[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35571-35581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15977]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2018-OII-0062]
RIN 1855-AA14


Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools 
Program; Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication 
and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

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

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

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

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 
Improvement proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria for Grants to Charter Management Organizations for 
the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (CMO 
grants) under the Expanding Opportunity

[[Page 35572]]

Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP), Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.282M. The Acting Assistant Deputy 
Secretary for Innovation and Improvement may use one or more of these 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for 
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2019 and later years. We take this 
action to support the replication and expansion of high-quality charter 
schools by charter management organizations (CMOs) throughout the 
Nation, particularly those that serve Educationally Disadvantaged 
Students,\1\ such as students who are Individuals from Low-income 
Families, and students who traditionally have been underserved by 
charter schools, such as students who are Indians and students in Rural 
Communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this document, terms for which we are proposing 
definitions are denoted by initial capitals.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``Help.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments, address them to Allison Holte, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5W106, 
Washington, DC 20202-5970.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Holte, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5W106, Washington, DC 20202-
5970. Telephone: (202) 205-7726. 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 Acting Assistant Deputy 
Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for CMO grants. The 
Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement may 
use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria for future competitions, following publication of a 
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria in the Federal Register. We take this action in order to 
support the effective and efficient use of CSP funds in the replication 
and expansion of high-quality charter schools throughout the Nation, 
particularly those that serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, 
such as students who are Individuals from Low-income Families, and 
students who traditionally have been underserved by charter schools, 
such as students who are Indians and students in Rural Communities.
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: The 
Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
proposes this regulatory action to achieve two main goals.
    First, we seek to continue to use funds under this program to 
support high-quality applications from highly qualified applicants. To 
that end, this document includes proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria that would encourage or require 
applicants to describe, for example: Past successes working with 
Academically Poor-performing Public Schools; experience operating or 
managing multiple charter schools; plans to expand their reach into new 
and diverse communities; logical connections between their proposed 
projects and intended outcomes for the students they propose to serve; 
and plans to evaluate the extent to which their proposed projects, if 
funded, yield intended outcomes.
    Second, these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria are designed to increase the likelihood that CMO 
grants support expanded high-quality educational opportunities for 
Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students who are 
Individuals from Low-income Families, children with disabilities, and 
English learners, as well as students who traditionally have been 
underserved by charter schools, such as students who are Indians and 
students in Rural Communities. Specifically, we propose priorities for 
applicants that would: Replicate or expand high-quality charter schools 
with an intentional focus on recruiting students from racially and 
socioeconomically diverse backgrounds, and maintaining racially and 
socially diverse student bodies; demonstrate that a meaningful 
proportion of the students served by the applicant are Individuals from 
Low-income Families; and replicate or expand high-quality charter 
schools that serve high school students, students in Rural Communities, 
or students who are Indians. Further, we propose requirements for CMO 
applicants to describe how the schools they intend to replicate or 
expand would recruit and enroll Educationally Disadvantaged Students 
and support such students in mastering State academic standards.
    In addition to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria, we include in an Appendix the priorities, key 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria from the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student 
Succeeds Act (ESEA), and Federal regulations that are relevant to the 
CMO program and to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria. The priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria in the Appendix are included for reference.
    Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of 
this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs, which we believe 
would be minimal. While this action would impose cost-bearing 
requirements on participating CMOs, we expect that CMO applicants would 
include requests for funds to cover such costs in their proposed 
project budgets. We believe this regulatory action would strengthen 
accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that 
the Department awards CSP grants to CMOs 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 document for a more detailed discussion of costs and benefits.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria. To ensure that your comments have

[[Page 35573]]

maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge you to 
identify clearly the proposed priority, requirement, definition, or 
selection criterion that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of this program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria in 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W228, Washington, 
DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, 
Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The major purposes of the CSP are to: Expand 
opportunities for all students, particularly students facing 
educational disadvantages and students who traditionally have been 
underserved by charter schools, to attend high-quality charter schools 
and meet challenging State academic standards; provide financial 
assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation 
of public charter schools; increase the number of high-quality charter 
schools available to students across the United States; evaluate the 
impact of charter schools on student achievement, families, and 
communities; share best practices between charter schools and other 
public schools; encourage States to provide facilities support to 
charter schools; and support efforts to strengthen the charter school 
authorizing process. Through the CMO grant program, the Department 
provides funds to CMOs on a competitive basis to enable them to 
replicate or expand one or more high-quality charter schools. More 
specifically, grant funds may be used to expand the enrollment of one 
or more existing high-quality charter schools, or to open one or more 
high-quality charter schools by replicating an existing high-quality 
charter school model.

    Program Authority:  Section 4305(b) of the ESEA.

    Proposed Priorities:
    This document contains seven proposed priorities.
    Proposed Priority 1--Promoting Diversity.
    Background: The CSP authorizing statute includes a priority under 
the CMO grant program for eligible entities that plan to operate or 
manage high-quality charter schools with racially and socioeconomically 
diverse student bodies. The proposed priority is based on the statutory 
priority, but would specify that the schools must have an intentional 
focus on racial and socioeconomic diversity. Accordingly, the proposed 
priority would help ensure that the Department targets for funding 
those CMOs taking active steps to promote racial and economic diversity 
in their schools, which we believe is consistent with the intent of the 
statutory priority.
    A similar priority was included as a competitive preference 
priority in the FY 2017 notice inviting applications for this program 
(82 FR 4322) (FY 2017 NIA).
    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must propose to 
replicate or expand high-quality charter schools that have an 
intentional focus on recruiting students from racially and 
socioeconomically diverse backgrounds and maintaining racially and 
socioeconomically diverse student bodies.
    Proposed Priority 2--School Improvement through Restart Efforts.
    Background: The CSP authorizing statute includes a priority under 
the CMO grant program for eligible entities that demonstrate success in 
working with schools identified by the State for comprehensive support 
and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA. States must 
identify schools for comprehensive support and improvement at the 
beginning of the 2018-19 school year. This proposed priority 
incorporates the statutory priority but, in order to meet the priority, 
the applicant also would be required to use CMO grant funds to support 
school improvement efforts by restarting an Academically Poor-
performing Public School. We believe that the restart model (i.e., 
reopening a low-performing traditional public school under the 
management of a charter school developer or CMO, or reopening a low-
performing public charter school under the management of a different 
charter school developer or CMO) holds promise as a school improvement 
strategy, but data suggest that it has been under-utilized thus far.\2\ 
Accordingly, the proposed priority is intended to help increase the 
frequency of implementation of the restart model. The proposed priority 
also would allow applicants to demonstrate past success through work 
with persistently-lowest achieving schools or priority schools (i.e., 
schools identified for interventions under the former School 
Improvement Grant program or in States that exercised ``ESEA 
flexibility,'' respectively, under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Hurlburt, S., Therriault, S.B., and Le Floch, K.C. (2012). 
School Improvement Grants: Analyses of State Applications and 
Eligible and Awarded Schools (NCEE 2012-4060). Washington, DC: 
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In future CMO competitions that include this priority, we would 
encourage applicants to review CSP technical assistance materials 
pertaining to how an applicant may design an admissions lottery for an 
Academically Poor-performing Public School that the applicant is 
proposing to restart. Under the most recent version of the CSP 
nonregulatory guidance, for example, a charter school receiving CSP 
funds could, if permissible under applicable State law, exempt from its 
lottery students who are enrolled in the Academically Poor-performing 
Public School at the time it is restarted.
    A similar priority was included as a competitive preference 
priority in the FY 2017 NIA.
    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, the Secretary considers the 
extent to which applications--
    (a) Demonstrate past success working with one or more Academically 
Poor-performing Public Schools or schools that previously were 
designated as persistently lowest-achieving schools or priority schools 
under the former School Improvement Grant program or in States that 
exercised ESEA flexibility, respectively, under the ESEA, as amended by 
NCLB; and
    (b) Propose to use grant funds under this program to restart one or 
more Academically Poor-performing Public

[[Page 35574]]

Schools as charter schools during the project period by--
    (i) Replicating one or more high-quality charter schools based on a 
successful charter school model for which the applicant has provided 
evidence of success; and
    (ii) Targeting a demographically similar student population in the 
replicated charter schools as was served by the Academically Poor-
performing Public Schools.
    Proposed Priority 3--High School Students.
    Background: Section 4305(b)(5)(C) of the ESEA authorizes the 
Secretary to give priority to applicants that propose to expand or 
replicate high-quality charter schools that serve high school students. 
In addition, section 4310(2)(M) of the ESEA authorizes charter schools 
that serve postsecondary students to receive CSP funds. The proposed 
priority incorporates the language of the statutory priority but, in 
order to meet the priority, applicants also would be required to 
replicate or expand charter high schools that offer programs and 
activities designed to prepare high school students for enrollment in a 
two- or four-year institution of higher education and, drawing from the 
authority provided in section 4310(2)(M), support such students after 
high school graduation in persisting in college and attaining degrees. 
The Department believes the proposed priority would complement broader 
efforts to promote a culture of lifelong learning and increase 
postsecondary participation, attendance, persistence, and degree 
attainment among our Nation's high school graduates.
    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must propose 
to--
    (i) Expand or replicate high-quality charter schools to serve high 
school students;
    (ii) Prepare students in those schools for enrollment in a two- or 
four-year institution of higher education through programs and 
activities such as, but not limited to, accelerated learning programs 
(including Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses 
and programs, dual or concurrent enrollment programs, and early college 
high schools), college counseling, career counseling, internships, 
work-based learning programs (such as apprenticeships), assisting 
students in the college admissions and financial aid application 
processes, and preparing students to take standardized college 
admissions tests;
    (iii) Provide support for students who graduate from those schools 
and enroll in a two- or four-year institution of higher education in 
persisting in, and attaining a degree from, such institutions, through 
programs and activities such as, but not limited to, mentorships, 
ongoing assistance with the financial aid application process, and 
establishing or strengthening peer support systems for such students 
attending the same institution; and
    (iv) Propose one or more project-specific performance measures, 
including aligned leading indicators or other interim milestones, that 
will provide valid and reliable information about the applicant's 
progress in preparing students for enrolling in an institution of 
higher education and in supporting those students in persisting in and 
attaining a degree from such institutions. An applicant addressing this 
priority and receiving a grant under this program must provide data 
that are responsive to the measure(s), including performance targets, 
in its annual performance reports to the Department.
    Proposed Priority 4--Low-Income Demographic.
    Background: The proposed priority is for applicants with experience 
serving concentrations of students who are Individuals from Low-income 
Families and is intended to support efforts to increase the number of 
high-quality educational options available to such students, 
particularly in the Nation's high-poverty areas. We propose three 
subparts to this proposed priority, each of which would require that 
the schools the applicant operates or manages serve a specific minimum 
percentage of students who are Individuals from Low-income Families 
over the course of the CMO grant project period. The Secretary would 
have flexibility to choose one or more of the subparts of this priority 
in a given competition. We believe such flexibility is necessary to 
enable the Secretary to accommodate the range of eligible applicants 
and schools that may need support in a given year. The Department has 
included a similar priority in prior CMO competitions.
    The Department expects that the charter schools proposed to be 
replicated or expanded by an applicant meeting this proposed priority 
would serve, for the duration of the grant period, a percentage of 
students who are Individuals from Low-income Families that is 
comparable to the minimum percentage of such students established under 
the priority for a given year.
    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate 
one of the following--
    (i) That at least 40 percent of the students across all of the 
charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from 
Low-income Families;
    (ii) That at least 50 percent of the students across all of the 
charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from 
Low-income Families; or
    (iii) That at least 60 percent of the students across all of the 
charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from 
Low-income Families.
    Proposed Priority 5--Number of Charter Schools Operated or Managed 
by the Eligible Applicant.
    Background: We propose this priority to enable the Department to 
distinguish applicants based on the number of charter schools they 
currently operate or manage. We propose three subparts for this 
priority, each of which would require that the applicant currently 
operate or manage a different number of schools. The Secretary would 
have the flexibility to choose one or more of the subparts of this 
priority in a given competition. This priority would give the 
Department flexibility to respond to changing funding needs in the 
charter school sector by, for example, targeting support toward smaller 
CMOs (i.e., CMOs that currently operate or manage no more than five 
charter schools) as they begin to expand, or toward larger, more 
established CMOs that seek to serve new communities. In addition, given 
that the CSP statute, as reauthorized under the ESEA, now also allows 
State entities to award subgrants for the replication and expansion of 
high-quality charter schools, this priority would enable the Department 
to focus its grant-making, as appropriate, based on new and evolving 
support for the replication and expansion of charter schools at the 
State level.
    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate 
one of the following--
    (i) That they currently operate or manage two to five charter 
schools;
    (ii) That they currently operate or manage six to 20 charter 
schools; or
    (iii) That they currently operate or manage 21 or more charter 
schools.
    Proposed Priority 6--Geographic Location of Charter Schools 
Proposed to Be Replicated or Expanded.
    Background: We propose this priority to enable the Department to 
provide incentives for applicants to propose to replicate or expand 
high-quality charter schools in Rural Communities. There is too often a 
relative dearth of high-quality educational options for students in 
Rural Communities, and our experience implementing this and other 
discretionary grant programs has taught us that these communities often 
face unique obstacles to educational success.

[[Page 35575]]

This proposed priority would allow the Department flexibility to 
provide an incentive for applicants proposing to replicate or expand 
high-quality charter schools in Rural Communities, including by 
evaluating such applications separately from applications proposing to 
replicate or expand high-quality charter schools in non-rural 
communities, thereby allowing for an ``apples-to-apples'' comparison. 
Accordingly, this proposed priority would help ensure that students in 
Rural Communities have access to a range of educational options similar 
to that available to their peers in suburban and urban areas, and from 
which parents can select an option that best meets their child's needs.
    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must propose to 
replicate or expand one or more high-quality charter schools in a:
    (i) Rural Community; or
    (ii) Community that is not a Rural Community.
    Proposed Priority 7--Replicating or Expanding High-quality Charter 
Schools to Serve Students who are Indians.
    Background: We propose this priority to enable the Department to 
provide an incentive for applicants that propose to replicate or expand 
high-quality charter schools by conducting targeted outreach and 
recruitment in order to serve a High Proportion of students who are 
Indians. We propose to define ``High Proportion'' in a way that would 
enable the Department to determine whether a replicated or expanded 
charter school serves a High Proportion of students who are Indians on 
a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the unique factual 
circumstances of that school.
    In order to meet the priority, an applicant would be required to 
provide a letter of support from one or more Indian Tribes or Indian 
Organizations located within the area to be served by the replicated or 
expanded charter school, and to demonstrate a commitment to 
meaningfully collaborate with the Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations 
in a timely, active, and ongoing manner. In addition, the applicant 
would have to demonstrate that the replicated or expanded charter 
school's mission and educational program will address the unique 
educational needs of students who are Indians, and that such school's 
governing board will have a substantial percentage of members who are 
members of Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations located within the 
area to be served by the charter school.
    Priority: Under this priority, applicants must--
    (i) Propose to replicate or expand one or more high-quality charter 
schools that--
    (I) Utilize targeted outreach and recruitment in order to serve a 
High Proportion of students who are Indians;
    (II) Have a mission and academic program that will address the 
unique educational needs of students who are Indians, including through 
the use of instructional programs and teaching methods that reflect and 
preserve Indian language, culture, and history; and
    (III) Have a governing board with a substantial percentage of 
members who are members of Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations 
located within the area to be served by the replicated or expanded 
charter school;
    (ii) Submit a letter of support, from at least one Indian Tribe or 
Indian Organization located within the area to be served by the 
replicated or expanded charter school; and
    (iii) Demonstrate a commitment to meaningfully collaborate with the 
Indian Tribe(s) or Indian Organization(s) from which the applicant has 
received a letter of support in a timely, active, and ongoing manner 
with respect to the development and implementation of the educational 
program at the charter school.
    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)).
    Proposed Requirements:
    Background: The ESEA includes several requirements for applications 
submitted under this program. We have listed the statutory application 
requirements in the Appendix for reference. In addition to the specific 
statutory requirements, section 4305(c) of the ESEA requires grants 
awarded to CMOs to have the ``same terms and conditions as grants 
awarded to State entities under section 4303.'' We propose some 
requirements for this program that apply to State entity grants under 
section 4303(f). We have included in the Appendix to this document 
other requirements in section 4303(f) that we intend to apply to CMO 
grants but that do not require rulemaking. In applying the latter 
requirements to CMO grants, references to ``State entity'' and ``State 
entity program'' must be read as references to ``charter management 
organization'' and ``grant award,'' respectively.
    In general, the Department believes, based on past experience 
administering this program, that these proposed requirements are 
necessary for the proper consideration of applications for CMO grants 
and would increase the likelihood of success of applicants' proposed 
projects, thereby contributing to the efficient use of taxpayer dollars 
in expanding the high-quality educational options available to our 
Nation's students. In accordance with section 4305(c), these proposed 
requirements would not preclude the Department from applying other 
terms and conditions applicable to State entity grants to CMO grants in 
FY 2019 or future years.
    Proposed Requirements: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for 
Innovation and Improvement proposes the following requirements for this 
program. We would apply one or more of these requirements in any year 
in which this program is in effect.
    Applicants for funds under this program must meet one or more of 
the following requirements--
    (a) Demonstrate that the applicant currently operates or manages 
more than one charter school. For purposes of this program, multiple 
charter schools are considered to be separate schools if each school--
    (i) Meets each element of the definition of ``charter school'' 
under section 4310(2) of the ESEA; and
    (ii) Is treated as a separate school by its authorized public 
chartering agency and the State in which the charter school is located, 
including for purposes of accountability and reporting under title I, 
part A of the ESEA.
    (b) Provide information regarding any compliance issues and how 
they were resolved, for any charter schools operated or managed by the 
applicant that have--
    (i) Closed;

[[Page 35576]]

    (ii) Had their charter(s) revoked due to problems with statutory or 
regulatory compliance, including compliance with sections 4310(2)(G) 
and (J) of the ESEA; or
    (iii) Had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or 
terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation.
    (c) Provide a complete logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) for 
the grant project. The logic model must include the applicant's 
objectives for replicating or expanding one or more high-quality 
charter schools with funding under this program, including the number 
of high-quality charter schools the applicant proposes to replicate or 
expand.
    (d) If the applicant currently operates, or is proposing to 
replicate or expand, a single-sex charter school or coeducational 
charter school that provides a single-sex class or extracurricular 
activity (collectively referred to as a ``single-sex educational 
program''), demonstrate that the existing or proposed single-sex 
educational program is in compliance with Title IX of the Education 
Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.) (Title IX) and its 
implementing regulations, including 34 CFR 106.34.
    (e) Describe how the applicant currently operates or manages the 
high-quality charter schools for which it has presented evidence of 
success and how the proposed replicated or expanded charter schools 
will be operated or managed, including the legal relationship between 
the applicant and its schools. If a legal entity other than the 
applicant has entered or will enter into a performance contract with an 
authorized public chartering agency to operate one or more of the 
applicant's schools, the applicant must also describe its relationship 
with that entity.
    (f) Describe how the applicant will solicit and consider input from 
parents and other members of the community on the implementation and 
operation of each replicated or expanded charter school, including in 
the area of school governance.
    (g) Describe the lottery and enrollment procedures that will be 
used for each replicated or expanded charter school if more students 
apply for admission than can be accommodated, including how any 
proposed weighted lottery complies with section 4303(c)(3)(A) of the 
ESEA.
    (h) Describe how the applicant will ensure that all eligible 
students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education 
in accordance with part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act.
    (i) Describe how the proposed project will assist Educationally 
Disadvantaged Students in mastering challenging State academic 
standards.
    (j) Provide a budget narrative, aligned with the activities, target 
grant project outputs, and outcomes described in the logic model, that 
outlines how Federal grant funds will be expended to carry out planned 
activities.
    (k) Provide the applicant's most recent independently audited 
financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted 
accounting principles.
    (l) Describe the applicant's policies and procedures to assist 
students enrolled in a charter school that closes or loses its charter 
to attend other high-quality schools.
    (m) Provide--
    (A) A request and justification for waivers of any Federal 
statutory or regulatory provisions that the eligible entity believes 
are necessary for the successful operation of the charter schools to be 
replicated or expanded; and
    (B) A description of any State or local rules, generally applicable 
to public schools, that will be waived, or otherwise not apply to such 
schools.
    Proposed Definitions:
    The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 
Improvement proposes the following definitions for this program. We may 
apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    Background: In order to ensure common understanding of the proposed 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria, we propose nine 
definitions of terms that are critical to the policy and statutory 
purposes of the CMO grant program. We propose these definitions in 
order to clarify expectations for eligible entities applying for CMO 
grants and to ensure that the review process for applications for CMO 
grants remains as transparent as possible. The proposed definition for 
Educationally Disadvantaged Students is based on section 1115(c)(2) of 
the ESEA, the proposed definition for Indian is taken from section 
6151(3) of the ESEA, the proposed definition for Indian Organization is 
from 34 CFR 263.3, and the proposed definition for Indian Tribe is from 
section 6132(b)(2) of the ESEA.
    Academically poor-performing public school means:
    (a) A school identified by the State for comprehensive support and 
improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA; or
    (b) A public school otherwise identified by the State, or in the 
case of a charter school, its authorized public chartering agency, as 
similarly academically poor-performing.
    Educationally disadvantaged student means a student in one or more 
of the categories described in section 1115(c)(2) of the ESEA, which 
include children who are economically disadvantaged, students with 
disabilities, migrant students, English learners, neglected or 
delinquent students, homeless students, and students who are in foster 
care.
    High proportion, when used to refer to students who are Indians, is 
a fact-specific, case-by-case determination based upon the unique 
circumstances of a particular charter school or proposed charter 
school. The Secretary considers ``high proportion'' to include a 
majority of students who are Indians. In addition, the Secretary may 
determine that less than a majority of students who are Indians 
constitutes a ``high proportion'' based on the unique circumstances of 
a particular charter school or proposed charter school, as described in 
the application for funds.
    Indian means an individual who is--
    (A) A member of an Indian tribe or band, as membership is defined 
by the tribe or band, including--
    (i) Any tribe or band terminated since 1940; and
    (ii) Any tribe or band recognized by the State in which the tribe 
or band resides;
    (B) A descendant, in the first or second degree, of an individual 
described in subparagraph (A);
    (C) Considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for 
any purpose;
    (D) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska Native; or
    (E) A member of an organized Indian group that received a grant 
under the Indian Education Act of 1988 as in effect the day preceding 
the date of enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.
    Indian organization means an organization that--
    (1) Is legally established--
    (i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or in accordance with State 
or tribal law; and
    (ii) With appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles of 
incorporation;
    (2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of 
Indians;
    (3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is 
Indian;
    (4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction 
or by charter of the governing body of that reservation;
    (5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the 
direct control of, any institution of higher education; and

[[Page 35577]]

    (6) Is not an agency of State or local government.
    Indian tribe means a federally-recognized or a State-recognized 
tribe.
    Individual from a low-income family means an individual who is 
determined by a State educational agency or local educational agency to 
be a child from a low-income family on the basis of (a) data used by 
the Secretary to determine allocations under section 1124 of the ESEA, 
(b) data on children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches under 
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, (c) data on children 
in families receiving assistance under part A of title IV of the Social 
Security Act, (d) data on children eligible to receive medical 
assistance under the Medicaid program under Title XIX of the Social 
Security Act, or (e) an alternate method that combines or extrapolates 
from the data in items (a) through (d) of this definition.
    Rural community means a community that is served by a local 
educational agency that is eligible to apply for funds under the Small 
Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income 
School (RLIS) program authorized under title V, part B of the ESEA. 
Applicants may determine whether a particular local educational agency 
is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the 
following Department websites. For the SRSA program: www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible16/index.html. For the RLIS program: 
www2.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/eligibility.html.
    Proposed Selection Criteria:
    Background: The ESEA includes three selection criteria for the CMO 
grant program, which are included in the Appendix for reference. We 
propose a criterion that would expand upon those included in the 
authorizing statute, as well as three other criteria. Based on past 
experience implementing the CMO grant program, we believe that these 
additional criteria will be valuable tools for peer reviewers to 
evaluate the quality of CMO applications in future years.
    Specifically, proposed selection criterion (a) ``Quality of the 
Eligible Applicant'' derives from the ESEA selection criteria for this 
program, under which the Department considers the degree to which an 
applicant has demonstrated success in increasing student academic 
achievement and whether charter schools operated or managed by the 
applicant have been closed or have encountered statutory or regulatory 
compliance issues. The proposed criterion would expand on the statutory 
criteria by examining the extent to which academic achievement results 
for Educationally Disadvantaged Students attending an applicant's 
schools have exceeded State averages for such students in the State. 
Further, we propose to incorporate into this criterion language from 
the ESEA definition of ``high-quality charter school'' that would 
enable reviewers also to consider any significant issues that an 
applicant's charter schools have encountered in the areas of financial 
or operational management and student safety. The Department believes 
that these proposed selection factors would align with the intent of 
the authorizing statute and would bolster our ability to select high-
quality CMO applicants.
    Proposed selection criterion (b) ``Contribution in assisting 
Educationally Disadvantaged Students'' would focus on the contribution 
the proposed project would make in expanding educational opportunities 
for Educationally Disadvantaged Students and enabling those students to 
meet challenging State academic standards. This proposed criterion 
would allow the Department to assess the extent to which each proposed 
project aligns with a major statutory purpose of the CSP: To expand 
opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students. This criterion 
would encourage applicants to discuss (1) their current capacity to 
serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students with 
disabilities and English learners, and to compare that capacity to that 
of surrounding public schools, and (2) their plans for replicating or 
expanding high-quality charter schools that will recruit and enroll 
Educationally Disadvantaged Students.
    Proposed selection criterion (c) ``Quality of the evaluation plan 
for the proposed project'' would examine how applicants would evaluate 
their proposed projects. It is crucial that the Department invest its 
limited discretionary funding in projects that are based on a reasoned 
theory and that are likely to yield information that can be used to 
continue to expand high-quality educational options for students. This 
criterion would allow the Department to assess the extent to which each 
CMO applicant: Has based its proposed project on a logic model (as 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1) that links the planned inputs and outputs to 
clearly defined intended outcomes of the project; will use objective 
performance measures to ensure that the project remains on track to 
meet stated objectives; and will be able to produce qualitative and 
quantitative data by the end of the grant period.
    Finally, proposed selection criterion (d) ``Quality of the 
management plan and personnel'' would allow applicants to highlight the 
management plan for their proposed project, the qualifications of key 
project personnel, and the potential for sustaining the charter schools 
included in the proposed project after the grant has expired. While 
similar selection factors exist in the general selection criteria in 34 
CFR 75.210, our intent for this proposed selection criterion is to 
focus on the extent to which the applicant could demonstrate its 
specific experience with, and proposed management plan for, replicating 
or expanding high-quality charter schools. We believe, based on past 
experience implementing this program, that the proposed criterion is 
appropriate to ascertain the likelihood of an applicant's success.
    Proposed Selection Criteria: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary 
for Innovation and Improvement proposes the following selection 
criteria for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply 
one or more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in 
effect. In the NIA, we will announce the maximum possible points 
assigned to each criterion.
    The Secretary will select eligible entities to receive grants under 
this program on the basis of the quality of such applications, after 
taking into consideration one or more of the following selection 
criteria:
    (a) Quality of the eligible applicant. In determining the quality 
of the eligible applicant, the Secretary considers one or more of the 
following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the academic achievement results (including 
annual student performance on statewide assessments and annual student 
attendance and retention rates, and where applicable and available, 
student academic growth, high school graduation rates, college 
attendance rates, and college persistence rates) for Educationally 
Disadvantaged Students served by the charter schools operated or 
managed by the applicant have exceeded the average academic achievement 
results for such students in the State.
    (ii) The extent to which one or more charter schools operated or 
managed by the applicant have closed; have had a charter revoked due to 
noncompliance with statutory or regulatory requirements; or have had 
their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including 
through voluntary disaffiliation.
    (iii) The extent to which one or more charter schools operated or 
managed by the applicant have had any significant issues in the area of 
financial or

[[Page 35578]]

operational management or student safety or have otherwise experienced 
significant problems with statutory or regulatory compliance that could 
lead to revocation of the school's charter.
    (b) Contribution in assisting Educationally Disadvantaged Students.
    The significance of the contribution the proposed project will make 
in expanding educational opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged 
Students and enabling those students to meet challenging State academic 
standards. In determining the significance of the contribution the 
proposed project will make, the Secretary considers one or more of the 
following factors:
    (i) The extent to which charter schools currently operated or 
managed by the applicant serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, 
including students with disabilities and English learners, at rates 
comparable to surrounding public schools or, in the case of virtual 
charter schools, at rates comparable to public schools in the State.
    (ii) The quality of the plan to ensure that the charter schools the 
applicant proposes to replicate or expand will recruit and enroll 
Educationally Disadvantaged Students.
    (c) Quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed project.
    In determining the quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of 
evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are 
clearly related to the intended outcomes of the proposed project, as 
articulated in the applicant's logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), 
and that will produce quantitative and qualitative data by the end of 
the grant period.
    (d) Quality of the management plan.
    In determining the quality of the applicant's management plan, the 
Secretary considers the ability of the applicant to sustain the 
operation of the replicated or expanded charter schools after the grant 
has ended, as demonstrated by the multi-year financial and operating 
model required under section 4305(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the ESEA.
    Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria:
    We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria in a document in the Federal Register. We will 
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria after considering public comments and other 
information available to the Department. This document does not 
preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, 
definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable 
rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria, we invite applications through a 
notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

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 proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this proposed 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 proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that 
would 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 would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that this regulatory action would not 
impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in 
this program is voluntary. While this action would impose some 
requirements on participating CMOs that are cost-bearing, the 
Department expects that applicants for this program would include in 
their proposed budgets a request for funds to support compliance

[[Page 35579]]

with such cost-bearing requirements. Therefore, 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 CMOs that are most capable of expanding the number of 
high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students, 
consistent with a major purpose of the CSP as described in section 
4301(3) of the ESEA. The Department believes that these benefits to the 
Federal government and to SEAs outweigh the costs associated with this 
action.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    The Department believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria are needed to administer the 
program effectively. As an alternative to promulgating the proposed 
selection criteria, the Department could choose from among the 
selection criteria authorized for CSP grants to CMOs in section 4305(b) 
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c) and the general selection criteria in 34 
CFR 75.210. We do not believe that these criteria provide a sufficient 
basis on which to evaluate the quality of applications. In particular, 
the 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 with respect to compliance issues that the 
applicant has encountered.
    We note that several of the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria are based on priorities, 
requirements, definitions, 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.............  $90.
From Whom To Whom?.........................  From the Federal Government to CMOs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the 
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates 
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and 
that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2018, any new incremental costs 
associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the 
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, 
Executive Order 13771 does not apply to ``transfer rules'' that cause 
only income transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such 
as those regarding discretionary grant programs. These proposed 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would be 
utilized in connection with a discretionary grant program and, 
therefore, Executive Order 13771 is not applicable.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria 
contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB 
under OMB control number 1894-0006; the proposed priorities, 
requirements, and selection criteria do not affect the currently 
approved data collection.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person 
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. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations 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 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: July 23, 2018.
James C. Blew,
Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.

Appendix

    This Appendix includes priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria from sections 4303(f), 4305(b), 4305(c), and 
8101 of the ESEA and 34 CFR 77.1 for reference.
    Priorities: The following priorities are from section 4305(b)(5) 
of the ESEA:
    (5) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that--
    (A) Plan to operate or manage high-quality charter schools with 
racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies;
    (B) Demonstrate success in working with schools identified by 
the State for comprehensive support and improvement under section 
1111(c)(4)(D)(i);
    (C) Propose to use funds--
    (i) To expand high-quality charter schools to serve high school 
students; or
    (ii) To replicate high-quality charter schools to serve high 
school students; or
    (D) Propose to operate or manage high-quality charter schools 
that focus on dropout recovery and academic re-entry.
    Requirements and Assurances: The following requirements and 
assurances are from sections 4303(f) and 4305(b)(3), respectively, 
of the ESEA. In accordance with section 4305(c), we include in this 
Appendix

[[Page 35580]]

key statutory provisions in section 4303(f) that apply to State 
entity grants that we intend to apply to CMO grants. In applying the 
requirements in section 4303(f) to CMO grants, references to ``State 
entity'' and ``State entity program'' must be read as references to 
``charter management organization'' and ``grant award,'' 
respectively.
    4303(f) Applications.--A State entity desiring to receive a 
grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may 
require. The application shall include the following:
    (1) Description of program.--A description of the State entity's 
objectives in running a quality charter school program under this 
section and how the program will be carried out, including--
    (A) A description of how the State entity will--
    (x) Ensure that charter schools receiving funds under the State 
entity's program meet the educational needs of their students, 
including children with disabilities and English learners; and
    (xiii)(E) A description of how the State entity will ensure that 
each charter school receiving funds under the State entity's program 
has considered and planned for the transportation needs of the 
school's students.
    (2) Assurances.--Assurances that--
    (B) The State entity will support charter schools in meeting the 
educational needs of their students, as described in paragraph 
(1)(A)(x); and
    (G) The State entity will ensure that each charter school 
receiving funds under the State entity's program makes publicly 
available, consistent with the dissemination requirements of the 
annual State report card under section 1111(h), including on the 
website of the school, information to help parents make informed 
decisions about the education options available to their children, 
including--
    (i) Information on the educational program;
    (ii) Student support services;
    (iii) Parent contract requirements (as applicable), including 
any financial obligations or fees;
    (iv) Enrollment criteria (as applicable); and
    (v) Annual performance and enrollment data for each of the 
subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2), except that 
such disaggregation of performance and enrollment data shall not be 
required in a case in which the number of students in a group is 
insufficient to yield statically reliable information or the results 
would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual 
student.
    4305(b)(3) Application Requirements.--An eligible entity 
desiring to receive a grant under this subsection shall submit an 
application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the 
Secretary may require. The application shall include the following:
    (A) Existing Charter School Data.--For each charter school 
currently operated or managed by the eligible entity--
    (i) Student assessment results for all students and for each 
subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2);
    (ii) Attendance and student retention rates for the most 
recently completed school year and, if applicable, the most recent 
available four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates and extended-
year adjusted cohort graduation rates; and
    (iii) Information on any significant compliance and management 
issues encountered within the last three school years by any school 
operated or managed by the eligible entity, including in the areas 
of student safety and finance.
    (B) Descriptions.--A description of--
    (i) The eligible entity's objectives for implementing a high-
quality charter school program with funding under this subsection, 
including a description of the proposed number of high-quality 
charter schools the eligible entity proposes to open as a result of 
the replication of a high-quality charter school or to expand with 
funding under this subsection;
    (ii) The educational program that the eligible entity will 
implement in such charter schools, including--
    (I) Information on how the program will enable all students to 
meet the challenging State academic standards;
    (II) The grade levels or ages of students who will be served; 
and
    (III) The instructional practices that will be used;
    (iii) How the operation of such charter schools will be 
sustained after the grant under this subsection has ended, which 
shall include a multi-year financial and operating model for the 
eligible entity;
    (iv) How the eligible entity will ensure that such charter 
schools will recruit and enroll students, including children with 
disabilities, English learners, and other educationally 
disadvantaged students; and
    (v) Any request and justification for any waivers of Federal 
statutory or regulatory requirements that the eligible entity 
believes are necessary for the successful operation of such charter 
schools.
    (C) Assurance.--An assurance that the eligible entity has 
sufficient procedures in effect to ensure timely closure of low-
performing or financially mismanaged charter schools and clear plans 
and procedures in effect for the students in such schools to attend 
other high-quality schools.
    Definitions: The following definitions are from the ESEA or 
Department regulations. The specific source of each definition is 
noted in parentheses following each definition.
    Authorized public chartering agency means a State educational 
agency, local educational agency, or other public entity that has 
the authority pursuant to State law and approved by the Secretary to 
authorize or approve a charter school. (Section 4310(1) of the ESEA)
    Charter school means a public school that--
    (A) In accordance with a specific State statute authorizing the 
granting of charters to schools, is exempt from significant State or 
local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of 
public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other 
requirements of this paragraph;
    (B) Is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted 
by a developer from an existing public school, and is operated under 
public supervision and direction;
    (C) Operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational 
objectives determined by the school's developer and agreed to by the 
authorized public chartering agency;
    (D) Provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or 
both;
    (E) Is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, 
employment practices, and all other operations, and is not 
affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;
    (F) Does not charge tuition;
    (G) Complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education 
Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et 
seq.), section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
U.S.C. 1232g) (commonly referred to as the ``Family Educational 
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974''), and part B of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act;
    (H) Is a school to which parents choose to send their children, 
and that--
    (i) Admits students on the basis of a lottery, consistent with 
section 4303(c)(3)(A), if more students apply for admission than can 
be accommodated; or
    (ii) In the case of a school that has an affiliated charter 
school (such as a school that is part of the same network of 
schools), automatically enrolls students who are enrolled in the 
immediate prior grade level of the affiliated charter school and, 
for any additional student openings or student openings created 
through regular attrition in student enrollment in the affiliated 
charter school and the enrolling school, admits students on the 
basis of a lottery as described in clause (i);
    (I) Agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit 
requirements as do other elementary schools and secondary schools in 
the State, unless such State audit requirements are waived by the 
State;
    (J) Meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and 
safety requirements;
    (K) Operates in accordance with State law;
    (L) Has a written performance contract with the authorized 
public chartering agency in the State that includes a description of 
how student performance will be measured in charter schools pursuant 
to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant 
to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorizing 
public chartering agency and the charter school; and
    (M) May serve students in early childhood education programs or 
postsecondary students. (Section 4310(2) of the ESEA)
    Charter management organization means a nonprofit organization 
that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by 
centralized support, operations, and oversight. (Section 4310(3) of 
the ESEA)
    Developer means an individual or group of individuals (including 
a public or private nonprofit organization), which may include 
teachers, administrators and other school staff, parents, or other 
members of the local community in which a charter school project 
will be carried out. (Section 4310(5) of the ESEA)
    Dual or concurrent enrollment program means a program offered by 
a partnership

[[Page 35581]]

between at least one institution of higher education and at least 
one local educational agency through which a secondary school 
student who has not graduated from high school with a regular high 
school diploma is able to enroll in one or more postsecondary 
courses and earn postsecondary credit that--
    (A) Is transferable to the institutions of higher education in 
the partnership; and
    (B) Applies toward completion of a degree or recognized 
educational credential as described in the Higher Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). (Section 8101(15) of the ESEA)
    Early college high school means a partnership between at least 
one local educational agency and at least one institution of higher 
education that allows participants to simultaneously complete 
requirements toward earning a regular high school diploma and earn 
not less than 12 credits that are transferable to the institutions 
of higher education in the partnership as part of an organized 
course of study toward a postsecondary degree or credential at no 
cost to the participant or participant's family. (Section 8101(17) 
of the ESEA)
    Expand, when used with respect to a high-quality charter school, 
means to significantly increase enrollment or add one or more grades 
to the high-quality charter school. (Section 4310(7) of the ESEA)
    High-quality charter school means a charter school that--
    (a) Shows evidence of strong academic results, which may include 
strong student academic growth, as determined by a State;
    (b) Has no significant issues in the areas of student safety, 
financial and operational management, or statutory or regulatory 
compliance;
    (c) Has demonstrated success in significantly increasing student 
academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, 
for all students served by the charter school; and
    (d) Has demonstrated success in increasing student academic 
achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for each 
of the subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2), 
except that such demonstration is not required in a case in which 
the number of students in a group is insufficient to yield 
statistically reliable information or the results would reveal 
personally identifiable information about an individual student. 
(Section 4310(8) of the ESEA)
    Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a 
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed 
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to 
be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the 
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project 
components and relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 77.1)
    Replicate, when used with respect to a high-quality charter 
school, means to open a new charter school, or a new campus of a 
high-quality charter school, based on the educational model of an 
existing high-quality charter school, under an existing charter or 
an additional charter, if permitted or required by State law. 
(Section 4310(9) of the ESEA)
    Selection Criteria: The following selection criteria are from 
section 4305(b)(4) of the ESEA.
    (4) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall select eligible 
entities to receive grants under this subsection, on the basis of 
the quality of the applications submitted under paragraph (3), after 
taking into consideration such factors as--
    (A) The degree to which the eligible entity has demonstrated 
success in increasing academic achievement for all students and for 
each of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) 
attending the charter schools the eligible entity operates or 
manages;
    (B) A determination that the eligible entity has not operated or 
managed a significant proportion of charter schools that--
    (i) Have been closed;
    (ii) Have had the school's charter revoked due to problems with 
statutory or regulatory compliance; or
    (iii) Have had the school's affiliation with the eligible entity 
revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation; 
and
    (C) A determination that the eligible entity has not experienced 
significant problems with statutory or regulatory compliance that 
could lead to the revocation of a school's charter.
    Terms and Conditions: The following terms and conditions are 
from section 4305(c) of the ESEA.
    (c) Terms and Conditions.--Except as otherwise provided, grants 
awarded under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall have 
the same terms and conditions as grants awarded to State entities 
under section 4303.

[FR Doc. 2018-15977 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P