students. As public 
schools, charter schools must employ open admissions practices and 
comply with applicable Federal civil rights laws, including laws 
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or 
disability, and requirements of Part B of IDEA. For these reasons, we 
do not believe that an additional assurance is necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the collective body of Federal 
law related to student enrollment practices was never intended to 
create agency guidance on the matter of weighted lottery processes. 
Rather, the commenter asserted that the original drafters of the 
statutes only intended to distinguish charter schools from magnet or 
other specialized public schools. The commenter suggested a more modest 
role for the Department in the charter school lottery process, focusing 
on relevant statutory language, reducing prescriptive guidance, and 
permitting greater deference to State law, provided that it does not 
conflict with applicable Federal statutes.
    Discussion: We agree that States should have great flexibility in 
administering their charter school subgrant programs, including their 
lottery processes. The purpose of the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance is to 
provide clarity to grantees regarding how Federal requirements apply to 
their projects and to ensure that grantees are aware of permissible 
enrollment practices for charter schools receiving CSP funds.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that an entity other than an 
SEA may be responsible for monitoring charter school lotteries and 
admissions processes. These commenters recommended adding other 
responsible public entities to the current list of entities (SEAs and 
authorized public chartering entities) responsible for reviewing, 
monitoring, or approving lotteries with enrollment preferences to 
account for this difference.
    Discussion: We acknowledge that the SEA may not be the only entity 
responsible for approving and monitoring a charter school's lottery and 
admissions process. Because the SEA is the grant recipient under this 
program and provides subgrants to charter schools and charter school 
developers, for purposes of the CSP, the SEA is primarily responsible 
for ensuring that subgrantees comply with CSP requirements, including 
the definition of a charter school and the lottery requirement in 
section 5210(1) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(1)).
    Changes: None.

Logic Model

    Comment: Several commenters stated that a logic model is either 
unnecessary, unduly burdensome to applicants, or not required for 
monitoring compliance. Other commenters recommended that the Department 
provide additional guidance on the form and composition of the logic 
model requirement (e.g., on granularity, format, components, etc.). One 
commenter argued that the requirement to include a logic model would 
not lead to the creation of high-quality charter schools. Finally, 
another commenter recommended deleting the requirement on the ground 
that a State with a small charter sector or a new charter school law 
might be ill-positioned to articulate a statewide theory of action with 
regard to the use of CSP funds.
    Discussion: We believe that the logic model is an important element 
that will enable us to review and evaluate the theory of action that 
supports each application. All applicants should be able to articulate 
clearly their plan for using Federal funds.
    The logic model represents one of many sources of information to 
allow us to assess grantee progress. In addition, we believe that 
developing a logic model will help SEAs clearly articulate their 
proposed outcomes and methods for achieving them. The logic model will 
also assist peer reviewers in evaluating the merits and key elements of 
each applicant's project plan. Because of its importance to the 
process, we believe that a logic model is not unduly burdensome as part 
of a well-developed application.
    Department regulations define a logic model in 34 CFR 77.1, and we 
will refer all applicants to that definition in any NIA in which we 
utilize this requirement. We may provide supplemental information in an 
NIA or through other means that we believe will benefit applicants 
during a grant competition.
    Changes: None.

High-Quality Charter School

    Comment: One commenter supported allowing a State to develop its 
own definition of high-quality charter school. The commenter suggested 
allowing a State to meet this requirement with an assurance rather than 
requiring the Department to approve the State's definition. The 
commenter explained that the requirement that a State-proposed 
definition be at least as rigorous as the Federal definition is 
unclear, as is the role the Department would play in determining if one 
State's definition is more rigorous than another.
    Discussion: We do not intend to compare one applicant's State 
definition of high-quality charter school to another. Consistent with 
the application requirement, a State's alternative definition will be 
reviewed to determine if it is at least as rigorous as the standard in 
paragraph (a) of the definition based on the reasoning and evidence 
provided by the applicant. We also note that peer reviewers' evaluation 
of a State's alternative definition of high-quality charter schools 
will be reflected in their scoring of the relevant selection criteria 
referencing high-quality charter schools.
    Changes: None.

Definitions

Academically Poor-Performing Charter School

    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the definition. 
Another commenter recommended revising paragraph (b) of the definition 
to clarify that an alternative definition could be used if the SEA 
demonstrates that the alternative definition is at least as rigorous as 
the description in paragraph (a) of the definition of academically 
poor-performing charter school.
    Discussion: We agree that the definition of academically poor-
performing charter school should be clarified to specify the standard 
that an SEA's proposed definition of the term must meet. We believe 
this comment also is applicable to the definition of high-quality 
charter school.
    Changes: We have revised paragraphs (b) of the requirements for 
academically poor-performing charter school and high-quality charter 
school to clarify that an SEA's definition of each term must be at 
least as rigorous as paragraph (a) of the definitions of academically 
poor-performing charter school and high-quality charter school, as set 
forth in this NFP.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of 
academically poor-

[[Page 34209]]

performing charter school is too rigid, and stated that typical 
students enter charter schools no fewer than two years behind grade 
level in instruction. The commenter asserted that effective charter 
schools will provide opportunities for increased academic growth in 
order to ensure that students meet grade level upon exiting the school. 
The commenter expressed concern that this definition does not present 
the above-described growth trajectory as a significant component of 
assessing student performance when considering whether a charter school 
is academically poor-performing. Finally, one commenter questioned how 
a State-proposed definition would be reviewed, particularly in a 
scenario where an absolute standard, rather than a growth standard, is 
used.
    Discussion: We disagree with the commenter that the definition of 
academically poor-performing charter school does not account for 
student academic growth. In order to meet this definition, a charter 
school would have to both be in the lowest performing five percent of 
all public schools in a State and have failed to demonstrate student 
academic growth of at least one grade level for each cohort of 
students. Therefore, a charter school that is successfully 
demonstrating growth, even if the students remain below grade level, 
would not be considered academically poor-performing.
    We do not intend to compare one applicant's State definition of 
academically poor-performing charter school to another. Consistent with 
the application requirement, a State's alternative definition will be 
reviewed to determine if it is at least as rigorous as the Department's 
definition of the term as specified in paragraph (a) based on the 
reasoning and evidence provided by the applicant.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department alternatively 
define an academically poor-performing charter school as one that fails 
to meet the student performance goals established in the school's 
charter or related performance agreements.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important for a charter school to 
adhere to the performance objectives outlined in its charter or 
performance contract. Because these objectives can vary by school, 
however, we do not believe that such an alternative definition would 
facilitate meaningful comparison of academic performance across all 
charter schools in a State. In addition, this definition could 
potentially allow a charter school to underperform without penalty if 
its charter or performance contract includes performance objectives 
that are less rigorous than other State requirements.
    Changes: None.

Educationally Disadvantaged Students

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that our definition for 
this term includes all subgroups specified in the ESEA except racial 
and ethnic groups and, thus, allows the Department to avoid considering 
achievement gaps among different races and ethnicities.
    Discussion: We disagree that this definition impacts any reporting 
requirements related to achievement gaps, or removes race and ethnicity 
from consideration of achievement gaps. We note that the definition of 
high-quality charter school, which explicitly addresses achievement 
gaps, requires demonstrated success in closing historic achievement 
gaps for the subgroups of students referenced in Section 1111 of the 
ESEA, which includes the reporting of information disaggregated by 
race, ethnicity, and other factors (20 U.S.C. 6311). We believe this 
priority provides incentives for SEAs to support the development of 
charter schools that are expanding educational opportunities for the 
most educationally disadvantaged students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the term homeless youth is 
defined by a number of Federal and State agencies and recommended that 
the Department revise the definition of educationally disadvantaged 
students to include homeless students as defined by subtitle B of title 
VII of McKinney-Vento (42 U.S.C. 11434a). Several commenters 
recommended adding additional categories of students, including foster 
children, to the definition of educationally disadvantaged students.
    Discussion: The definition of educationally disadvantaged students 
in this NFP includes the categories of students eligible for services 
in targeted assistance schools under title I, part A of the ESEA (20 
U.S.C. 6315(b)). We believe that this is an appropriate group of 
students to define as educationally disadvantaged students insofar as 
the services provided in a targeted assistance school are intended to 
be provided to the school's eligible children identified as having the 
greatest need for special assistance. For this reason, we do not 
believe it is necessary to include other groups of students in the 
definition.
    For purposes of this definition, we consider students who meet the 
definition of homeless children and youths under section 725(2) of 
McKinney-Vento (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)) to be homeless students and thus 
among the groups of students covered. We do not believe it is necessary 
to revise the definition to this end.
    Changes: None.

High-Quality Charter School

    Comment: One commenter stated that the Department should not 
designate a charter school that has been open for fewer than three 
years as a high-quality charter school.
    Discussion: We disagree that a charter school that has been open 
for fewer than three years cannot qualify as a high-quality charter 
school. If, for example, a charter school is only open for one year, it 
must still show evidence of academic growth for all students for that 
period. We believe that a school can demonstrate successfully the 
elements of the definition with fewer than three years of data. If the 
elements of the definition are met, then the school can be considered a 
high-quality charter school.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department adopt 
the definition of high-quality charter school in legislation proposed 
(but not enacted) by the 114th Congress. Specifically, the commenters 
recommended we adopt the definition described in S. 2304 and H.R. 10. 
Expanding Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act. S.2304, 
114th Cong. (2014).
    Discussion: The definition of high-quality charter school from S. 
2304 and H.R. 10 requires strong academic results, which may include 
academic growth as determined by a state, highlights strong financial 
and organizational management, and asks that the school demonstrate 
success in significantly increasing student academic achievement, 
including graduation rates where applicable. This definition does not 
specify a time period over which results must be demonstrated. The 
definition announced in this NFP is consistent with the definition of 
high-quality charter school used in other Department programs, and we 
believe it is the appropriate definition for this program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department permit 
applicants to satisfy three of the five elements of the definition, 
rather than all five. In the alternative, the commenter proposed that 
we revise paragraph (a)(1) to refer to high or increased student 
academic achievement rather than simply increased student academic 
achievement. The commenter stated that

[[Page 34210]]

an already high-achieving charter school could be penalized without the 
change.
    Discussion: We believe that each of the five elements represents an 
outcome or characteristic that is important and necessary to identify 
high-quality charter schools. If, for example, a charter school 
demonstrates an increase in student achievement and success in closing 
historic achievement gaps but has significant compliance issues, we do 
not believe that school should be considered a high-quality charter 
school. Removing one or more of these factors from consideration would 
substantially erode the definition.
    We also decline to revise paragraph (a)(1) of the definition to 
require high or increased student academic achievement. We do not 
believe that the definition, as written, will penalize an existing 
high-achieving charter school. A charter school with students who 
demonstrate high rates of proficiency on State assessments, for 
example, can still demonstrate increases in academic achievement in 
other ways, such as increasing school-wide proficiency rates or 
increasing the number of students at the advanced level. We believe 
that it is important to encourage increases in student academic 
achievement and attainment even in a school with comparatively high-
performing students. We also note that this definition addresses 
student mastery of grade-level standards.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that paragraph (a)(1) should not 
distinguish between educationally disadvantaged students and all other 
students. The commenter suggested a technical revision to the language 
or, as an alternative, removing the reference to educationally 
disadvantaged students as it adds complexity to an already complex 
definition.
    Discussion: The CSP statute emphasizes the importance of assisting 
educationally disadvantaged students, as well as other students, in 
meeting State academic content standards and State student academic 
achievement standards. Therefore, we believe that it is important that 
a charter school specifically identify and increase academic 
achievement for educationally disadvantaged and other students in order 
to be considered a high-quality charter school. Consequently, we 
decline to remove this element of the definition.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of the 
definition of high-quality charter school is ambiguous as written. The 
commenter stated that the paragraph implies that we would require a 
school to compare performance independently between each racial and 
ethnic, income, disability, and English proficiency category, thus 
requiring approximately 28 comparisons. The commenter recommended that 
instead of requiring that a school demonstrate no significant 
achievement gap between any of the identified subgroups, we should 
require no gap between subgroups or, if applicable, appropriate 
comparison populations. Additionally, the commenter recommended 
referring to Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA, rather than 
1111(h)(1)(C)(i) because the former statutory reference is most 
commonly used for performance accountability purposes.
    Discussion: We believe that, if an applicant chooses to respond to 
paragraph (2) of this definition, they have decided to demonstrate that 
there are no significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups 
of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (20 
U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)); therefore, they would have the data to 
support this claim with applicable subgroup information. An applicant 
that responds to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this definition has decided to 
demonstrate that it is successfully closing the achievement gap and is 
able to provide the relevant supporting data. This definition has been 
used in previous CSP competitions with that understanding. However, we 
agree that section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) is the more appropriate 
reference, consistent with other CSP grants, and have revised the 
definition accordingly.
    Changes: We have revised paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of the high-
quality charter school definition to reference section 
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that a school should not be 
required to take into account the performance of a particular subgroup 
listed under (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) if the number of students in that 
subgroup is so small that the data are statistically unreliable. The 
commenter stated that this is the operating procedure for Title I 
grants.
    Discussion: We agree that the data for the various subgroups should 
not be compared in cases where the data sample is so small it is 
statistically unreliable or would infringe upon the privacy of a 
student. When using the definition of high-quality charter school, or 
providing other data for CSP programs, we intend for applicants to use 
only data that are available and reportable and provide any necessary 
explanations to clarify the use of such data.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department define a high-
quality charter school as a school that meets or exceeds goals stated 
in the school's approved charter or performance contract, rather than 
focus on State tests, attendance rates, graduation rates, or 
postsecondary attendance at the expense of other assessment tools 
(e.g., preparation for careers).
    Discussion: We agree that other methods exist to evaluate the 
quality of a charter school. This is captured throughout the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and criteria in this NFP, 
particularly in sections focused on authorizer quality. However, 
because the performance goals in a charter or performance contract will 
vary from school to school, we believe it would be difficult for an SEA 
to use the goals in a charter school's performance contract to assess 
the quality of charter schools across the State.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that this definition is too 
narrow and could lead to ``creaming'' high-aspiration students from 
non-charter public schools. One commenter expressed confusion over many 
elements of the definition, such as the references to increased student 
achievement and the need to close historic achievement gaps. 
Additionally, the commenter stated that the definition ignores other 
assessment tools such as preparation for careers.
    Discussion: We first note that the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria are designed to provide incentives 
to SEAs to increase the number of high-quality charter schools in the 
State and, thus, provide more high-quality options for all students. In 
addition, the selection criteria are related to a State's broader plan 
to ensure equitable access for students throughout the State by 
ensuring that all students--including educationally disadvantaged 
students--have equal access and opportunities to attend high-quality 
charter schools. Charter schools receiving CSP funds are required to 
provide all students in the community with an equal opportunity to 
attend the charter school and admit students by lottery if the charter 
school is oversubscribed. We believe the final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will support and 
reinforce these program requirements.
    We next address the comment that many of the elements of the 
definition are confusing. This definition provides discrete and 
measurable indicators for defining a charter school as high-quality. 
The rate at which a charter

[[Page 34211]]

school reduces or closes a historic achievement gap is a quantifiable 
measure of student achievement and school success. Similarly, testing 
and attendance rates provide data that can be used to examine school 
performance. We believe that the percentage of charter school students 
who go on to enroll in postsecondary institutions is yet another 
indicator of the performance and efficacy of a State's charter schools. 
Finally, we note that the term ``postsecondary education'' may 
encompass both non-traditional postsecondary education options as well 
as other career and technical training. We agree that there are other 
tools that measure student achievement, including career readiness. We 
believe the definition of high-quality charter school in this NFP, 
however, promotes the purposes of the CSP and provides a consistent, 
clear, and measurable metric of student academic achievement. For these 
reasons, we decline to revise the definition.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the definition of 
high-quality charter school to examine growth differentially. The 
commenter stated that comparing graduation rates of a school serving 
students who are at a very low percentile of proficiency with a school 
serving students at a very high percentile of proficiency is neither 
comparable nor fair, and contended that what success looks like at 
those schools will manifest in different ways.
    Discussion: The definition states that academic results for 
students served by a high-quality charter school must be above the 
average academic results for such students in the State. Because the 
definition allows for comparisons among similar populations of 
students, we believe that it addresses the commenter's concern.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended several substantive revisions to 
elements of the definition that would remove references to the 
achievement gap, evidence of academic achievement over three years, and 
references to attainment and postsecondary enrollment, as well as add a 
requirement for compliance in the area of safety, financial management, 
or statutory or regulatory compliance.
    Discussion: We decline to adopt these proposed changes. First, it 
is unclear from the commenter's suggested revisions whether a CSP 
applicant's high-quality charter schools would have to show increased 
achievement in one or more (or all) subgroups. We decline to remove the 
three-year achievement requirement because we believe that a three-year 
period provides a reasonable time within which a charter school's 
performance can be evaluated to determine whether the school is high-
quality. This does not mean the charter school could not be deemed 
high-quality with fewer than three years of data available, as noted 
within the definition. However, if three years of data exist, the 
charter should be evaluated based on all three years. Further, we 
believe the references to attendance, attainment, and retention are 
critical to the spirit of this definition given their correlation to 
performance. Finally, we believe the recommended revisions would remove 
or substantially diminish the focus of charter schools on serving 
educationally disadvantaged students and treating all students 
equitably, which are crucial elements that promote the purposes of the 
CSP.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked why, under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the 
definition for high-quality charter school, demonstrated success in 
closing historic achievement gaps would be acceptable, while in 
paragraph (a)(2)(ii), an applicant must show actual significant gains 
rather than the closing of gaps. The commenter stated that a school 
could satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) if its higher-
achieving students decreased in performance and its lower achieving 
students did not make gains. Additionally, the commenter asked when, 
under paragraph (3) of the definition for high-quality charter school, 
results on statewide tests might not be considered applicable to 
meeting the definition of high-quality charter school, if those results 
are available.
    Discussion: First, we note that in order for a school to be 
considered high-quality, all subgroups would have to demonstrate 
significant progress and the school would have to close achievement 
gaps simultaneously. These are two distinct but equally important 
components of this definition that work in tandem to ensure that SEA 
subgrants are used to support high-quality charter schools. In order to 
be considered high-quality, a charter school must meet elements (a)(1)-
(5), unless the State opts to use an alternate definition. With regard 
to the commenter's second question, we note that an example of 
available but not necessarily applicable results could be an elementary 
charter school that tracks college completion rates of its alumni. 
Although these data theoretically could be collected, unless there was 
a general requirement for the collection of this information by all 
charter schools, it might not be a relevant measure. Without uniform 
data collection for all charter schools, there would be no comparison 
data to illustrate meaningful impact, and the data likely would not 
take into consideration other influences, such as the other secondary 
schools the students attended before going to college.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested two revisions to the definition. 
First, the commenter recommended moving element (a)(5), which prohibits 
a high-quality charter school from having any significant compliance 
issues, (to paragraph (b); and replacing the term particularly with 
including, to make the provision more logical.
    Discussion: We decline to revise paragraph (a)(5) or paragraph (b). 
Paragraph (a) provides the Department's definition of high-quality 
charter school, and paragraph (b) provides an SEA the option to propose 
its own definition. Paragraph (a)(5) is intended to highlight three 
areas where significant compliance issues can occur, but is not meant 
to be exhaustive.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department define 
``significant achievement gap.''
    Discussion: We decline to define ``significant achievement gap'' in 
this NFP because we believe that not defining the term affords States 
greater flexibility. An applicant should be able to provide the 
necessary evidence and information in its application, demonstrating 
that schools identified as high-quality charter schools are either 
closing the achievement gap or have no significant achievement gap.
    Changes: None.

Selection Criteria

(a) State-Level Strategy

    Comment: Two commenters recommended expanding paragraph (1) of 
selection criterion (a) State-Level Strategy to include activities of 
authorizers and other entities that impact charter schools in the 
State.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important for authorizers and other 
entities that impact charter schools to be part of the State's overall 
strategy for improving student academic achievement and attainment, and 
we encourage States to address the extent to which the activities of 
authorizers and other entities are integrated into the State-level 
strategy. For purposes of this program, however, we believe that the 
focus should be on the individual State's plan for integrating its CSP 
grant activities with its broader public education strategy. While a 
State whose

[[Page 34212]]

charter school authorizing practices are integrated into its CSP 
activities should include this information, we only expect States to 
discuss such practices in relation to proposed CSP grant activities. 
Likewise, if the CSP activities are integrated into the practices of 
authorizers and other entities, we would expect the State to discuss 
that as well.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter opined that a State's charter sector is 
purposefully designed to serve as an alternative to, rather than an 
integrated component of, a State's overall strategy for school 
improvement.
    Discussion: Although charter schools are an alternative to 
traditional public schools, charter schools also are public schools, 
and we believe that it is important for States to include charter 
schools as part of their overall strategy for providing public 
education.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we expand the criterion to 
require SEAs to explain how the State will ensure that charter schools 
serve the same or similar student populations as their non-charter 
public school counterparts.
    Discussion: Charter schools are public schools and, as such, must 
employ open admissions policies and ensure that all students in the 
community have an equal opportunity to attend the charter school. A 
charter school's admissions practices must comply with applicable 
Federal and State laws, including Federal civil rights laws, such as 
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title II of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990. Further, paragraph (2) of selection criterion 
(d) Quality of Plan to Support Educationally Disadvantaged Students 
addresses the quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools 
attract, recruit, admit, enroll, serve, and retain educationally 
disadvantaged students. Additionally, the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance 
clarifies that section 5203(b)(3)(E) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 
7221b(b)(3)(E)) requires SEAs to provide an assurance that applications 
for CSP subgrants will include a description of how parents and other 
members of the community will be involved in the planning, program 
design, and initial implementation of the charter school.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about referring to a 
State's Race to the Top application or ESEA Flexibility request as 
examples of statewide education reform efforts in paragraph (1) of 
selection criterion (a) State-Level Strategy. The commenter questioned 
whether a charter sector could be strong in a State that did not 
receive a Race to the Top grant or an ESEA Flexibility waiver. 
Additionally, the commenter recommended revising the language to 
consider the extent to which the authorizer, in addition to the State, 
encourages strategies for improving student academic achievement.
    Discussion: While States' Race to the Top applications and ESEA 
Flexibility requests are examples of initiatives that could be 
discussed in relation to State-level strategy, the list we provided was 
not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive. A State that has not 
received a Race to the Top grant or an ESEA Flexibility waiver may 
discuss its State-level strategy within the context of other efforts 
and receive full points on this criterion. We decline to expand the 
list of examples in this element of the criterion to include authorizer 
actions and authorizer strategy but agree that limiting the examples to 
Race to the Top and ESEA Flexibility applications may be confusing. 
Therefore, we have removed the examples from the final selection 
criterion. While an SEA may discuss its authorizer practices within the 
context of its State-level strategy, a discussion of authorizer quality 
and practice alone is unlikely to be deemed an adequate response to the 
criterion.
    Changes: We have removed the reference to State Race to the Top 
applications and ESEA Flexibility waivers from paragraph (1) of this 
selection criterion.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding the State Systemic 
Improvement Plan (SSIP) as an example of an improvement effort in 
paragraph (1). The commenter stated that adding the SSIP will ensure 
that charter schools and the students they serve are actively 
considered in any and all State planning efforts.
    Discussion: SSIPs are multi-year plans that each State produces to 
describe how it will improve educational outcomes for children with 
disabilities served under IDEA. The Department's Office of Special 
Education Programs administers the IDEA and works with States as they 
implement these plans. Like a State's Race to the Top application and 
ESEA Flexibility waiver request, a SSIP describes activities that could 
be responsive to this selection criterion. We agree that providing only 
a few examples for this criterion may be confusing, however, and are 
removing the examples from the final selection criterion and decline to 
include this revision.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about how the Department 
will consider States' various funding needs in relation to the 
composition of the student body, in cases where charter schools do not 
enroll student populations that are demographically similar to 
traditional non-charter public schools. The commenter mentioned 
students with disabilities and English learners as populations that may 
require additional funding in order to ensure that they are adequately 
served, and asked whether this will be a consideration in review of 
funding equity for paragraph (2) of selection criterion (a) State-Level 
Strategy.
    Discussion: We recognize that the demographic composition and 
funding needs of schools may vary at the State and local levels. For 
this reason, this criterion is designed to allow applicants to describe 
the State's overall systems for funding public schools generally, and 
charter schools specifically, including any variances between the two, 
to demonstrate the extent to which funding equity for similar students 
is incorporated into the State's overall strategy.
    Changes: None.

(b) Policy Context for Charter Schools

    Comment: Several commenters stated that charter school policy is a 
local issue rather than an SEA-focused issue. One commenter stated that 
selection criterion (b) Policy Context for Charter Schools generally 
speaks to the SEA as the primary force behind information 
dissemination, growth, oversight, and other factors related to charter 
schools. The commenter stated that, in some States, an emphasis on the 
SEA would be misguided because the SEA may be hostile towards charter 
schools or may lack the legal ability to play a large role in the 
charter sector.
    Discussion: The Department administers several grant programs under 
the CSP, including direct grants to non-SEA eligible applicants (i.e., 
charter school developers and charter schools). The purpose of these 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and section criteria, however, 
is to implement the provisions of the CSP statute that authorize the 
Secretary to award grants to SEAs to enable them to conduct charter 
school subgrant programs in their States, in accordance with the 
requirements of the ESEA. In some cases, State charter school laws 
assign the primary role for charter school oversight to entities other 
than the SEA, and these entities play critical roles in information 
dissemination and growth of charter schools. This selection criterion 
asks SEA applicants to respond

[[Page 34213]]

to each factor within the context of their State activities. We 
understand, however, that the SEA may not be the sole entity 
responsible for executing these activities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the selection 
criterion (b) Policy Context for Charter Schools. Another commenter 
expressed concern about the promotion of policies that weaken the 
collective bargaining rights of certain State or school employees based 
on the language contained in paragraph (1)(i) regarding the extent to 
which charter schools in the State are exempt from State or local rules 
that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools.
    Discussion: By definition, charter schools are exempt from many 
significant State and local rules that inhibit the flexible operation 
and management of public schools. In exchange for this increased 
flexibility, charter schools are held accountable for results, 
including improved student academic achievement. Charter schools still 
must comply with Federal and State laws generally and meet all health 
and safety requirements. The criterion is designed to enable reviewers 
to assess the flexibility afforded charter schools, including 
flexibility with respect to school operations and management. The 
criterion bears no relation to employment policies or employee rights. 
Therefore, we decline to make any changes in response to the concern 
raised by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter acknowledged the appropriateness of 
including flexibility under paragraph (1) of selection criterion (b) 
Policy Context for Charter Schools and recommended expanding the 
flexibility relative to establishing goals and quality measures related 
to State-mandated standards or assessments. The commenter referred to 
section 5210(1)(C) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(1)(C)), which defines a 
charter school as a public school that, among other things, operates in 
pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the 
school's developer.
    Discussion: We believe the autonomy of charter schools to develop 
their own educational objectives and performance goals is critical, and 
this criterion acknowledges that importance by specifically emphasizing 
autonomy within paragraph (1)(ii). This criterion addresses the policy 
context for charter schools in a State, rather than the development of 
specific performance objectives, which would happen during the charter 
approval process. We believe Priority 3--High-Quality Authorizing and 
Monitoring Processes provides a strong incentive for the development of 
rigorous objectives that an authorizer would apply to the charter 
schools in its portfolio, and that this criterion would capture the 
unique qualities of individual charter schools. However, charter 
schools are still required to report on certain objectives applicable 
to all public schools. Together, the elements of this selection 
criterion ensure that an individual charter school's autonomy over the 
development of educational objectives is reflected in the CSP Grants 
for SEAs application.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter supported paragraph 3 of selection criterion 
(b) Policy Context for Charter Schools, which requests that SEAs 
describe their plans for ensuring that LEAs, including charter school 
LEAs, comply with IDEA. The commenter referenced several recently 
negotiated settlement agreements between schools and the Department's 
Office for Civil Rights related to IDEA compliance and recommended that 
we develop clear means to monitor charter school compliance with IDEA 
and other applicable statutes governing civil rights.
    Discussion: Paragraph (3) of selection criterion (b) Policy Context 
for Charter Schools will enable peer reviewers to evaluate the quality 
of an SEA's plan to ensure charter schools' compliance with applicable 
Federal civil rights laws and part B of IDEA. We believe that this 
element of IDEA oversight is one that States are already required to 
have in place under section 612(a)(11) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 
1412(a)(11)). This provision requires each SEA to exercise general 
supervision over all educational programs for children with 
disabilities administered in the State and to ensure that all such 
programs meet the requirements of part B of the IDEA. In addition, the 
Federal definition of a charter school ensures compliance with Federal 
civil rights laws and part B of IDEA. See section 5210(1)(G) of the 
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i).
    Changes: None.

(c) Past Performance

    Comment: Several commenters supported the inclusion of selection 
criterion (c) Past Performance. Several commenters questioned how a 
State with a new charter school law (and, therefore, no previous 
charter experience) would receive points or otherwise not be unfairly 
disadvantaged during the application process. Additionally, one 
commenter asked how the Department would ensure that States with few or 
no academically poor-performing charter schools are not unfairly 
disadvantaged under this criterion.
    Discussion: This selection criterion applies only to SEAs in States 
with charter school laws that have been in effect for five years or 
more. Therefore, an SEA in a state that enacted its first charter 
school law less than five years before the closing date of the relevant 
competition will not be scored on this criterion, and its total score 
will be calculated against a maximum point value that does not include 
the points assigned to this criterion.
    In addition, SEAs that are required to respond to this criterion 
will not be at a disadvantage for having few or no academically poor-
performing charter schools. In such a case, the SEA should include 
sufficient information for the reviewers to understand and evaluate the 
quality of its charter schools, including an explanation of how the 
State has minimized its number of academically poor-performing charter 
schools.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the reduction in the 
number and percentage of academically poor-performing charter schools 
should not be evaluated based on a reduction of ``each'' of the past 
five years.
    Discussion: We believe that it is important to examine the 
reduction in the number and percentage of academically poor-performing 
charter schools each year in order to determine the rate and 
consistency at which academically poor-performing charter schools have 
been closed or improved in a State. In addition, providing past 
performance data for each year gives the peer reviewers a more complete 
picture on which to score the applications. We encourage applicants to 
provide context about the performance of charter schools in the State.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that we add past 
performance information as an application requirement. Specifically, 
one commenter suggested that we focus CSP funds on States that enhance, 
rather than diminish, the overall quality of public education.
    Discussion: Selection criterion (c) Past Performance allows us to 
evaluate the extent to which an SEA's past performance has led to an 
increase in high-quality charter schools and a decrease in academically 
poor-performing charter schools within their State. An application 
requirement would only collect this information,

[[Page 34214]]

rather than allow for evaluation. For this reason, past performance 
will remain a selection criterion. We agree with the commenter that CSP 
funds should be awarded to States that enhance the overall quality of 
public schools, including charter schools. We believe that the final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will 
achieve that purpose. The NIA for each competition will provide the 
specific criteria against which applications will be evaluated in that 
year.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the evaluation of an SEA's 
past performance also be based on (1) the extent to which the 
demographic composition of the State's charter schools (in terms of 
educationally disadvantaged students) is similar to the demographic 
composition of non-charter public schools; (2) the extent to which 
approved charter applications in the State reflect innovations in 
charter schools; (3) the track record of the State's lead authorizer in 
minimizing compliance issues in its charter schools; and (4) the track 
record of the SEA in ensuring high-quality authorizer performance 
through early identification of authorizer performance issues with 
appropriate remedies.
    Discussion: The focus of this criterion is on the SEA's performance 
in increasing the number of high-quality charter schools, decreasing 
the number of academically poor-performing charter schools, and 
improving student academic achievement. While we agree that the 
additional factors proposed by the commenter could inform an evaluation 
of an SEA's past performance, in many cases, an SEA providing a 
detailed response to the criteria will address the additional factors 
proposed by the commenter. Moreover, proposed addition (1) is covered 
by paragraph (2) of selection criterion (d) Quality of Plan to Support 
Educationally Disadvantaged Students, assessing the quality of the 
SEA's plan to serve an equitable number of educationally disadvantaged 
students. Proposed addition (2) is covered broadly under selection 
criterion (f) Dissemination of Information and Best Practices, which 
assesses the quality of the SEA's plan to disseminate best and 
promising practices of successful charter schools in the State. 
Proposed addition (3) is covered under the definition of a high-quality 
charter school in paragraph (5) which notes that a high-quality charter 
school should have no significant compliance issues. Finally, proposed 
addition (4) is covered under Priority 1--Periodic Review and 
Evaluation, which asks for SEAs to demonstrate that periodic review and 
evaluation occurs at least once every five years and provides an 
opportunity for authorizers to take appropriate action and impose 
meaningful consequences. Proposed addition (4) may also be addressed in 
an SEA's response to selection criterion (g), which asks SEAs how they 
will monitor and hold accountable authorizing public chartering 
agencies.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that selection criterion (c) Past 
Performance does not consider the quality of States' existing charter 
schools and opined that it should be a specific focus for the SEA grant 
competition. Another commenter suggested that the Department consider 
revising this criterion to examine an SEA's performance only by its 
reduction of the number of academically poor-performing charter 
schools.
    Discussion: We agree that the quality of a State's existing charter 
schools is an important consideration when evaluating the overall 
quality of an SEA's application for CSP funds and believe we have 
addressed that factor in these priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria. While reducing the number of academically poor-
performing charter schools is an important measure of an SEA's past 
performance with respect to administration of its charter schools, we 
believe that is only one aspect of the overall quality of a State's 
charter schools program. A major purpose of the CSP Grants to SEAs 
program is to increase the number of high-quality charter schools 
across the Nation and to improve student academic achievement. For 
these reasons, we decline to make the recommended change.
    Changes: None.

(d) Quality of Plan To Support Educationally Disadvantaged Students

    Comment: One commenter stated that the Department should include a 
reference to diversity in all of the selection criteria, beyond what is 
included in selection criterion (d) Quality of Plan to Support 
Educationally Disadvantaged Students. Additionally, the commenter 
suggested that the Department expand selection criterion (d) Quality of 
Plan to Support Educationally Disadvantaged Students to include the 
following 10 additional factors, to ensure that charter schools are 
fully inclusive and do not either directly or indirectly discourage 
enrollment of all students: (a) Compliance with Federal and State laws, 
particularly laws related to educational equity, nondiscrimination, and 
access to public schools for educationally disadvantaged students; (b) 
broad-reaching, inclusive marketing efforts; (c) streamlined 
applications with no enrollment or other barriers; (d) receptive 
processes that do not steer away educationally disadvantaged students; 
(e) availability of services for students with disabilities and English 
learners; (f) positive practices to address behavioral issues, avoiding 
practices that encourage students to leave the charter school; (g) 
sparing use of grade retention practices; (h) provision of services for 
disadvantaged students that are comparable to those offered in nearby 
public schools, including free- and reduced-price meals; (i) addressing 
location and transportation in ways that are designed to serve a 
diverse community that includes educationally disadvantaged students; 
and (j) comprehensive planning to ensure that charter school enrollment 
patterns do not contribute to increased racial and economic isolation 
in proximate schools within the same school district.
    Discussion: Many of the factors proposed by the commenter are 
covered under selection criterion (d) Quality of Plan to Support 
Educationally Disadvantaged Students and the other criteria. More 
broadly, these selection criteria provide a basis for SEAs to address 
each of the factors proposed by the commenter at a level of detail that 
we believe will enable peer reviewers to evaluate the quality of the 
applications effectively.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise this 
selection criterion to include a description of how SEAs plan to avoid 
disproportionate enrollment of homeless students in charter schools. 
The commenter stated that some non-charter public schools have shifted 
homeless students from their schools to charter schools.
    Discussion: As public schools, charter schools must employ open 
admissions policies and ensure that all students in the community have 
an equal opportunity to attend the charter school. Further, charter 
schools receiving CSP funds must admit students by lottery if there are 
more applicants than spaces available at the charter school. While 
charter schools may weight their lotteries in favor of educationally 
disadvantaged students, which may include homeless students, they are 
not required to do so. Accordingly, the criterion includes a review of 
the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools attract, recruit, admit, 
enroll, serve, and retain educationally disadvantaged and other 
students equitably. Although this criterion emphasizes the importance 
of

[[Page 34215]]

charter schools serving educationally disadvantaged students, which may 
include homeless students, the criterion does not diminish the 
requirement that charter schools receiving CSP funds provide all 
students in the community with an equal opportunity to attend the 
charter school.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department amend 
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of the selection criterion to address the 
quality of authorizers' and other State entities' plans to support 
educationally disadvantaged students, in addition to the SEA's plans to 
support such students.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important for authorizers and other 
State entities to contribute to an SEA's efforts to support 
educationally disadvantaged students. Because this program authorizes 
the Secretary to award CSP grants to SEAs, however, the focus of these 
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria is 
on SEAs' plans to support educationally disadvantaged students. To the 
extent that it is relevant, however, an SEA should include in its 
response to this criterion information regarding how its plan includes 
collaboration, coordination, and communication with other State 
entities for the purpose of providing effective support for 
educationally disadvantaged students and other students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the criterion speaks to 
innovation in paragraph (3), and recommended that we make innovation a 
priority driven by individual schools rather than the SEA. The 
commenter recommended that the Department define innovation to include 
innovative curriculum, instructional methods, governance, 
administration, professional roles of teachers, instructional goals and 
standards, student assessments, use of technology, and stated that 
innovation should be a priority for all students, rather than just 
educationally disadvantaged students and other students.
    Discussion: The CSP authorizing statute does not define innovation, 
and we prefer to permit applicants to exercise more flexibility by not 
defining the term in this NFP. We agree that innovation often happens 
at the school level but, for the purposes of this program, we are 
interested in how SEAs are encouraging innovation in charter schools 
within their State.
    Changes: None.

(e) Vision for Growth and Accountability

    Comment: Two commenters recommended revising selection criterion 
(e) Vision for Growth and Accountability to focus on the overall State 
plan by asking the SEA to describe the statewide vision for cultivating 
high-performing charter schools, as opposed to merely the SEA's vision. 
One commenter noted that a statewide vision may include the views of 
the SEA, authorizer(s), or other bodies. The other commenter suggested 
that the criterion should request information on charter schools with 
the capacity to become high-quality, rather than focus on the creation 
of high-quality charter schools.
    Discussion: We agree that the statewide vision for growth and 
accountability is important and that the SEA should play a role in 
defining and assisting the State in realizing that vision. Thus, the 
SEA should describe a broad vision for cultivating high-quality charter 
schools. We agree that a charter school's capacity to become high-
quality is relevant to an evaluation of the statewide vision for 
charter school growth and accountability. Therefore, we have revised 
paragraph (2) to request that SEAs provide a reasonable estimate of the 
overall number of high-quality charter schools in the State at both the 
beginning and end of the grant period.
    Changes: We have revised selection criterion (e) Vision for Growth 
and Accountability to clarify that the SEA should describe its 
statewide vision for charter school growth and accountability, 
including the role of the SEA instead of just the vision of the SEA. We 
also revised the priority to list the factors the Secretary will 
consider in determining the quality of that statewide vision.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about administrative 
burden within the context of selection criteria (e), (f), and (g). The 
commenter suggested that the Department add language that would 
incentivize States to reduce reporting and administrative requirements 
for charter schools, particularly when a school has a proven track 
record of high student achievement.
    Discussion: We are mindful of the general reporting burden charter 
schools face as they comply with Federal, State, local, and authorizer 
reporting and other administrative requirements. However, the purpose 
of this regulatory action is to support the development of high-quality 
charter schools throughout the Nation by strengthening several 
components of the CSP Grants to SEAs program. These final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria do not address State 
or local reporting requirements. We believe that the factors outlined 
in the three selection criteria noted above do not increase reporting 
burden on charter schools, but rather, request that SEAs communicate 
how their plans address accountability within areas of reporting that 
already exist; how they plan to disseminate information about charter 
schools across the State, which is a requirement of the grant; and how, 
within the construct of their laws, they plan to provide oversight to 
authorizers.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that selection criterion (e) Vision 
for Growth and Accountability is inherently subjective and recommended 
that the Department clarify what it would consider to be a highly rated 
plan.
    Discussion: We rely on a team of independent peer reviewers to use 
their professional knowledge and expertise to evaluate responses to the 
selection criteria and rate the quality of the applications based on 
those responses. For these reasons, the Department declines to further 
delineate what constitutes a highly rated plan. Applicants are asked to 
address the criterion in their proposed plans in a way that they 
believe successfully responds to the selection criterion.
    Changes: None.

(f) Dissemination of Information and Best Practices

    Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department revise 
selection criterion (f) Dissemination of Information and Best Practices 
to request a description of the extent to which authorizers or other 
State entities, as well as the SEA, will serve as leaders in 
identifying and disseminating information, including information 
regarding the quality of their plans to disseminate information and 
research on best or promising practices that effectively incorporate 
student body diversity and are related to school discipline and school 
climate.
    Discussion: We understand that SEAs often collaborate with 
authorizers or other State entities to disseminate information about 
charter schools and best practices in charter schools. Information 
dissemination is a requirement for all SEAs that receive CSP funding. 
This criterion is intended to collect specific information about how 
the SEA plans to meet this requirement. Although we support 
collaboration, because SEAs are the grantees under the program, we 
decline to make the proposed revision.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 34216]]

(g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies

    Comment: One commenter expressed support for selection criterion 
(g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies. Another 
commenter recommended deleting this selection criterion, stating that 
it assumes that authorizers are providing inadequate or ineffective 
oversight and that requiring SEAs to oversee and manage authorizers' 
activities would impose undue costs and require more funding than the 
CSP Grants for SEAs program currently provides. The commenter also 
stated that the criterion should be deleted because it assumes that 
SEAs have statutory authority to monitor, evaluate, or otherwise hold 
accountable authorizers.
    Discussion: This criterion is not intended to imply that 
authorizers are not providing adequate or effective oversight. Rather, 
the criterion is intended to challenge SEAs to take steps to ensure 
higher-quality charter school authorizing. We understand that SEAs do 
not always have the statutory authority to take action against 
authorizers that perform poorly or approve low-quality charter schools. 
However, all SEAs can review and evaluate data on authorizer and 
charter school performance, and this criterion is designed to encourage 
that role within the administrative plans SEAs put in place for the CSP 
grant. The CSP Grants for SEAs program allows up to five percent of 
funds to be set aside for administrative costs, which can be used for a 
wide range of activities to support charter schools funded under the 
grant, including monitoring and oversight and providing technical 
assistance.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested revising paragraph (1) of 
selection criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering 
Agencies to require authorizers only to seek charter school petitions 
from developers that have the capacity to create high-quality charter 
schools, rather than requiring authorizers to seek and approve charter 
school petitions from such developers. Second, two commenters 
recommended revising paragraph (1) to focus on the capacity of 
developers to create charter schools that can become high-quality 
charter schools.
    Discussion: We decline to delete the word ``approving'' from 
paragraph (1), which asks for the SEA's plan on how it will ensure that 
authorizers both seek and approve applications from developers with the 
capacity to create high-quality charter schools. We believe that, in 
addition to seeking applications from developers that have the capacity 
to create high-quality charter schools, authorizers should strive to 
assess the likelihood that applications will result in high-quality 
charter schools. However, we agree that it would be useful to clarify 
that these developers need only demonstrate that they have the capacity 
to create charter schools that can become high-quality charter schools. 
These suggested changes are consistent with other changes that we are 
making to these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (1) of selection criterion (g) 
Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies to refer to 
developers that have the capacity to create charter schools that can 
become high-quality charter schools.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended either substantial edits to 
paragraph (2) of selection criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public 
Chartering Agencies or the deletion of paragraph (2) altogether. These 
commenters stated that the focus on evidence-based whole-school models 
and practices related to racial and ethnic diversity would 
significantly limit charter school and authorizer autonomy and restrict 
innovation in the charter school sector. Finally, some commenters 
opined that this factor would create an obstacle for charter school 
developers seeking to open schools in communities that are not racially 
and ethnically diverse.
    Discussion: We agree that innovation is a critical and fundamental 
attribute of charter schools. We disagree, however, that asking SEAs to 
describe how they will ensure that authorizers are approving charter 
schools with design elements that incorporate evidence-based school 
models and practices would limit innovation or preclude the creation of 
charter schools in certain communities. Despite the commenter's 
concern, this criterion does not ask applicants to ensure that all 
approved charter schools solely use evidence-based approaches--
authorizers may approve charter school petitions that include new or 
untested ideas as long as there are elements within their new approach 
that are supported by evidence.
    As discussed above, selection criteria do not impose requirements 
on applicants, but merely request information to enable peer reviewers 
to evaluate how well an applicant will comply with certain programmatic 
requirements based on their responses to the selection criteria. Thus, 
while we encourage SEAs and charter schools to take steps to improve 
student body diversity in charter schools, paragraph (2) of selection 
criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies does 
not require every approved school to be racially and ethnically 
diverse.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters recommended that the Department revise 
paragraph (5) of selection criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public 
Chartering to reflect language added in the FY 2015 Appropriations Act 
which requires applicants to provide assurances that authorizers use 
increases in student academic achievement for all groups of students as 
one of the most important factors in deciding whether to renew a 
school's charter.
    Discussion: We agree that this factor should be consistent with the 
language in the FY 2015 Appropriations Act, which was enacted after 
publication of the NPP in the Federal Register, and have made 
appropriate revisions.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (5) of selection criterion (g) 
Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies to reflect the 
requirement in the FY 2015 Appropriations Act that SEAs provide 
assurances that State law, regulations, or other policies require 
authorizers to use increases in student academic achievement as one of 
the most important factors in charter renewal decisions, instead of the 
most important factor.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify 
selection criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering 
Agencies to ensure that States hold authorizers accountable for the 
enrollment, recruitment, retention and outcomes of all students, 
including students with disabilities. The commenter noted that all 
State charter school laws have provisions regarding special education 
and related services but that the substance of these statutes varies 
considerably from State to State. The commenter recommended providing 
clarity within selection criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public 
Chartering Agencies to specify that in accordance with IDEA, SEAs must 
exercise their authority to ensure authorizers provide students with 
disabilities equal access to the State's charter schools, and provide 
students with disabilities a free appropriate public education in the 
least restrictive environment.
    Discussion: In general, selection criteria do not impose 
requirements on applicants. Rather, they are intended to solicit 
information to enable peer reviewers to evaluate an SEA's plan to

[[Page 34217]]

hold authorizers accountable within the constraints of the State's 
charter school law. One factor in selection criterion (g) provides for 
consideration of the quality of the SEA's plan to monitor, evaluate, 
assist, and hold authorized public chartering agencies accountable in 
monitoring their charter schools on at least an annual basis, including 
ensuring that the charter schools are complying with applicable State 
and Federal laws. Charter law provisions regarding IDEA requirements 
would be part of the SEA's plan.
    In addition, although SEAs' statutory authority over authorizers 
varies from State to State, all charter schools receiving CSP subgrants 
through the SEA must comply with applicable Federal and State laws, 
including Federal civil rights laws and part B of the IDEA, to meet the 
Federal definition of a charter school (section 5210(1)(G) of the ESEA, 
20 U.S.C. 7221i).
    We also refer the commenter to selection criterion (a) State-Level 
Strategy, which requires SEAs to demonstrate how they will improve 
educational outcomes for students throughout the State. Finally, we 
refer the commenter to selection criterion (d) Quality of Plan to 
Support Educationally Disadvantaged Students, which explicitly requires 
SEAs to provide a plan and vision for supporting educationally 
disadvantaged students, which includes students with disabilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended revising selection criterion (g) 
Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies to allow the 
Secretary to consider the quality of an authorizer either in addition 
to, or in place of, the quality of an SEA's plan to monitor the 
authorizer. The commenter expressed concern that the elements of this 
criterion will give an SEA undue influence over authorizers.
    Discussion: The CSP Grants for SEAs program provides funds to SEAs 
to enable them to conduct charter school subgrant programs in their 
State. State charter school laws vary with respect to an SEA's 
oversight authority over authorizers. Therefore, this criterion is 
intended to challenge SEAs to take steps to ensure that charter school 
authorizers establish policies and employ practices to create and 
retain high-quality charter schools that meet the terms of their 
charter contracts and comply with applicable State and Federal laws, 
within the constraints of the State's charter school law. For this 
reason, we leave the language as originally drafted.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested textual revisions to 
selection criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering 
Agencies. First, one commenter recommended extensive changes to 
paragraph (2) in order to emphasize the need for an authorizer to 
conduct a petition approval process that considers an individual 
developer's capacity to create high-quality charter schools, among 
other factors. Additionally, one commenter suggested adding financial 
measures to academic and operational performance measures as an element 
of paragraph (3). One commenter recommended that we revise paragraph 
(7) to emphasize providing rather than supporting charter school 
autonomy. Finally, one commenter stated that the words ``public'' and 
``government'' are not synonymous with regard to authorizing entities, 
but did not provide additional context for the comment.
    Discussion: We decline to change paragraph (2) as suggested. We 
believe that it is critically important for an authorizer to evaluate 
entities for the capacity to develop a high-quality charter school. We 
also do not believe that it is appropriate to add a reference to 
financial factors to paragraph (3), as financial performance 
expectations are included as part of the general operational 
performance expectations discussed in the paragraph.
    We also disagree with the proposed revisions to paragraph (7). We 
recognize that autonomy manifests in many ways and that the degree of 
autonomy afforded to charter schools is based on State law. With this 
criterion, we ask SEAs to describe their plans to ensure that 
authorizers are supporting charter school autonomy; this could be 
through the authorizer's provision of that autonomy, but also could 
occur in other indirect ways. For this reason, we decline to revise the 
language as suggested by the commenter. Finally, we agree that the 
terms ``public'' and ``government'' are not synonymous with respect to 
authorizers.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we revise selection criterion 
(g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies to request that 
an SEA describe all efforts in the State to strengthen authorized 
public chartering agencies, rather than describe only the SEA's 
efforts. The commenter expressed expectations that an SEA will have 
robust oversight over authorizers.
    Discussion: Because SEAs are the grantees under this program, we 
believe the emphasis should remain on the SEA rather than other 
entities within the State. We note that selection criterion (e) Vision 
for Growth and Accountability addresses the statewide vision for 
strengthening authorizers, which may involve direct State action or 
other entities playing an oversight or performance management role in 
partnership with the State.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise selection 
criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies to ask 
SEAs to include an analysis of whether the State's budget is adequate 
for the SEA's plan to support high-quality authorizing within the 
context of each State's charter school law.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the adequacy of a 
State's budget for an SEA's plan is relevant in determining the quality 
of the SEA's plan to support high-quality authorizing. While we 
encourage each SEA to provide a detailed description of its plan, 
including any available resources to implement the plan, we decline to 
specify what constitutes a quality plan.
    Changes: None.

(h) Management Plan and Theory of Action

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we limit consideration of 
monitoring reviews under paragraph (3)(ii) of selection criterion (h) 
Management Plan and Theory of Action to those that have occurred within 
the past three years.
    Discussion: Restricting the time period for monitoring reviews to 
three years may not provide a full picture of an applicant's capacity 
for effective program administration. Further, permitting an SEA to 
address compliance issues or findings identified in reviews beyond the 
three-year period will enable it to describe any corrective actions 
that have been implemented successfully.
    Changes: None.

(i) Project Design

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise paragraph (1)(i) 
of selection criterion (i) Project Design to request information about 
how the SEA will ensure that subgrants will be awarded to applicants 
demonstrating the capacity to create charter schools that can become 
high-quality charter schools, as opposed to the capacity to create 
high-quality charter schools.
    Discussion: With this criterion, we ask SEAs to describe the 
likelihood of awarding subgrants to applicants that demonstrate the 
capacity to create high-quality charter schools. Asking

[[Page 34218]]

applicants to demonstrate their capacity to create high-quality charter 
schools implies that the SEA will employ rigorous subgrant review 
processes to assure subgrants are awarded to eligible applicants with 
the capacity to create high-quality charter schools. This criterion 
does not impose a time limit by which new charter schools must be able 
to demonstrate that they are high-quality charter schools, but still 
conveys the ultimate goal of SEAs awarding CSP subgrants to charter 
school developers that will create high-quality charter schools. We 
believe that this language already achieves the commenter's goal and 
decline to revise the criterion.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that it is not useful to ask SEAs to 
estimate the number of high-quality charter schools they will create 
during the life of the grant or the proportion of charter schools that 
have yet to open that will become high-quality. The commenter suggested 
that we strike paragraph (1)(i) of selection criterion (i) Project 
Design, which requests the SEA to discuss the subgrant application and 
peer review processes, and how the SEA intends to ensure that subgrants 
will be awarded to applicants demonstrating the capacity to create 
high-quality charter schools and retain the language in paragraph 
(1)(ii), which requests that the SEA provide a reasonable year-by-year 
estimate of the number of subgrants the SEA expects to award during the 
project period.
    Discussion: Paragraph (1)(i) of selection criterion (i) Project 
Design does not ask SEAs to provide an estimate of new charter schools 
that will become high-quality, but rather, focuses on the quality of 
the SEA's subgrant award process and how the SEA will ensure that 
subgrants are awarded to applicants demonstrating the capacity to 
create high-quality charter schools. On the other hand, we agree that 
the determination of the amount of CSP funds to award to an SEA 
requires a reasonable estimate of the number and size of subgrants the 
SEA expects to award during the grant period. For these reasons, we 
decline to make the change suggested by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department revise 
paragraph (3) of selection criterion (i) Project Design to include 
maintaining as well as increasing student body diversity as examples of 
areas of need in the State on which the SEA's subgrant program might 
focus.
    Discussion: We agree that it would be useful to add maintaining a 
high level of student body diversity as an example of a potential area 
of need in a State. For this reason, we have made the recommended 
revision.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (3) of selection criterion (i) 
Project Design to refer to increasing student body diversity or 
maintaining a high level of student body diversity, as opposed to just 
increasing diversity.

General Comments

    Comment: Several commenters expressed the opinion that charter 
school law is a State and local concern and should be subject to less 
Federal regulation. Several other commenters expressed concern that the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
fail to acknowledge that States may have charter school laws that 
minimize the importance of SEAs in the charter school sector.
    Discussion: We recognize that charter schools are authorized under 
State law and that State charter school laws vary. The CSP Grants for 
SEAs program, however, provides funds to SEAs to enable them to conduct 
charter school subgrant programs in the State. In order for SEAs to 
qualify for CSP funds, they must comply with the statutory and 
regulatory requirements governing the program. These priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are intended to 
clarify CSP requirements and to ensure that CSP funds are spent in 
accordance with those requirements.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require SEAs 
to ensure that education management organizations (EMOs) make their 
financial records available to governing boards on request.
    Discussion: As for-profit entities, EMOs are not eligible to apply 
for CSP subgrants under the CSP Grants to SEAs program. While CSP 
subgrant recipients may enter into contracts with EMOs for the 
provision of goods and services within the scope of authorized 
activities under the program and approved subgrant project, the 
subgrantee is responsible for administering the project and supervising 
the administration of the project. When negotiating the terms of the 
contract with the EMO, the subgrantee should ensure that the contract 
includes whatever provisions are necessary for the proper and efficient 
administration of the subgrant (e.g. a provision that would give the 
grant and subgrant recipients, the Department, the Comptroller of the 
United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, access 
to any books, documents, papers, and records of the contractor that are 
directly pertinent to the program for the purpose of conducting audits 
or examinations).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria collectively 
disadvantage students with disabilities.
    Discussion: We disagree that these final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria disadvantage students with 
disabilities. A major focus of the CSP grants for SEAs program is to 
provide financial assistance to SEAs to enable them to conduct charter 
school subgrant programs to assist educationally disadvantaged and 
other students in meeting State academic content standards and State 
student academic achievement standards. Likewise, these final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria reflect 
the Department's interest in ensuring that charter schools receiving 
CSP funds serve educationally disadvantaged students, including 
students with disabilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria imply that economically 
disadvantaged students as well as ethnic and racial minority students 
are not well-represented in charter schools and that this is not true 
in all States. In addition, the commenter provided an example of a 
State in which charter schools primarily serve students at greatest 
academic risk, and suggested that the Department emphasize academic 
growth as opposed to student achievement in order to capture the 
success of charter schools serving those students.
    Discussion: These final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria are not intended to imply that economically 
disadvantaged, racial, or ethnic minority students are underrepresented 
in charter schools nationwide. We recognize that student demographic 
distributions vary by State and that many charter schools are 
successfully serving diverse student populations, including 
educationally disadvantaged students (i.e., students at risk of 
academic failure) and students who are members of racial or ethnic 
minorities. In addition, the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria provide opportunities for SEAs to 
demonstrate academic growth as well as improved student academic 
achievement in charter schools for all students, including 
educationally disadvantaged students. For example, paragraph (1) of the 
definition of a high-quality charter

[[Page 34219]]

school requires a charter school to demonstrate increased academic 
achievement and attainment for all students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department consider 
diversity-enhancing policies in the charter, magnet, and non-charter 
school sectors. Specifically, the commenter recommended that the 
Department support strategies that reflect collaborative cross-sector 
efforts and community input, consider actual and potential cross-sector 
student enrollment dynamics and impacts, and broadly increase school 
diversity across all taxpayer-supported school sectors.
    Discussion: We agree that cross-sector collaboration can be useful 
in increasing student body diversity in public schools, including 
charter schools. Although SEAs are the only eligible applicants under 
this program, SEAs have great flexibility to devise charter school 
subgrant programs that promote cross-sector collaboration within the 
parameters of the CSP authorizing statute and applicable regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that paragraph (3) of selection 
criterion (d) Quality of Plan to Support Educationally Disadvantaged 
Students, which considers the extent to which an SEA encourages 
innovations in charter schools in order to improve the academic 
achievement of educationally disadvantaged students, and paragraph (2) 
of selection criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering 
Agencies, which considers whether an SEA's plan ensures that 
authorizers are approving charter school petitions with design elements 
that incorporate evidence-based school models and practices, are 
contradictory.
    Discussion: We disagree that the two factors contradict each other. 
For example, an SEA may support charter schools that incorporate 
evidence-based practices into an innovative school model focused on 
improving the academic achievement of educationally disadvantaged 
students. While the entirety of the proposed model may not have been 
evaluated because of the demographics of educationally disadvantaged 
students served, some or all of the individual components of the model 
or practices used may be evidence-based. In the context of selection 
criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies, the 
intent of encouraging SEAs to propose a plan whereby authorizers 
approve charter schools petitions with design elements that incorporate 
evidence-based school models is to promote rigorous review as it 
relates to authorizing but not to discourage authorizers from approving 
an untested innovative school design model focused on serving a subset 
of educationally disadvantaged students, as long as the model, or 
elements or practices with the model, are sufficiently based in 
research.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the Department should require 
SEAs to work with all partners in the field to ensure that the pool of 
charter school developers is diverse and focused on the needs of 
educationally disadvantaged students.
    Discussion: We believe that it is important for SEAs to work with 
other entities that are relevant to charter schools to improve the 
overall quality of the charter school sector and to improve academic 
outcomes for educationally disadvantaged students. To that end, we have 
included selection criteria that ask applicants to discuss their State-
level strategies and plans to serve educationally disadvantaged 
students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department consider 
additional options for a State to submit a competitive application. The 
commenter indicated that, in some States, the chief education officer 
(e.g., superintendent of instruction or similar position) may lack the 
will or ability to advance a strong grant proposal under the CSP Grants 
for SEAs program.
    Discussion: Given that this program awards funds to SEAs, we cannot 
compel a State to advance charter schools when the relevant leadership 
believes that it is not appropriate to do so. In States in which the 
SEA does not have an approved application under the CSP, non-SEA 
eligible applicants (i.e., charter school developers and charter 
schools) may apply directly to the Department for CSP startup and 
dissemination grants. Additional information about the Department's CSP 
Grants to Non-SEA Eligible Applicants program can be found at 
www2.ed.gov/programs/charternonsea/applicant.html.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed general concern about the 
structure of the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria, stating that the priorities are long and vague and may be 
difficult for the Department to apply. The commenter opined that the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria favor a 
narrow interpretation of sound chartering practices that lacks 
research-based support.
    Discussion: These final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria will form the basis of our CSP Grants for SEAs 
competition for FY 2015 and future years. While we do not identify 
which priorities we will utilize for any particular competition, we 
believe that the substance of the priorities in this NFP is appropriate 
given the amount of Federal funds that will flow to the States and 
their subgrantees. We also disagree that these final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria lack appropriate 
alignment with leading practices. Rather, we believe that these final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are well-
founded in current educational research and widely-accepted practice.
    For applicants that require additional information about these 
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, 
the Department will include information in each NIA on any planned pre-
application meetings as well as instructions on how to request 
additional information.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add a 
selection criterion to measure the strength of a State's charter school 
law with respect to provisions related to the closure of academically 
poor-performing charter schools.
    Discussion: We agree that an SEA's ability to close academically 
poor-performing charter schools is an important factor in assessing the 
quality of an SEA's grant application. These priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria address school closure in several 
areas, including Priority 3--High-Quality Authorizing and Monitoring 
Processes, selection criterion (c) Past Performance, and selection 
criterion (e) Vision for Growth and Accountability. These provisions 
address State charter authorizing practices, including charter school 
closure policies, and their impact on the development of high-quality 
charter schools and closure of academically poor-performing charter 
schools.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we add a new priority 
related to facilities access, based on the following additional 
factors: (1) Funding for facilities; (2) assistance with facilities 
acquisition; (3) access to public facilities; (4) the ability to share 
in bonds or mill levies; (5) the right of first refusal to purchase 
public school buildings; or (6) low- or no-cost leasing privileges.
    Discussion: We support State efforts to assist charter schools in 
acquiring

[[Page 34220]]

facilities. Accordingly, selection criterion (a) State-Level Strategy 
considers the extent to which funding equity for charter school 
facilities is incorporated into the State-level strategy.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed priorities 
generally imply that authorizers must follow a uniform path for 
decision-making, that such a path will lead to homogony across 
authorizers, and that this monoculture is not preferable. The commenter 
suggested that the Department address authorizer diversity and an 
authorizer's ability to exercise its own judgment and discretion with 
regard to chartering decisions.
    Discussion: We agree that authorizers should exercise judgment over 
their portfolio of charter schools and should be evaluated based on the 
success of those portfolios. We also note that it is important for SEAs 
to develop and adopt principles and standards around charter school 
authorizing to ensure some level of quality control and public 
accountability within the charter sector if charter schools are to 
fulfill their intended purposes. These final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria enable the Department and peer 
reviewers to evaluate SEA applications regarding quality control and 
public accountability around charter school authorizing within their 
State.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about charter schools' 
compliance with open records and meeting laws. One of the commenters 
recommended that the Department require States to ensure that charter 
schools comply with these laws, while the other commenter suggested 
that the Department require SEAs to provide guidance to charter 
schools, LEAs, and authorizers clarifying that neither the Family 
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) nor IDEA prevent the sharing 
of student data in an efficient and timely manner.
    Discussion: We support transparency across all aspects of the 
chartering process. Open meetings laws are not addressed in ESEA or 
other areas of Federal law. Therefore, the decision to include charter 
schools in open meetings requirements is a State issue. It is worth 
noting, however, that factors (4) and (6) of selection criterion (g) 
Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies ask charter schools 
how they comply with all related State laws. Regarding the request to 
add an additional assurance regarding records transfer, we note that 
section 5208 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221g) requires an SEA and LEA to 
transfer a student's records when that student transfers schools.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed general concern over parent 
contracts in certain charter school settings. The commenter stated that 
these contracts have the potential to deny eligibility to a student if 
a child's parent or guardian is unable to comply with the contract, and 
that such contracts can have a discriminatory impact on certain 
students. The commenter recommended that the Department determine CSP 
Grants to SEAs program eligibility on the condition that subgrantees 
prohibit parent contracts. The commenter also recommended that the 
Department require school districts, authorizers, and individual 
schools to provide a city-wide, multi-year plan to note demographic 
changes, criteria for new school openings or closings, and equitable 
geographic distribution of schools. Additionally, the commenter asked 
that the Department require authorizers to submit an impact statement 
before approving any new charter school application. Finally, the 
commenter recommended that the Department require an SEA to conduct an 
annual assessment of the cumulative impact of charter schools on 
traditional school districts. This assessment would analyze funding, 
enrollment trends, and educational outcomes.
    Discussion: While the CSP authorizing statute does not expressly 
prohibit parent contracts, SEAs are required to ensure that charter 
schools are providing equal educational opportunities for all students. 
In addition, charter schools receiving CSP subgrants may not charge 
tuition and, as public schools, ls must employ open admissions policies 
and provide all students with an equal opportunity to attend the 
charter school. While SEAs have great flexibility to conduct their 
charter schools subgrant programs in a manner that promotes State goals 
and objectives, they must do so consistent with CSP requirements. Thus, 
SEAs may not require or allow charter schools to employ admissions or 
other policies that are discriminatory or otherwise exclude certain 
students from applying for admission to the charter school.
    With regard to the commenter's request that we require impact 
statements, we do not believe that requiring an SEA to conduct an 
annual impact assessment of charter schools represents the best 
expenditure of CSP funds. Further, elements related to impact could be 
addressed in selection criterion (a) State-Level Strategy, and also 
under selection criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering 
Agencies, through the development of a State-level strategy and 
authorizers' review and monitoring of their school portfolios. For 
these reasons, we decline to impose any of the recommended 
requirements.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require SEAs 
to post information regarding individual charter schools online, such 
as the school's charter, performance contract, and school rules. The 
commenter also stated that members of the charter sector should be 
subject to financial conflict of interest guidelines similar to those 
that magnet schools follow.
    Discussion: We believe that charter schools should be transparent 
in their operations and make information as widely available to the 
public as possible. In addition, charter schools are public schools 
and, as such, are subject to all applicable laws governing information 
access. However, we defer to States regarding the specific information 
they choose to post on a particular Web site.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter supported the inclusion of the statutory 
priority for States that have a non-LEA authorizer as described in 
section 5202(e)(3)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)(3)(B)). The 
commenter expressed the belief that the priority was not included in 
the NPP because the Department does not propose to supplement the 
statutory language, and that the priority should be used in the FY 2015 
CSP Grants for SEAs competition.
    Discussion: The commenter is correct that the final priorities in 
this NFP do not alter the statutory priority described in section 
5202(e)(3)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)(3)(B)), which delineates 
priority criteria to incentivize States who have an authorizer that is 
not a LEA or, if only LEAs can authorize charter schools within a given 
State, an appeals process for the denial of a charter school 
application.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked the Department to require applicants 
to submit information about the SEA's process for awarding grants to 
charter schools with a significant expansion of enrollment under the 
CSP program and noted that current CSP regulations give States latitude 
in defining significant expansion of enrollment.
    Discussion: Under this program, the Department awards grants to 
SEAs to assist them in conducting a charter school subgrant program in 
their States. As a general matter, funds may be used

[[Page 34221]]

only for post-award planning and initial implementation of charter 
schools and the dissemination of information about charter schools. The 
CSP Replication and Expansion Grant program (CFDA Number 84.282M) 
awards grants to non-profit charter management organizations (CMOs) and 
other not for-profit entities to support the replication and expansion 
of high-quality charter schools. In limited circumstances, the 
Department has granted waiver requests submitted by SEAs under this 
program to enable the SEA to award a CSP grant to a charter school that 
has substantially expanded its enrollment. Because CSP Grants to SEAs 
generally do not support charter school expansions, however, the 
Department declines to include the proposed requirement.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested including a note in the NIA 
stating that, while guiding growth within the priorities of a State or 
district is an admirable goal, the application and review process 
should not remove a strong community charter school proposal from 
consideration just because it does not focus on a priority for a State 
or authorizer.
    Discussion: We acknowledge that a community charter school 
applicant may propose models to a specific authorizer that may not be 
aligned with a State's specific priorities for charter growth. While 
SEAs may exercise flexibility in designing and establishing priorities 
for their CSP subgrant programs, they are required to utilize a peer 
review process to evaluate subgrant applications to ensure fairness in 
the competitive subgrant award process and that the highest quality 
applications are approved for funding. We encourage the State to have a 
deliberate plan for innovative charter school growth, but individual 
authorizers approve or reject charter school petitions based on the 
requirements of the applicable State charter school law.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: We received several general comments about the goals 
stated in the Executive Summary section. One commenter stated that 
including annual measurable objectives as the most important factor in 
charter renewal decisions will exclude other equally important factors 
such as health, safety, finances, and governance. Additionally, one 
commenter stated that requiring all subgroups to attain high levels of 
achievement is inappropriate at the present time. Finally, two 
commenters asserted that an SEA should have the authority to establish 
academic outcomes related to its authorizers' portfolios so that the 
SEA can drive systemic and systematic changes in charter practices 
while also increasing the performance standards of a State's charter 
school system.
    Discussion: With regard to the first point, we do not intend to 
imply that annual measurable objectives are the most important factor. 
All enumerated factors are equally important and include the elements 
enumerated by the commenter. Further, we recognize that various 
subgroups will achieve differing gains over time. In addition, while 
SEA oversight authority over authorizers varies based on State charter 
school law, we believe that having a State-Level Strategy provides the 
SEA with an opportunity to create systemic and systematic change while 
also increasing student academic achievement in charter schools.
    With regard to the final point, we disagree with the commenter and 
note that an SEA's authority is an issue of State law. We do, however, 
believe that these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria may motivate a State to exercise a more active role over 
authorizer accountability.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter commended the Department's focus on 
educationally disadvantaged students and recommended that we reward 
States that present data demonstrating that there is equitable access 
to charter schools for all subgroups.
    Discussion: We believe that equitable access to charter schools for 
all subgroups is addressed in paragraph (2) of selection criterion (d) 
Quality of Plan to Support Educationally Disadvantaged Students. A 
critical aspect of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria is to ensure equitable access to charter schools for 
students across all subgroups, including educationally disadvantaged 
students. For this reason, we decline to make the suggested revision.
    Changes: None.
    FINAL PRIORITIES:
    Priority 1--Periodic Review and Evaluation.
    To meet this priority, the applicant must demonstrate that the 
State provides for periodic review and evaluation by the authorized 
public chartering agency of each charter school at least once every 
five years, unless required more frequently by State law, and takes 
steps to ensure that such reviews take place. The review and evaluation 
must serve to determine whether the charter school is meeting the terms 
of the school's charter and meeting or exceeding the student academic 
achievement requirements and goals for charter schools as set forth in 
the school's charter or under State law, a State regulation, or a State 
policy, provided that the student academic achievement requirements and 
goals for charter schools established by that policy meet or exceed 
those set forth under applicable State law or State regulation. This 
periodic review and evaluation must include an opportunity for the 
authorized public chartering agency to take appropriate action or 
impose meaningful consequences on the charter school, if necessary.
    Priority 2--Charter School Oversight.
    To meet this priority, an application must demonstrate that State 
law, regulations, or other policies in the State where the applicant is 
located require the following:
    (a) That each charter school in the State--
    (1) Operates under a legally binding charter or performance 
contract between itself and the school's authorized public chartering 
agency that describes the rights and responsibilities of the school and 
the authorized public chartering agency;
    (2) Conducts annual, timely, and independent audits of the school's 
financial statements that are filed with the school's authorized public 
chartering agency; and
    (3) Demonstrates improved student academic achievement; and
    (b) That all authorized public chartering agencies in the State use 
increases in student academic achievement for all groups of students 
described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 
6311(b)(2)(C)(v)) as one of the most important factors when determining 
whether to renew or revoke a school's charter.
    Priority 3--High-Quality Authorizing and Monitoring Processes.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that all 
authorized public chartering agencies in the State use one or more of 
the following:
    (a) Frameworks and processes to evaluate the performance of charter 
schools on a regular basis that include--
    (1) Rigorous academic and operational performance expectations 
(including performance expectations related to financial management and 
equitable treatment of all students and applicants);
    (2) Performance objectives for each school aligned to those 
expectations;
    (3) Clear criteria for renewing the charter of a school based on an 
objective body of evidence, including evidence that the charter school 
has (a) met the performance objectives outlined in the charter or 
performance contract; (b)

[[Page 34222]]

demonstrated organizational and fiscal viability; and (c) demonstrated 
fidelity to the terms of the charter or performance contract and 
applicable law;
    (4) Clear criteria for revoking the charter of a school if there is 
violation of a law or public trust regarding student safety or public 
funds, or evidence of poor student academic achievement; and
    (5) Annual reporting by authorized public chartering agencies to 
each of their authorized charter schools that summarizes the individual 
school's performance and compliance, based on this framework, and 
identifies any areas that need improvement.
    (b) Clear and specific standards and formalized processes that 
measure and benchmark the performance of the authorized public 
chartering agency or agencies, including the performance of its 
portfolio of charter schools, and provide for the annual dissemination 
of information on such performance;
    (c) Authorizing processes that establish clear criteria for 
evaluating charter applications and include a multi-tiered clearance or 
review of a charter school, including a final review immediately before 
the school opens for its first operational year; or
    (d) Authorizing processes that include differentiated review of 
charter petitions to assess whether, and the extent to which, the 
charter school developer has been successful (as determined by the 
authorized public chartering agency) in establishing and operating one 
or more high-quality charter schools.
    Priority 4--SEAs that Have Never Received a CSP Grant.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must be an eligible SEA 
applicant that has never received a CSP grant.
    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:
    Academically poor-performing charter school: Provide one of the 
following:
    (a) Written certification that, for purposes of the CSP grant, the 
SEA uses the definition of academically poor-performing charter school 
provided in this notice; or
    (b) If the State proposes to use an alternative definition of 
academically poor-performing charter school in accordance with 
paragraph (b) of the definition of the term in this notice, (1) the 
specific definition the State proposes to use; and (2) a written 
explanation of how the proposed definition is at least as rigorous as 
the standard in paragraph (a) of the definition of academically poor-
performing charter school set forth in the Definitions section of this 
notice.
    High-quality charter school: Provide one of the following:
    (a) Written certification that, for purposes of the CSP grant, the 
SEA uses the definition of high-quality charter school provided in this 
notice; or
    (b) If the State proposes to use an alternative definition of high-
quality charter school in accordance with paragraph (b) of the 
definition of the term in this notice, (1) the specific definition the 
State proposes to use; and (2) a written explanation of how the 
proposed definition is at least as rigorous as the standard in 
paragraph (a) of the definition of high-quality charter school set 
forth in the Definitions section of this notice.
    Logic model: Provide a complete logic model (as defined in 34 CFR. 
77.1) for the project. The logic model must address the role of the 
grant in promoting the State-level strategy for expanding the number of 
high-quality charter schools through startup subgrants, optional 
dissemination subgrants, optional revolving loan funds, and other 
strategies.
    Lottery and Enrollment Preferences: Describe (1) how lotteries for 
admission to charter schools will be conducted in the State, including 
any student enrollment preferences or exemptions from the lottery that 
charter schools are required or expressly permitted by the State to 
employ; and (2) any mechanisms that exist for the SEA or authorized 
public chartering agency to review, monitor, or approve such lotteries 
or student enrollment preferences or exemptions from the lottery. In 
addition, the SEA must provide an assurance that it will require each 
applicant for a CSP subgrant to include in its application descriptions 
of its recruitment and admissions policies and practices, including a 
description of the proposed lottery and any enrollment preferences or 
exemptions from the lottery the charter school employs or plans to 
employ, and how those enrollment preferences or exemptions are 
consistent with State law and the CSP authorizing statute (for 
information related to admissions and lotteries under the CSP, please 
see Section E of the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance (January 2014) at 
www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/nonregulatory-guidance.html).
    FINAL DEFINITIONS:
    Academically poor-performing charter school means--
    (a) A charter school that has been in operation for at least three 
years and that--
    (1) Has been identified as being in the lowest-performing five 
percent of all schools in the State and has failed to improve school 
performance (based on the SEA's accountability system under the ESEA) 
over the past three years; and
    (2) Has failed to demonstrate student academic growth of at least 
an average of one grade level for each cohort of students in each of 
the past three years, as demonstrated by statewide or other assessments 
approved by the authorized public chartering agency; or
    (b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for academically poor-
performing charter school, provided that the SEA complies with the 
requirements for proposing to use an alternative definition for the 
term as set forth in paragraph (b) of academically poor-performing 
charter school in the Requirements section of this notice.
    Educationally disadvantaged students means economically 
disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, migrant students, 
limited English proficient students (also referred to as English 
learners or English language learners), neglected or delinquent 
students, or homeless students.
    High-quality charter school means--
    (a) A charter school that shows evidence of strong academic results 
for the past three years (or over the life of the school, if the school 
has been open for fewer than three years), based on the following 
factors:
    (1) Increased student academic achievement and attainment 
(including, if applicable and available, high school graduation rates 
and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) for all 
students, including, as

[[Page 34223]]

applicable, educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter 
school;
    (2) Either--
    (i) Demonstrated success in closing historic achievement gaps for 
the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of 
the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)) at the charter school; or
    (ii) No significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups 
of students described in section 1111 (b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (20 
U.S.C. 6311) at the charter school and significant gains in student 
academic achievement for all populations of students served by the 
charter school;
    (3) Results (including, if applicable and available, performance on 
statewide tests, annual student attendance and retention rates, high 
school graduation rates, college and other postsecondary education 
attendance rates, and college and other postsecondary education 
persistence rates) for low-income and other educationally disadvantaged 
students served by the charter school that are above the average 
academic achievement results for such students in the State;
    (4) Results on a performance framework established by the State or 
authorized public chartering agency for the purpose of evaluating 
charter school quality; and
    (5) No significant compliance issues, particularly in the areas of 
student safety, financial management, and equitable treatment of 
students; or
    (b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for high-quality 
charter school, provided that the SEA complies with the requirements 
for proposing to use an alternative definition for the term as set 
forth in paragraph (b) of high-quality charter school in the 
Requirements section of this notice.
    Significant compliance issue means a violation that did, will, or 
could (if not addressed or if it represents a pattern of repeated 
misconduct or material non-compliance) lead to the revocation of a 
school's charter by the authorizer.
    FINAL SELECTION CRITERIA:
    (a) State-Level Strategy. The Secretary considers the quality of 
the State-level strategy for using charter schools to improve 
educational outcomes for students throughout the State. In determining 
the quality of the State-level strategy, the Secretary considers one or 
more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the SEA's CSP activities, including the 
subgrant program, are integrated into the State's overall strategy for 
improving student academic achievement and attainment (including high 
school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education 
enrollment rates) and closing achievement and attainment gaps, and 
complement or leverage other statewide education reform efforts;
    (2) The extent to which funding equity for charter schools 
(including equitable funding for charter school facilities) is 
incorporated into the SEA's State-level strategy; and
    (3) The extent to which the State encourages local strategies for 
improving student academic achievement and attainment that involve 
charter schools, including but not limited to the following:
    (i) Collaboration, including the sharing of data and promising 
instructional and other practices, between charter schools and other 
public schools or providers of early learning and development programs 
or alternative education programs; and
    (ii) The creation of charter schools that would serve as viable 
options for students who currently attend, or would otherwise attend, 
the State's lowest-performing schools.
    (b) Policy Context for Charter Schools. The Secretary considers the 
policy context for charter schools under the proposed project. In 
determining the policy context for charter schools under the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The degree of flexibility afforded to charter schools under the 
State's charter school law, including:
    (i) The extent to which charter schools in the State are exempt 
from State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and 
management of public schools; and
    (ii) The extent to which charter schools in the State have a high 
degree of autonomy, including autonomy over the charter school's 
budget, expenditures, staffing, procurement, and curriculum;
    (2) The quality of the SEA's processes for:
    (i) Annually informing each charter school in the State about 
Federal funds the charter school is eligible to receive and Federal 
programs in which the charter school may participate; and
    (ii) Annually ensuring that each charter school in the State 
receives, in a timely fashion, the school's commensurate share of 
Federal funds that are allocated by formula each year, particularly 
during the first year of operation of the school and during a year in 
which the school's enrollment expands significantly; and
    (3) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools 
that are considered to be LEAs under State law and LEAs in which 
charter schools are located will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 
613(e)(1)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
U.S.C. 1400, et seq.), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 
6101, et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
2000d, et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 
U.S.C. 1681, et seq.), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).
    (c) Past Performance. The Secretary considers the past performance 
of charter schools in a State that enacted a charter school law for the 
first time five or more years before submission of its application. In 
determining the past performance of charter schools in such a State, 
the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated increase, for 
each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of high-
quality charter schools (as defined in this notice) in the State;
    (2) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated reduction, 
for each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of 
academically poor-performing charter schools (as defined in this 
notice) in the State; and
    (3) Whether, and the extent to which, the academic achievement and 
academic attainment (including high school graduation rates and college 
and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) of charter school 
students equal or exceed the academic achievement and academic 
attainment of similar students in other public schools in the State 
over the past five years.
    (d) Quality of Plan to Support Educationally Disadvantaged 
Students. The Secretary considers the quality of the SEA's plan to 
support educationally disadvantaged students. In determining the 
quality of the plan to support educationally disadvantaged students, 
the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the SEA's charter school subgrant program 
would--
    (i) Assist students, particularly educationally disadvantaged 
students, in meeting and exceeding State academic content standards and 
State student achievement standards; and
    (ii) Reduce or eliminate achievement gaps for educationally 
disadvantaged students;
    (2) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools 
attract, recruit, admit, enroll, serve, and retain educationally 
disadvantaged students equitably, meaningfully, and, with regard to 
educationally disadvantaged

[[Page 34224]]

students who are students with disabilities or English learners, in a 
manner consistent with, as appropriate, the IDEA (regarding students 
with disabilities) and civil rights laws, in particular, section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964;
    (3) The extent to which the SEA will encourage innovations in 
charter schools, such as models, policies, supports, or structures, 
that are designed to improve the academic achievement of educationally 
disadvantaged students; and
    (4) The quality of the SEA's plan for monitoring all charter 
schools to ensure compliance with Federal and State laws, particularly 
laws related to educational equity, nondiscrimination, and access to 
public schools for educationally disadvantaged students.
    (e) Vision for Growth and Accountability. The Secretary determines 
the quality of the statewide vision, including the role of the SEA, for 
charter school growth and accountability. In determining the quality of 
the statewide vision, the Secretary considers one or more of the 
following factors:
    (1) The quality of the SEA's systems for collecting, analyzing, and 
publicly reporting data on charter school performance, including data 
on student academic achievement, attainment (including high school 
graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education 
enrollment rates), retention, and discipline for all students and 
disaggregated by student subgroup;
    (2) The ambitiousness, quality of vision, and feasibility of the 
SEA's plan (including key actions) to support the creation of high-
quality charter schools during the project period, including a 
reasonable estimate of the number of high-quality charter schools in 
the State at both the beginning and the end of the project period; and
    (3) The ambitiousness, quality of vision, and feasibility of the 
SEA's plan (including key actions) to support the closure of 
academically poor-performing charter schools in the State (i.e., 
through revocation, non-renewal, or voluntary termination of a charter) 
during the project period.
    (f) Dissemination of Information and Best Practices. The Secretary 
considers the quality of the SEA's plan to disseminate information 
about charter schools and best or promising practices of successful 
charter schools to each LEA in the State as well as to charter schools, 
other public schools, and charter school developers (20 U.S.C. 
7221b(b)(2)(C) and 7221c(f)(6)). If an SEA proposes to use a portion of 
its grant funds for dissemination subgrants under section 5204(f)(6)(B) 
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c(f)(6)(B)), the SEA should incorporate 
these subgrants into the overall plan for dissemination. In determining 
the quality of the SEA's plan to disseminate information about charter 
schools and best or promising practices of successful charter schools, 
the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the SEA will serve as a leader in the State 
for identifying and disseminating information and research (which may 
include, but is not limited to, providing technical assistance) about 
best or promising practices in successful charter schools, including 
how the SEA will use measures of efficacy and data in identifying such 
practices and assessing the impact of its dissemination activities;
    (2) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and 
research on best or promising practices used by, and the benefits of, 
charter schools that effectively incorporate student body diversity, 
including racial and ethnic diversity and diversity with respect to 
educationally disadvantaged students, consistent with applicable law;
    (3) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and 
research on best or promising practices in charter schools related to 
student discipline and school climate; and
    (4) For an SEA that proposes to use a portion of its grant funds to 
award dissemination subgrants under section 5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA 
(20 U.S.C. 7221a(f)(6)(B)), the quality of the subgrant award process 
and the likelihood that such dissemination activities will increase the 
number of high-quality charter schools in the State and contribute to 
improved student academic achievement.
    (g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies. The 
Secretary considers the quality of the SEA's plan (including any use of 
grant administrative or other funds) to monitor, evaluate, assist, and 
hold accountable authorized public chartering agencies. In determining 
the quality of the SEA's plan to provide oversight to authorized public 
chartering agencies, the Secretary considers how well the SEA's plan 
will ensure that authorized public chartering agencies are--
    (1) Seeking and approving charter school petitions from developers 
that have the capacity to create charter schools that can become high-
quality charter schools;
    (2) Approving charter school petitions with design elements that 
incorporate evidence-based school models and practices, including, but 
not limited to, school models and practices that focus on racial and 
ethnic diversity in student bodies and diversity in student bodies with 
respect to educationally disadvantaged students, consistent with 
applicable law;
    (3) Establishing measureable academic and operational performance 
expectations for all charter schools (including alternative charter 
schools, virtual charter schools, and charter schools that include pre-
kindergarten, if such schools exist in the State) that are consistent 
with the definition of high-quality charter school in this notice;
    (4) Monitoring their charter schools on at least an annual basis, 
including conducting an in-depth review of each charter school at least 
once every five years, to ensure that charter schools are meeting the 
terms of their charters or performance contracts and complying with 
applicable State and Federal laws;
    (5) Using increases in student academic achievement as one of the 
most important factors in renewal decisions; basing renewal decisions 
on a comprehensive set of criteria, which are set forth in the charter 
or performance contract; and revoking, not renewing, or encouraging the 
voluntary termination of charters held by academically poor-performing 
charter schools;
    (6) Providing, on an annual basis, public reports on the 
performance of their portfolios of charter schools, including the 
performance of each individual charter school with respect to meeting 
the terms of, and expectations set forth in, the school's charter or 
performance contract;
    (7) Supporting charter school autonomy while holding charter 
schools accountable for results and meeting the terms of their charters 
or performance contracts; and
    (8) Ensuring the continued accountability of charter schools during 
any transition to new State assessments or accountability systems, 
including those based on college- and career-ready standards.
    (h) Management Plan and Theory of Action. The Secretary considers 
the quality of the management plan and the project's theory of action. 
In determining the quality of the management plan and the project's 
theory of action, the Secretary considers one or more of the following 
factors:
    (1) The quality, including the cohesiveness and strength of 
reasoning, of the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)), and the 
extent to which it

[[Page 34225]]

addresses the role of the grant in promoting the State-level strategy 
for using charter schools to improve educational outcomes for students 
through CSP subgrants for planning, program design, and initial 
implementation; optional dissemination subgrants; optional revolving 
loan funds; and other strategies;
    (2) The extent to which the SEA's project-specific performance 
measures, including any measures required by the Department, support 
the logic model; and
    (3) The adequacy of the management plan to--
    (i) Achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and 
within budget, including the existence of clearly defined 
responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project 
tasks; and
    (ii) Address any compliance issues or findings related to the CSP 
that are identified in an audit or other monitoring review.
    (i) Project Design. The Secretary considers the quality of the 
design of the SEA's charter school subgrant program, including the 
extent to which the project design furthers the SEA's overall strategy 
for increasing the number of high-quality charter schools in the State 
and improving student academic achievement. In determining the quality 
of the project design, the Secretary considers one or more of the 
following factors:
    (1) The quality of the SEA's process for awarding subgrants for 
planning, program design, and initial implementation, and, if 
applicable, for dissemination, including:
    (i) The subgrant application and peer review process, timelines for 
these processes, and how the SEA intends to ensure that subgrants will 
be awarded to eligible applicants demonstrating the capacity to create 
high-quality charter schools; and
    (ii) A reasonable year-by-year estimate, with supporting evidence, 
of (a) the number of subgrants the SEA expects to award during the 
project period and the average size of those subgrants, including an 
explanation of any assumptions upon which the estimates are based; and 
(b) if the SEA has previously received a CSP grant, the percentage of 
eligible applicants that were awarded subgrants and how this percentage 
related to the overall quality of the applicant pool;
    (2) The process for monitoring CSP subgrantees;
    (3) How the SEA will create a portfolio of subgrantees that focuses 
on areas of need within the State, such as increasing student body 
diversity or maintaining a high level of student body diversity, and 
how this focus aligns with the State-Level Strategy;
    (4) The steps the SEA will take to inform teachers, parents, and 
communities of the SEA's charter school subgrant program; and
    (5) A description of any requested waivers of statutory or 
regulatory provisions over which the Secretary exercises administrative 
authority and the extent to which those waivers will, if granted, 
further the objectives of the 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 one or more of these priorities, 
requirements, and definitions we invite applications through a 
notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This regulatory action would have an annual effect on the economy 
of more than $100 million because we anticipate awarding more than $100 
million in grants to SEAs in FY 2015. Therefore, this action is 
``economically significant'' and subject to review by OMB under section 
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding this determination, 
we have assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative 
and qualitative, of this final regulatory action and have determined 
that the benefits would justify the costs.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions 
and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their 
benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. 
Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this 
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 
13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal

[[Page 34226]]

governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
    In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the potential costs 
and benefits of this action, comments we received regarding those costs 
and benefits, and regulatory alternatives we considered.

Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that this regulatory action would not 
impose significant costs on eligible SEAs, whose participation in this 
program is voluntary. This action would not impose requirements on 
participating SEAs apart from those related to preparing an application 
for a CSP grant. The costs associated with meeting these requirements 
are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.
    This regulatory action would strengthen accountability for the use 
of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department selects for 
CSP grants the SEAs that are most capable of expanding the number of 
high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students, 
consistent with the purpose of the program as described in section 5201 
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221). Similarly, this action would benefit 
participating SEAs by supporting their efforts to encourage the 
development and operation of high-quality charter schools. The 
Department believes that these benefits to the Federal government and 
to SEAs outweigh the costs associated with this action.

Discussion of Comments

    We received several comments expressing concern that this 
regulatory action imposes undue administrative burden on applicants and 
grantees. Although the Department recognizes that there are costs to 
SEAs associated with applying for and receiving CSP grants, we do not 
believe that the requirements imposed on SEAs through this regulatory 
action--which relate only to preparing an application for a CSP grant--
carry significant costs. Moreover, for the reasons noted in the 
preceding section, we believe the benefits of this action to the 
Federal government and to SEAs outweigh those costs.
    We note, in addition, that SEAs receiving CSP grants may use up to 
5 percent of grant funds for administrative costs associated with 
carrying out their grant projects.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria in this notice are needed to 
administer the program effectively. As an alternative to promulgating 
the selection criteria, the Department could choose from among the 
selection factors authorized for CSP grants to SEAs in section 5204(a) 
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c(a)) and the general selection criteria in 
34 CFR 75.210. We do not believe that these factors and criteria 
provide a sufficient basis on which to evaluate the quality of 
applications. In particular, the factors and criteria would not 
sufficiently enable the Department to assess an applicant's past 
performance with respect to the operation of high-quality charter 
schools or the closure of academically poor-performing charter schools 
(as examined under selection criterion (c) Past Performance) or its 
plan to hold authorized public chartering agencies accountable for the 
performance of charter schools that they approve (as under selection 
criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies), 
considerations which are critically important in determining applicant 
quality.
    We note that several of the priorities, requirements, and selection 
criteria in this NFP are based on priorities, requirements, selection 
criteria, and other provisions in the authorizing statute for this 
program.

Accounting Statement

    As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the 
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the 
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of 
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the 
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory 
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal 
Government to SEAs.

      Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
                              [In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                             Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers............  $115.
From Whom To Whom?                          From The Federal Government
                                             to SEAs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

Waiver of Congressional Review Act

    These regulations have been determined to be major for purposes of 
the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, 
under the CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days after the date on 
which the rule is published in the Federal Register. Section 808(2) of 
the CRA, however, provides that any rule which an agency for good cause 
finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons 
therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon 
are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, 
shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the 
rule determines.
    These final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are needed to conduct the 2015 CSP Grants for SEAs 
competition. The Department must award funds authorized for this 
program under the FY 2015 Appropriations Act for this competition to 
qualified applicants by September 30, 2015, or the funds will lapse. 
Even on an extremely expedited timeline, it is impracticable for the 
Department to adhere to a 60-day delayed effective date for the final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria and make 
grant awards to qualified applicants by the September 30, 2015 
deadline. When the 60-day delayed effective date is added to the time 
the Department will need to receive applications (approximately 35 
days), review the applications (approximately 45 days), and finally 
approve applications (approximately 30 days), the Department will not 
be able to allocate funds authorized under the FY 2015 Appropriations 
Act to all qualified applicants by September 30, 2015.
    Not being able to allocate the approximately $116 million would 
have a significant negative effect on the quality of charter schools 
and public accountability and oversight. The Department has therefore 
determined that, pursuant to section 808(2) of the CRA, the 60-day 
delay in the effective date generally required for congressional review 
is impracticable, contrary to the public interest, and waived for good 
cause.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on

[[Page 34227]]

request to either of the program contact persons listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: 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 via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site 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). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: June 8, 2015.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2015-14391 Filed 6-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P