[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40406-40428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14445]
[[Page 40405]]
Vol. 87
Wednesday,
No. 128
July 6, 2022
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Chapter II
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria--
Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP)--
Grants to State Entities (State Entity Grants); Grants to Charter
Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-
Quality Charter Schools (CMO Grants); and Grants to Charter School
Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the
Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Developer
Grants); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 40406]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2022-OESE-0006]
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program
(CSP)--Grants to State Entities (State Entity Grants); Grants to
Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of
High-Quality Charter Schools (CMO Grants); and Grants to Charter School
Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the
Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Developer
Grants)
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department or ED) announces
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for CSP
State Entity Grants, Developer Grants, and CMO Grants, Assistance
Listing Numbers (ALNs) 84.282A, 84.282B, 84.282E, and 84.282M. We may
use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for grant competitions under these programs in
fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years.
DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are effective August 5, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Porscheoy Brice, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E209, Washington, DC 20202-
5970. Telephone: (202) 260-0968. Email: [email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: These priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are aimed at ensuring that all
students have access to excellent schools that deliver the highest
quality education. We take this action to ensure that Federal CSP funds
support the creation, replication, and expansion of high-quality
charter schools that promote positive student outcomes, educator and
community empowerment, and promising practices; and to promote school
diversity. We also seek to promote greater fiscal and operational
transparency and accountability for CSP-funded charter schools. We
believe the policies and strategies reflected in this regulatory action
can serve as a model for all charter schools.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: Through
this regulatory action, we establish two priorities, three application
requirements, and two selection criteria for CMO Grants and Developer
Grants; six application requirements and one selection criterion for
State Entity Grants; and several assurances, definitions, and selection
criteria applicable to CSP State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and
Developer Grants. These final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria supplement the provisions in Title IV, Part C of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA); and the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in: Final 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 (CMO NFP), published in the Federal Register on November 30,
2018 (83 FR 61532), and Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions,
and Selection Criteria--Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter
Schools Program; Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of
New Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-
Quality Charter Schools (Developer NFP), published in the Federal
Register on July 3, 2019 (84 FR 31726).
Costs and Benefits: In accordance with Executive Order 12866, 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.
We believe the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any
associated implementation costs for State Entity Grant applicants and
subgrant applicants, CMO Grant applicants, and Developer Grant
applicants. We also believe this regulatory action will strengthen
accountability for the use of Federal funds in the CSP by helping to
ensure that CSP grants and subgrants are awarded to those entities most
capable of successfully implementing their proposed projects and
meeting the needs of the students and families they serve.
Purposes of Programs: State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and
Developer Grants support various activities critical to the successful
creation and implementation of charter schools. The major purposes of
the CSP are to expand opportunities for all students, particularly
underserved students, to attend charter schools and meet challenging
State academic standards; provide financial assistance for the
planning, program design, and initial implementation of 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; aid States
in providing facilities support to charter schools; and support efforts
to strengthen the charter school authorizing process.
State Entity Grants (ALN 84.282A) comprise the largest portion of
CSP funds. These competitive grants are awarded to State entities (SEs)
that, in turn, award subgrants to eligible applicants on a competitive
basis for the purpose of opening and preparing for the operation of new
charter schools and replicated high-quality charter schools and
expanding high-quality charter schools. Eligible applicants are charter
school developers that have applied to an authorized public chartering
agency to operate a charter school and have provided adequate and
timely notice to that authority. A developer is 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.\1\ For-profit organizations are
ineligible to apply for grants or subgrants under the CSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 4310(5) and (6) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(5) and
(6)) (www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to awarding subgrants to eligible applicants to enable
them to open new charter schools and to replicate or expand high-
quality charter schools, State entity grantees may use grant funds to
provide technical assistance to eligible applicants and authorized
public chartering agencies in opening and preparing for the operation
of new charter schools and replicated high-quality charter schools, and
[[Page 40407]]
expanding high-quality charter schools; and to work with authorized
public chartering agencies in the State to improve authorizing quality,
including developing capacity for, and conducting, fiscal oversight and
auditing of charter schools. State entities may also use up to 3
percent of grant funds for administration, which may include technical
assistance and monitoring of subgrants for performance and fiscal and
regulatory compliance, as required under 2 CFR 200.332(d).
If a State does not have an active CSP State Entity Grant, the
Department may award Developer Grants (ALNs 84.282B and 84.282E) to
eligible applicants in the State on a competitive basis to enable them
to open and prepare for the operation of new charter schools and
replicated high-quality charter schools, or to expand high-quality
charter schools.
Through CMO Grants (ALN 84.282M), the Department provides funds to
nonprofit charter management organizations (CMOs) on a competitive
basis to enable them to replicate or expand one or more high-quality
charter schools.
CSP State Entity Grants, Developer Grants, and CMO Grants are
intended to support charter schools that serve elementary or secondary
school students. Funds may also be used to serve students in early
childhood education programs or postsecondary education programs.
Section 4310 of the ESEA defines ``replicate'' as opening 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;
and ``expand'' as significantly increasing enrollment or adding one or
more grades to a high-quality charter school (20 U.S.C. 7221i(9) and
(7)). Section 4310 defines ``high-quality charter school,'' in
pertinent part, as a charter school that shows evidence of strong
academic results, which may include strong student academic growth, as
determined by a State; has no significant issues in the areas of
student safety, financial and operational management, or statutory or
regulatory compliance; and has demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates
where applicable, for all students served by the charter school and for
each of the subgroups of students defined in section 1111(c)(2) of the
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(8)).
Program Authority: Title IV, part C of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221-
7221j).
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for CSP State Entity Grants, CMO
Grants, and Developer Grants in the Federal Register on March 14, 2022
(NPP) (87 FR 14197). That document contained background information and
our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. We also published an extension
notice in the Federal Register on April 12, 2022 (87 FR 21644),
extending the deadline for interested parties to submit public comments
on the NPP from April 13, 2022, to April 18, 2022.
There are important differences between the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria and the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
established in this NFP, as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and
Changes section in this document.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 26,586
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. A large proportion of those
comments appear to have been part of organized letter-writing campaigns
and addressed the same issues and concerns. Approximately 5,770 of the
total comments received were unique comments. These comments also
raised similar issues either in support of, or expressing concerns
about, the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
We group major issues according to subject. We discuss other
substantive issues under the title of the item to which they pertain.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not
directly related to any of the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, or selection criteria in the NPP.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria since publication of the NPP follows.
General Comments
Comments: A majority of commenters expressed general support for
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria. Many of these commenters, however, but also recommended that
the Department modify some of the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria to strengthen their purpose and
intent and to clarify the language.
One commenter who expressed general support for the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, for
example, stated that the Department should address teacher licensure
requirements in charter schools. The commenter noted that some teachers
in charter schools do not have appropriate State teaching licenses or
credentials, despite extensive research indicating that highly
qualified educators improve student achievement. The commenter
encouraged the Department to issue regulations under the ESEA to reduce
the reliance on what the commenter described as unqualified teachers in
charter schools, which the commenter argued adversely impacts student
achievement, undermines the teaching profession, and hinders union
organization efforts in charter schools.
Another commenter stated that the proposed actions are a positive
development for America's children and, if fully implemented, will
advance equity and help restore charter schools to their original
purpose by integrating them into the broader education community. This
commenter also suggested that we require applicants to certify that
they will remain neutral in any union organizing effort for the term of
the grant award, noting that charter-district collaborations can
benefit when charter school and district teachers belong to the same
union.
Discussion: We agree with the vast majority of commenters that
these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
will improve the overall quality of CSP-funded charter schools. We
agree with the commenter that research shows that highly qualified
educators improve student achievement and that all students should be
taught by teachers who are fully certified in the area they are
assigned to teach. As a general matter, however, State law governs the
licensure and credentialing requirements for teachers in public
schools, including public charter schools. Therefore, the Department
believes the issue of teacher licensure should be addressed at the
State level. Additionally, while we acknowledge that teacher unions can
play an important role in charter schools as well as traditional public
schools, we believe the issue of union organizing is outside the scope
of this regulatory action.
Changes: None.
Comments: With respect to the peer review of CSP grants and
subgrants, one commenter recommended that review teams include at least
one reviewer representative of the district public school community.
This commenter also recommended that a minimum point threshold be
established for an award, and that applications be checked
[[Page 40408]]
for factual accuracy and posted for public review and comment for a
period of no less than 45 days before award decisions are made.
Discussion: The Department considers a number of factors when
selecting peer reviewers, including their knowledge and experience
relevant to the competition for which they are reviewing applications,
and any possible conflicts of interest that might affect their ability
to be objective when reviewing grant applications. While some peer
review panels may include district employees, it would be impractical,
and possibly impede timely grant award decisions, to require each peer
review team to include one representative from any particular school
district community. In an effort to expand our peer reviewer pool,
increase peer reviewer diversity, and ensure that grant applications
are evaluated by individuals with up-to-date and relevant knowledge in
a variety of learning settings, we published a notice in the Federal
Register on May 20, 2022, inviting interested persons to apply to serve
as peer reviewers for upcoming grant competitions in the Department's
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Postsecondary
Education, and Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
A link to this notice in the Federal Register can be found here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/20/2022-10834/peer-review-opportunities-with-the-us-department-of-educations-office-of-elementary-and-secondary.
Further, while the Department checks all applications for accuracy
prior to making a grant award, we believe it would be impractical and
lead to unnecessary delays to require applications to be posted for at
least 45 days before award decisions are made. Currently, the
Department posts on the CSP website copies of all CSP applications that
are approved for funding as well as their overall scores and peer
reviewers' comments. Even after an award is made, projects must
continue to meet program requirements and can be subject to
administrative actions, including possible termination, if they do not
comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and the
terms of the approved application.
Although State entity grantees must award subgrants on a
competitive basis, State entity grantees generally establish their own
procedures for reviewing subgrant applications, consistent with the
program statute and applicable regulations. With respect to grants
awarded by the Department, we believe it would be impractical to
establish a minimum funding threshold, as such decisions are driven by
several factors (e.g., total amount of funds available, number of
applications received, overall quality of the applications received)
that may vary from one competition to the next. We are confident that
the statutory requirements concerning the peer review of CSP grants and
subgrants, the notice we published in the Federal Register on May 20,
2022, and the actions taken in this NFP combined will lead to further
improvements in the quality of our peer review processes.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed
regulations empower Federal and State peer reviewers to question
decisions that are central to the charter school authorizing process,
such as whether there is sufficient demand for a school to be
financially viable. These commenters contend that charter school
authorizers are best positioned to determine whether requirements under
State law have been met and evaluate the data and analyses that
applicants are required to produce. These commenters recommended that
we remove the community impact analysis requirement.
Discussion: We understand that the charter school authorizing
process is governed by State law and agree with the commenters that
charter school authorizers are better positioned than the Department to
determine whether a particular proposed charter school meets State law
requirements. On the other hand, the Department is responsible for
administering the CSP and ensuring that CSP funds are used properly to
support the highest quality applications that have the greatest
likelihood of success. Given that peer reviews inform funding decisions
involving the award of more than $400 million annually under the CSP,
we believe it is necessary for peer reviewers to have access to as much
information as possible in order to assess the viability of proposed
charter schools. This peer review process is not merely an academic
exercise; since 2001, seven years after the CSP was first authorized in
1994, approximately 930 CSP-funded charter schools and proposed charter
schools (approximately 14.5 percent) either never opened or closed
prior to the end of the grant period. These charter school closures and
failures to open cost more than $174 million in Federal resources
provided through CSP; are disruptive for communities, particularly for
students and families directly affected by school closures; and
potentially undermine the effectiveness of charter schools.\2\
Moreover, assessing the need for Federal funding, including in the
context of how well a particular proposal addresses local needs, is a
standard consideration for peer reviewers in many Department
discretionary grant programs, such as ``Promise Neighborhoods'' and
``Full-Service Community Schools.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ WestED, Data Collection Form, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: See the discussion of changes we have made to the
requirements related to a community impact analysis, including changing
this requirement to a ``needs analysis'' to align with other Department
programs, under the Requirements Applicable to CMO Grants and Developer
Grants, Requirement 1 section of this Analysis of Comments and Changes.
Comments: Some commenters expressed concern about specific charter
school practices that may exclude certain students from charter
schools. A few commenters stated that charter schools should be
required to disclose information about their student application,
selection, turnover, backfilling, and disciplinary practices. One
commenter stated that applicants should certify that application
materials are available in all languages spoken in the community, that
charter schools do not cap for admission the number of students with
disabilities (or students with a particular type of disability), and
that charter schools do not charge an application fee. The commenter
further recommended that we require applicants that currently operate
charter schools to disclose annual student turnover figures for the
past 5 years and whether they use admissions tests, consider students'
past academic or behavioral issues during admissions, and backfill
student vacancies created as a result of withdrawals or expulsions
during the school year. The commenter added that applicants should also
be required to disclose how they have recruited students from diverse
populations within their communities.
Discussion: We agree that transparency regarding student
recruitment and enrollment practices of charter schools is important,
including ensuring that charter schools implement enrollment practices
that attract students from all different backgrounds. Accordingly,
under the Final Application Requirements, Requirements Applicable to
CMO Grants and Developer Grants, Requirement 1 and Requirements
Applicable to State Entity Grants, Requirement 1, grant and subgrant
applicants must conduct a needs analysis that addresses the need for
the
[[Page 40409]]
project and includes a robust family and community engagement plan
that, among other things, describes how the charter school's
recruitment, enrollment, and retention processes will engage and
accommodate families from various backgrounds. As part of the needs
analysis, applicants must include details about the school's common
enrollment and retention practices that include, as part of the
enrollment process, how it will disclose to families and community
members policies or requirements (e.g., discipline policies, purchasing
and wearing specific uniforms and other fees, or family participation),
and any services that are or are not provided, that could impact a
family's ability to enroll or remain enrolled (e.g., transportation
services or participation in the National School Lunch Program).
Accordingly, we believe the needs analysis requirement is sufficient to
obtain information from applicants necessary to address the commenters'
concerns, without being overly burdensome.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters expressed general concern about how CSP
funding is allocated to charter schools and recommended ways to
strengthen accountability and oversight of the grants. For example, one
commenter noted that the CSP authorizing statute has a provision that
prohibits a State from having more than one active State Entity Grant
at a time and suggested that the Department impose a similar
restriction under the CMO Grant program. The commenter further
suggested that the Department should not award a grant to any charter
management organization with an active CMO Grant that exceeds $25
million, citing the potential misuse of grant funds by grantees as an
example of why such a provision is needed. Two other commenters
recommended that the Department require a forensic audit for any
charter school applying for CSP funding. These commenters also stated
that charter schools that do not operate as classroom-based entities or
that are operated by for-profit entities should be barred from
receiving CSP funds. Another commenter requested that we require all
federally funded charter schools and charter school authorizers to
comply with State freedom of information and open meetings laws.
Discussion: We agree that transparency and accountability regarding
the use of Federal funds are important and believe these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will enhance
transparency and accountability under the CSP. With respect to the
State Entity Grant program, the commenter is correct that the CSP
statute prohibits the Department from awarding a grant to a State
entity in a State where there is already an active State Entity Grant.
The commenter also is correct that the CSP statute does not impose a
restriction on the number of CMO Grants that can be awarded in a
specific State. Where there is interest from multiple State entities
within a State to apply for a State Entity Grant and be responsible for
awarding subgrants to eligible applicants, we believe the statutory
limit of one active State Entity Grant per State can help encourage
partnerships and, thereby, eliminate the need for State entities to
compete against each other for a limited pool of prospective high-
quality charter school subgrantees. This context does not exist for the
CMO Grant program, as CMO grantees generally manage the charter schools
that they fund and do not fund their charter schools through subgrants.
Likewise, while we appreciate the commenter's concerns about the
possible misuse of CSP funds, we believe that imposing a blanket
prohibition against CMOs with active CMO grants that exceed $25 million
from receiving new CMO Grants would be counter-productive. For
instance, large CMOs that manage multiple high-quality charter schools
and have demonstrated that they have the capacity and resources to
administer their CMO grant effectively and efficiently could be
prevented from receiving the funds they need to implement their
projects successfully. Furthermore, prior to awarding a grant to any
entity--particularly, an entity that has an existing grant--the
Department takes appropriate steps to mitigate the risk of program
funds being misspent, including conducting a risk analysis and ensuring
that the applicant is in compliance with all program requirements and
has the capacity and resources to administer the grant effectively and
efficiently.
Regarding State freedom of information and open meetings laws,
under the CSP statute, applicants for State Entity Grants are required
to describe how charter schools are addressed in the open meetings and
open records laws in their State. In addition, this NFP requires
applicants for Developer Grants to hold or participate in a public
hearing to obtain information and feedback on the impact of the
proposed project and, in the case of an applicant for a State Entity
Grant or CMO Grant, each charter school that it funds must hold or
participate in such a hearing. We do not address State freedom of
information laws in these final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria because that issue is outside the scope of this
regulatory action. Further, Assurance (c) of the Final Assurances,
Assurances Applicable to State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer
Grants requires applicants to provide an assurance that they will post
on their websites information regarding any management contract between
the charter school and a for-profit management organization, and the
Final Assurance Applicable to State Entity Grants and CMO Grants
requires applicants to post on their websites information regarding the
charter schools slated to receive CSP funds.
Regarding comments that charter schools that do not operate as
classroom-based entities should be barred from receiving CSP funds, we
presume that the commenters were referring to virtual charter schools.
Although the CSP statute does not specifically prohibit virtual charter
schools from receiving CSP funds, the Department typically awards
direct grants to ``brick and mortar'' charter schools and not to
virtual charter schools. Because virtual charter schools in a few
states may have received CSP funds indirectly through State educational
agency (SEA) or State entity grantees, however, the Department has
issued nonregulatory guidance to ensure that SEA and State entity
grantees understand the inherent risks associated with the use of CSP
funds by virtual charter schools and implement appropriate safeguards
to mitigate the risks, particularly in the areas of student attendance
and assessments. Finally, for-profit entities are ineligible to receive
direct grants or subgrants under the CSP, although CSP grantees and
subgrantees may enter into contracts with for-profit entities for the
provision of goods and services. A grantee or subgrantee that enters
into a contract for goods or services with any entity, including a for-
profit management organization, must comply with the Federal
procurement standards at 2 CFR 200.317-200.327, and applicable conflict
of interest requirements. Further, Requirement 2 applicable to CMO
Grants and Developer Grants and Requirement 2 applicable to State
Entity Grants in the Final Application Requirements section of this
notice require CSP grantees and subgrantees to provide detailed
information about any management contracts they enter with for-profit
management organizations, and Assurances (a) and (b) applicable to
State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants in the Final
[[Page 40410]]
Assurances section of this notice require applicants to provide
assurances that they will not relinquish full or substantial
administrative control of their CSP grants or subgrants to a for-profit
management organization and that any management contract with a for-
profit management organization will contain specific provisions to
mitigate the risks associated with such contracts.
Changes: None.
Comments: Numerous commenters strongly recommended the continued
use of the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria established in the CMO NFP published in the Federal Register
on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 61532), and the Developer NFP published in
the Federal Register on July 3, 2019 (84 FR 31726). These commenters
stated that these regulations are critical to the success of charter
schools and the inclusion of all students in charter schools.
Discussion: We agree that the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria established in the CMO NFP and
Developer NFP should remain available for use in future competitions.
Accordingly, as stated in the Executive Summary section of this notice
and in the NPP, these regulations supplement, and do not supersede, the
CMO NFP and the Developer NFP.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters requested that the Department delay
publishing the NFP or withdraw the actions proposed in the NPP to allow
additional time for the Department to engage in meaningful discussions
with the charter school community about the proposed changes to the
programs.
Discussion: The Department received recommendations prior to the
publication of the notice from numerous organizations and provided a
public comment period to support further engagement with the field. As
demonstrated by the significant number of comments, the Department has
had the opportunity to hear directly from those who would be most
impacted by this regulatory action. The Department carefully reviewed
each of these comments. As stated in the Purpose of Regulatory Action
section of this notice, we believe these final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are critical to
ensuring that CSP funds support the creation, replication, and
expansion of high-quality charter schools that are fiscally and
operationally transparent and accountable. Given the Biden-Harris
Administration's commitment to ensuring that all students attending
charter schools have access to a high-quality education, we decline to
delay publishing the NFP or to withdraw the NPP.
Changes: None.
Priorities Applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants
Priority 1--Promoting High-Quality Educator- and Community-Centered
Charter Schools To Support Underserved Students
Comments: A number of commenters expressed support for Priority 1
and its focus on creating community-centered charter schools and
consideration of community assets. One commenter stated that there is
value in having parents, educators, and community members take an
active role in the creation and governance of charter schools, but
recommended making the priority a competitive preference priority
rather than an absolute priority. The commenter also recommended
broadening the parameters for educator involvement and removing the
requirement for a timetable with milestones to reflect that a
community-centered approach should be an ongoing effort.
Discussion: We agree that community involvement in the creation and
governance of charter schools should be considered a best practice and
increases the likelihood of a charter school's success. The priority is
not intended to limit the ways educators can be involved in the
development of high-quality charter school models, and we are revising
the priority to clarify this. We also are removing the requirement for
a ``timetable with milestones'' to clarify that we do not believe
efforts to engage the community should have an end date. Rather, we
seek a timeline for the applicant's plans to implement key activities
under the priority. Further, when establishing a priority for use in a
program, we generally do not identify the priority as absolute,
competitive preference or invitational, to allow the Department
flexibility to determine how the priority should be used in any future
competition.
Changes: In paragraph (a)(1) of Priority 1, we clarified that
applicants may propose educator involvement in activities other than
the enumerated activities. Additionally, in paragraph (b), we revised
the requirement to require applicants to provide a timeline to clarify
that while there should be milestones, a grantee's community engagement
efforts and community-centered approach should be ongoing. We also made
corresponding changes to the language in Requirement 6 applicable to
State Entity Grants to align with the changes to paragraph (a)(1) of
Priority 1.
Priority 2--Charter School and Traditional Public School or District
Collaborations That Benefit Students and Families
Comments: Many commenters expressed support for Priority 2 given
its goal to foster greater collaboration between traditional public
schools and public charter schools. One commenter stated that it is
important for organizations and stakeholders, particularly those
responsible for ensuring school quality, to listen and learn from one
another to develop improved practices for implementing community-
responsive schooling. While supportive of the priority, the commenter
recommended making Priority 2 an invitational priority as opposed to a
competitive preference priority, noting that the proposed priority
might discourage applications from charter schools that are not able to
engage in such collaborations, such as rural charter schools.
Another commenter expressed support for Priority 2 but requested
that we require all applicants to certify that they will not use
nondisclosure agreements or noncompete agreements at their schools and
will void any such existing agreements during the grant period. The
commenter asserted that nondisclosure agreements and noncompete
agreements create barriers to fostering charter-district collaborations
because such agreements prohibit teachers in charter schools from
taking jobs in traditional public schools for a fixed period of time or
within a specific geographic area that is close to the charter school
following the termination of employment.
Several commenters recommended making the priority less
prescriptive by allowing applicants to determine the nature of their
collaborations with traditional school districts rather than including
a menu of activities. These commenters also recommended allowing
applicants to provide evidence of an existing collaboration or an
intent to collaborate with a traditional school district if such
collaboration is not already underway. Another commenter suggested that
the Department add services to meet the needs of students with
disabilities and English learners to the list of services on which the
applicant may propose to collaborate with a traditional public school
or school district.
One commenter recommended that we require grantees to provide
evidence of the collaboration within 180 days of receiving a CSP grant
award.
[[Page 40411]]
A relatively large number of commenters opposed this priority for
varying reasons. Some commenters noted that while they are generally
supportive of school collaborations and the sharing of best practices
between charter schools and traditional public schools, they are
skeptical that this priority will lead to true partnerships between
charter schools and traditional public schools and school districts
because of the tensions that exist between charter schools and
traditional public schools in some communities.
Other commenters expressed concern that many eligible applicants
may be blocked from receiving funding and opening new charter schools
and, thus, may be discouraged from applying for a grant or subgrant if
traditional public schools and school districts are unwilling to
partner with charter schools; these commenters argued that traditional
school districts often resist attempts to foster cooperation and
collaboration with charter schools. One commenter stated that this
priority has the potential to give traditional school districts
additional leverage to reject the creation of new charter schools if
the priority is implemented as an absolute priority or competitive
preference priority.
Another commenter stated that requiring the district to sign a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) could be labor-intensive, with
significant legal fees, and noted that a newly elected school board
could revoke the MOU in a subsequent year.
Other commenters stated that requiring State entities to give
priority to eligible applicants that propose charter-district
collaborations would diminish the role of states in the development and
administration of their charter school programs by forcing states to
re-orient grant-awarding priorities in their subgrant application
process for peer review.
Discussion: We agree that charter schools and traditional public
schools and school districts should listen and learn from one another
to develop improved practices for implementing programs and services
that are responsive to student, family, and community needs, which we
believe can lead to improved academic outcomes for all students. We
also agree that applicants should have flexibility regarding not only
whether they respond to the priority, but also, how they respond to
this priority, particularly if they have an existing collaboration with
a traditional public school or school district. Likewise, we recognize
that significant benefit could derive from collaborations between
character schools and traditional public schools or school districts
(also referred to as ``charter-traditional collaborations'' in this
notice) focused on supporting students with disabilities and English
learners. In response to these comments, we have revised the priority
to clarify that applicants have flexibility to choose the
collaborations they propose, modified elements of the description of
the collaboration to reflect that collaborations may be proposed or
existing, and added collaborations focused on serving students with
disabilities and English learners to the list of examples of
collaborations that applicants may choose to propose. We also
acknowledge that it may take significant time for applicants to
establish such collaborations, and that implementing the priority as an
absolute priority could make it more difficult for some charter schools
to qualify for CSP subgrants. To be clear, the purpose of this priority
is to encourage, but not require, collaborations between charter
schools and traditional public schools or school districts in ways that
benefit students and families in charter schools and traditional public
schools. Some of the most successful charter school networks have
collaborated with traditional public schools and school districts, and
there is evidence that these types of collaborations can improve the
quality of educational opportunities and outcomes for students in
charter schools and traditional public schools, including by sharing
instructional materials, creating joint professional learning
opportunities, developing principal pipeline programs, and more.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See e.g., Putting Students First: Profiles of District-
Charter Collaborations in the District of Columbia and
Massachusetts, Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center, WestEd, Putting
Students First: Profiles of District-Charter Collaboration in the
District of Columbia and Massachusetts (wested.org), 2019; Passing
Notes: Learning from Efforts to Share Instructional Practices Across
District-Charter Lines, CRPE, Passing Notes: Learning from Efforts
to Share Instructional Practices Across District-Charter Lines--
Center on Reinventing Public Education (crpe.org), February 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, an analysis of collaborations between charter schools
and traditional public schools in the District of Columbia identified
over 60 examples of how charter schools and traditional public schools
were able to partner in mutually beneficial ways.\4\ These
collaborations included shared professional development, scaling
innovative practices, and research development. A similar collaboration
exists in Boston, Massachusetts, where a compact among traditional
public schools, charter schools, and Catholic schools was created to
coordinate and share best practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DC Public School and DC Public Charter School Collaboration,
EdSight, EdSight Cross Sector Collaboration FINAL.pdf (dc.gov),
October 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps more importantly, these types of partnerships can help
improve services and supports for educationally disadvantaged students,
including students with disabilities and English learners, enrolled in
charter schools. For example, according to a report by the Center for
American Progress (CAP),\5\ developing the expertise to successfully
serve students with disabilities can be particularly challenging for
charter schools that may not enroll many students with low-incidence
disabilities and who require highly specialized services and supports.
Collaboration with the district can help charter schools access
expertise that would help improve student services and outcomes. CAP
also published a report with the Center for Learner Equity (CLE) that
profiled examples of districts and charter schools pursuing similar
efforts.\6\ Such partnerships can provide charter schools with
additional expertise and supports to help meet the needs of all
students, particularly students with disabilities and English learners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Improving Outcomes for Students with Disabilities:
Negotiating Common Ground for District and Charter School
Collaboration, Center for American Progress, Improving Outcomes for
Students with Disabilities--Center for American Progress, January
2017.
\6\ A Secondary Analysis of the Most Recent Civil Rights Data
Collection to Inform Policy and Practice, Center for Learner Equity,
A Secondary Analysis of the Most Recent Civil Rights Data Collection
to Inform Policy and Practice--The Center for Learner Equity,
November 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAP report also found that these partnerships can improve
economies of scale for small charter school operators, as many charter
schools are not able to access the same pricing for curricula,
supplies, support services, and technology as larger districts and
networks. This frees up resources for charter schools to invest
elsewhere in their programs to ensure that they are meeting the needs
of their students.
We also know that charter schools often foster innovation in public
education, which is a major purpose of the CSP. These kinds of
partnerships can provide opportunities for charter schools to share
their best practices with traditional public schools that can learn
from these efforts.
This priority reflects the research on how these mutually
beneficial partnerships can improve educational opportunities for
students enrolled in charter schools as well as traditional public
schools. We have seen successful outcomes for students and communities
[[Page 40412]]
when there is collaboration between charter schools and traditional
public schools and hope to encourage more of it. Under no circumstances
should this priority be implemented in a manner that creates barriers
for eligible applicants seeking to obtain approval of a charter
application or an application for CSP funding to support the creation,
replication, or expansion of a high-quality charter school.
In response to the commenter's concerns about the use of noncompete
and nondisclosure agreements in charter schools, we agree that the use
of such agreements could impede charter-district collaborations to the
extent that they restrict a teacher's ability to work at, or to share
best practices with, another public school, and that non-compete
agreements undermine the ability of all students to have access to
qualified teachers. The issue of noncompete and nondisclosure
agreements in charter schools, however, is outside the scope of this
regulatory action. Nevertheless, the Department will explore options
for collecting data in this area that might inform future activities.
Finally, while the Department has discretion to designate the
priority as invitational, competitive preference, or absolute in any
given competition, for the reasons noted above, we do not intend to use
this priority as an absolute or competitive preference priority in FY
2022, and it is unlikely that we would use the priority as an absolute
priority in future years. Therefore, in the FY 2022 CSP CMO Grant and
Developer Grant competitions, applicants will not be required to
collaborate with a traditional public school or school district to be
eligible for funding. Further, as discussed below, we have revised
Priority 2 to clarify the Department's intent and to help ensure that
this priority is not implemented in a manner that would make it more
difficult for eligible applicants to obtain charter approval or to
qualify for CSP funding. Also, as discussed below, we have amended
Requirement 6 applicable to State Entity Grants to require State entity
applicants to describe how they will ``encourage, but not require,''
eligible applicants to propose projects that include charter-
traditional collaborations.
We also acknowledge the commenter's concern that requiring the
district to sign an MOU could be labor-intensive and result in
significant legal fees, only to be revoked at a later date. Putting in
place an MOU is not required in order for applicants to address this
priority but is one example of the various types of information that
may be provided. Nevertheless, to avoid confusion, we have removed the
reference to an MOU in the priority. In addition, as discussed below,
we have extended the time period within which an applicant must provide
evidence of the existence of a collaboration. Having an MOU in place,
or having a traditional public school or district ``sign off'' on the
application, is not a requirement of this priority.
Changes: We changed the name of this priority to Collaborations
between Charter Schools and Traditional Public Schools or Districts
that Benefit Students and Families across Schools. In paragraph (a) of
Priority 2, we clarified that applicants can meet the priority not only
by proposing a new collaboration, but also by proposing to continue an
existing collaboration. We also revised the priority to provide more
examples of the types of collaborations applicants may propose. We also
clarified, in paragraph (a), that the collaboration must be designed to
benefit students or families served by at least one member of the
collaboration and lead to increased educational opportunities and
improved academic outcomes for students served by at least one member
of the collaboration. The proposed priority referred to improved
student outcomes and required the activity to benefit ``students and
families served by each member of the collaboration.'' Additionally, in
paragraph (a)(1), we revised the priority to allow applicants to
implement, among other examples, co-developed or shared curricular and
instructional resources or academic course offerings. We moved the
example describing ``policies and practices to create safe, supportive,
and inclusive learning environments'' to paragraph (a)(4) and replaced
``including'' with ``such as'' in reference to systems of positive
behavioral intervention and support. We also added paragraph (a)(7) to
include as an example of a charter-traditional collaboration any shared
special education collaborative designed to address a significant
barrier or challenge faced by participating charter schools and
traditional public schools in improving academic and developmental
outcomes and services for students with disabilities. Similarly, we
added paragraph (a)(8), which allows applicants to describe
implementation of this priority by including details of a shared
English learner collaborative designed to address a significant barrier
or challenge faced by participating charter schools or traditional
public schools in improving student outcomes for English learners. We
moved the reference to ``other collaborations designed to address a
significant barrier or challenge faced by charter schools and
traditional public schools'' to paragraph (a)(9), clarified that the
collaboration must address a significant barrier or challenge faced by
participating schools, and added as an example the sharing of
innovative and best practices. In paragraph (b), we modified the
priority to require applicants to describe the collaboration, and in
paragraph (b)(1), we deleted the requirement to provide evidence of the
collaboration at the time the application is submitted, and added that
applicants must describe each member of the collaboration and indicate
whether the collaboration would be a new or existing commitment. In
paragraph (b)(3), we removed the requirement to identify key staff
responsible for completing specific tasks and required applicants to
describe the ``anticipated'' roles and responsibilities of each member
of the collaboration. Lastly, we revised the priority to require
applicants to provide evidence of the collaboration within 120 days of
receiving a CSP grant or subgrant award, or within 120 days of the date
the collaboration is scheduled to begin, whichever is later; and made
it clear that an MOU is not required. We also made corresponding
changes in Requirement 6 applicable to State Entity Grants to align
with the changes in Priority 2, and revised Requirement 6 to require
State entities to describe how they will encourage, but not require,
eligible applicants to propose projects that include a new or existing
collaboration with a traditional public school or school district.
Requirements Applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants
Requirement 1 for CMO Grants and Developer Grants
Comments: A number of commenters expressed support for the
community impact analysis requirement, noting various reasons why it is
needed in the CSP. Some commenters suggested that low student
enrollment in specific charter schools is one of the leading factors
associated with a significant number of charter school closures. For
this reason, these commenters expressed strong support for this
requirement and the idea of bringing greater transparency, careful
planning, and better judgment to the process of awarding CSP grants.
One commenter expressed support for this requirement given its
intent to ensure due diligence in the selection of qualified, well-
meaning grantees, but recommended requiring applicants to
[[Page 40413]]
include demographic information on students with disabilities and
English learners in the community of the proposed project, along with
an assurance that the applicant will provide the full range of services
that meet the needs of such students. This commenter also recommended
that applicants be required to provide a fiscal impact report and a
signed affidavit provided by a district or State education department
official attesting to the accuracy of the information provided in the
grant application.
Another commenter noted that this requirement is a move in the
right direction, stating CSP programs have long ignored the economic
reality of charter school growth and how such growth impacts the
resources available to traditional public schools. This same commenter
recommended that the Department require applicants to state, as part of
the community impact analysis, whether a credit rating agency has
identified charter school growth as a credit negative for the districts
from which the proposed charter school intends to draw its students.
Other commenters expressed strong support for the requirement given
its emphasis on desegregation and diversity. One commenter stated that
one of the most concerning features of urban charter schools is their
potential to accelerate the concentration of the poorest and highest
need students in the traditional public schools from which charter
schools draw students, and that the community impact analysis would
address this issue.
Another commenter stated that the community impact analysis is
necessary because charter schools have been ``magnets for white
flight'' from integrated traditional public schools, and some charter
schools attract high-achieving students while discouraging students
with special needs from attending. This commenter noted further that
the information requested by the Department under this requirement is
reasonable and will help peer reviewers make sound decisions.
Many commenters expressed significant concerns about this
requirement and requested that the Department remove it, as they do not
believe it is necessary. One commenter stated that the requirement will
subject charter schools to a standard to which traditional public
schools are not held accountable. This commenter, along with several
others, cited concerns that paragraph 1(e) of the requirement implies
that charter schools should only open in districts where the public
schools are overcrowded, and that such a requirement does not take into
consideration other factors, such as the number of seats in high-
quality schools accessible to all students, possible shifts of students
from private schools into charter schools, or the availability of
enrollment data. One commenter recommended that the Department
encourage the opening of charter schools in communities where children
attend low-performing schools and do not have high-quality public
school options, regardless of the traditional school district's
capacity.
Another commenter opposed to this requirement contended that
enrollment figures remain below pre-pandemic numbers in some of the
Nation's largest school districts and that the limited availability of
enrollment data may hinder an applicant from providing a complete or
accurate analysis. This same commenter also stated that requiring a
community impact analysis would hold charter schools responsible for
maintaining diverse student populations, without clearly defining the
meaning of the term ``diverse,'' even in communities that are not
ethnically diverse, such as those affected by historical neighborhood
``red lining.''
Relatedly, one commenter suggested that the requirement is intended
to prioritize integrated school models exclusively. According to this
commenter, the requirement may have a chilling effect on a community or
families of color who may seek to open or enroll in a different
mission-oriented school, such as a school offering a pedagogical model
that is in high demand by families of color in the community but that
may not attract a sufficient number of White students to satisfy
paragraph 1(b). According to this commenter, an applicant seeking to
serve these families and communities of color may be deterred from
applying for CSP funds, even though these monies often provide supports
essential to opening a successful charter school. The commenter stated
further that, if such an applicant chose to apply for CSP funds,
instead of having an equal chance at funding to support planning and
opening the charter school, the applicant would be at a competitive
disadvantage when its application is evaluated by peer reviewers. The
commenter stated that the charter school would face heightened barriers
to opening, and that the families and ``community of color'' that the
school intends to serve could be disproportionately negatively
impacted.
Two commenters recommended revising the name of the requirement to
``Community Benefit Analysis'' to emphasize the available data and
evidence regarding how a proposed project may benefit the community
where it intends to locate. Additionally, one commenter stated that, if
the Department keeps the requirement, grant and subgrant applicants
should be allowed to decide what information to include in the analysis
so that they can provide data and evidence that is applicable to their
proposed project.
Lastly, some commenters raised concerns that the proposed
requirement would increase burden hours and administrative costs for
applicants, claiming that hiring a firm to conduct a community impact
analysis could cost a charter school operator $15,000 or more--funds a
small charter school operator would not have access to without
receiving a CSP grant or subgrant.
Discussion: The goal of this requirement is to ensure that CSP
applicants clearly address in their applications the need for their
proposed projects and the anticipated benefits to the community in
which the charter school is or would be located. As stewards of
taxpayers' dollars, we hold a fundamental belief that all applicants
for Federal financial assistance should be able to articulate the need
for their proposed project and its potential impact on the community
that it would serve. The idea of requiring grant and subgrant
applicants to address the need for the proposed project is not unique
to the CSP. Many notices inviting applications for new awards under the
Department's discretionary grant programs require applicants to address
project need and the potential impact of the project on the community,
including several school choice and place-based discretionary grant
programs, such as the Magnet Schools Assistance and Full-Service
Community Schools programs.
Furthermore, through this requirement, we ultimately seek to
support the creation, expansion, and replication of high-quality
charter schools that effectively meet the needs of their communities
and that remain open. As noted above, data from the Department's
Charter School Programs Office show that 930 prospective charter
schools and charter schools funded as subgrantees under the
Department's CSP State Educational Agency \7\ (CSP SEA) and State
Entity Grant programs from 2001 to 2020, never opened or closed prior
to the end of the grant period primarily due to low student
[[Page 40414]]
enrollment. We believe the proposed requirement can help reduce the
number of CSP-funded charter schools that never open or close
prematurely by directing Federal resources to high-quality, well-
planned charter schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In December 2015, Congress enacted the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB). The CSP SEA program was originally authorized under
NCLB but was replaced with the CSP State Entity program under ESSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to concerns expressed by some commenters, the community
impact analysis is not intended to require applicants to show evidence
of over-enrollment in other public schools; nor is the requirement
intended to restrict CSP-funded charter schools to opening only in
districts whose traditional public schools are overcrowded. Therefore,
the Department has revised the requirement to clarify that its intent
is to require applicants to demonstrate need for the proposed project.
District over-enrollment is one of several possible factors that an
applicant may cite to evince the need for the proposed charter school.
To be clear, applicants may use their discretion in identifying
relevant information or data to demonstrate need for the project and
that projected enrollment targets will be met. Applicants also may
provide other information or data to demonstrate need and support
estimates of projected enrollment, including, but not limited to,
information on waiting lists for the proposed charter school or
existing charter schools in the community; data on access to seats in
high-quality schools in the community; and proposed specialized
programs and student and family interest in those specialized programs.
In response to commenters who expressed concern that conducting a
community impact analysis will create additional burden hours and
administrative costs for applicants, we acknowledge that it may take
considerable time for an applicant to conduct a thoughtful and thorough
needs analysis depending on the size and scale of the proposed project.
However, we also believe the benefits of such analysis far outweigh any
additional burden. Many high-quality charter school authorizers already
require charter applicants to present data on academic achievement,
demographics, and enrollment and retention rates of students in the
surrounding public schools of a proposed project. We also note that
consideration of need for the project is a common factor the Department
considers when determining whether to fund a proposed project and to
appropriately direct resources to communities that would derive the
most benefit from program funds in alignment with the purposes of the
program. Thus, requiring a needs analysis is a best practice that helps
ensure that CSP grant and subgrant applicants are aware of, and
prepared to address, issues related to need for a proposed charter
school project, including providing evidence of thoughtful planning to
support a student population that is racially and socio-economically
diverse.
We disagree with the comment that the community impact analysis
requirement requires charter schools to maintain diverse student
populations even in communities that are not ethnically diverse and,
thus, fails to acknowledge that some communities are not ethnically
diverse due to historical neighborhood redlining. To clarify the
purpose of the requirement, we revised Requirement 1(b) now subpart (c)
applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants (and Requirement 1(b) now
subpart (c) applicable to State Entity Grants) to require the needs
analysis to include an analyses of the proposed charter school's
projected student demographics and a description of the demographics of
students attending public schools in the local community in which the
charter school would be located and, how the applicant plans to
establish and maintain a racially and socio-economically diverse
student body, including proposed strategies (consistent with applicable
legal requirements) to recruit, admit, enroll, and retain a diverse
student body. As revised, this requirement clarifies that an applicant
that is unlikely to establish and maintain a racially or socio-
economically diverse student body due to its specific educational
mission or because the proposed charter school would be located in a
racially or socioeconomically segregated or isolated community would
not be at a competitive disadvantage. The revised language requires
such an applicant to describe (i) why it is unlikely to establish and
maintain a racially and socio-economically diverse student body at the
proposed charter school; (ii) how the anticipated racial and socio-
economic makeup of the student body would promote the purposes of the
CSP, including to provide high-quality educational opportunities to
underserved students, which may include a specialized educational
program or mission; and (iii) the anticipated impact of the proposed
charter school on the racial and socio-economic diversity of the public
schools and school districts from which students would be drawn to
attend the charter school. For example, a proposed charter school that
enrolls 90 percent Native American students--either because the student
population of the public schools or school districts from which the
charter school draws students is generally Native American, or because
the charter school's educational mission focuses on Native American
languages and heritage would not be at a competitive disadvantage due
to this requirement.
To clarify, peer reviewers do not assign points to an application
based on the quality of an applicant's response to all application
requirements. The overall quality of an application, and whether it is
recommended for funding, is evaluated by peer reviewers based on an
applicant's responses to the specific selection criteria and any
competitive preference priorities established for the competition.
Likewise, an applicant that proposes to operate or manage a charter
school in a racially or socio-economically segregated or isolated
community would not be at a competitive disadvantage simply due to
community demographics. This is true even if the proposed charter
school itself would not have a racially or socio-economically diverse
student body. For example, a proposed charter school in a community in
which 95 percent of the students are Latino, and that draws students
from school districts with roughly 95 percent Latino students both
before and after the creation of the proposed charter school, would not
be at a competitive disadvantage due to this requirement because the
proposed charter school would not increase the racial or socio-economic
segregation or isolation in the schools from which the students are, or
would be, drawn to attend the charter school. The Administration is
committed to supporting State and local efforts to increase student
diversity and reduce racial and socio-economic isolation, including
preventing Federal funds from being used to support efforts counter to
these purposes. Racially and socio-economically diverse schools have
positive benefits for all students, including higher graduation rates,
improved academic outcomes, and increased levels of college enrollment
for students of all races.
Lastly, we agree that the data provided by applicants should
emphasize the main benefits that a proposed new, replicated, or
expanded charter school may bring to the community it intends to serve.
The community impact analysis requirement allows applicants flexibility
to present relevant and applicable data most suitable for the types of
projects they are proposing. For these reasons, we decline to require
applicants to submit
[[Page 40415]]
information regarding the demographics of students with disabilities
and English learners, a fiscal impact report and a signed affidavit
provided by the district or SEA attesting to the accuracy of the
information submitted in the grant application, or evidence that a
credit rating agency has identified charter school growth as a credit
negative for the districts from which the charter school would likely
draw students.
Changes: We changed the requirement from a ``community impact
analysis'' to a ``needs analysis'' to emphasize the main purpose of the
requirement is to ensure that CSP applicants address the need for their
proposed projects, including the anticipated benefits to the community.
Referring to the analysis as a needs analysis also aligns with
approaches used in other Department grant programs like the Full-
Service Community Schools and Magnet Schools Assistance programs. We
also added, in the lead-in sentence, that applicants must provide a
needs analysis and describe the need for the proposed project,
including how the proposed project would serve the interests and meet
the needs of students and families in communities the charter school
intends to serve. We also clarified that the needs analysis may consist
of information and documents previously submitted to an authorized
public chartering agency to address need.
Additionally, we streamlined and simplified the requirement. We
revised paragraph (a) to require that applicants include descriptions
of the community support for the charter school, benefits to the
community, and other evidence of demand for the charter school that
demonstrates a strong likelihood that the charter school will achieve
and maintain its enrollment projections. We clarified that such
information may include information on waiting lists for the proposed
charter school or traditional public schools, data on access to seats
in high-quality public schools in the districts from which the charter
school expects to draw students; or evidence of family interest in
specialized instructional approaches proposed to be implement at the
charter school. These changes make it clear that over-enrollment of
schools in the districts or communities an applicant proposes to serve
is not a requirement of the program. Applicants that propose to serve
students in a district or community with declining enrollment are
eligible to apply to participate in the program.
We streamlined paragraph (b) to require applicants to provide
information on the proposed charter school's projected enrollment and
evidence to support such projected enrollment based on the needs
analysis and other relevant data and factors. We also moved the request
for applicants to describe how they plan to establish and maintain
racially and socio-economically diverse student bodies to paragraph (c)
and eliminated the request for applicants to address diverse staff
populations.
In paragraph (c), we also ask applicants for an analyses of the
proposed charter school's projected student demographics and a
description of the demographics of students attending public schools in
the local community in which the proposed charter school would be
located. We also added to this paragraph that an applicant that is
unlikely to establish and maintain a racially and socio-economically
diverse student body at the proposed charter school because the charter
school would be located in a racially or socio-economically segregated
or isolated community, or because of the charter school's specific
educational mission (e.g., serving underserved students), must describe
why it is unlikely to maintain a racially and socio-economically
diverse student body, how the anticipated racial and socio-economic
makeup of the student body would promote the purposes of the CSP to
provide high-quality educational opportunities to underserved students,
and the anticipated impact of the proposed charter school on the racial
and socio-economic diversity of the public schools and school districts
from which students would be drawn to attend the charter school.
We also revise paragraph (c) so that it no longer requires
applicants to include analyses of publicly available information and
enrollment trends of students attending schools in the community in
which the proposed charter school would be located and the school
districts from which students are, or will be, drawn to attend the
charter school.
Finally, we have modified paragraph (f)(4) to require applicants to
describe how the charter school's recruitment, admissions, enrollment,
and retention policies and practices will engage and accommodate
families from diverse backgrounds. We also made corresponding changes
to Requirement 1 applicable to State Entity Grants to align with the
changes in Requirement 1 applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants.
Requirement 2 for CMO Grants and Developer Grants
Comments: The overwhelming majority of comments received regarding
this requirement were supportive of the Department's efforts to
increase transparency for CSP applicants that enter into contracts with
for-profit management organizations. One commenter expressed strong
support for prohibiting charter schools operated by for-profit
management organizations from receiving CSP grant or subgrant funds.
Another commenter recommended that we add the phrase ``and its related
entities'' wherever references to for-profit organizations appear in
the language to capture the caveat that many for-profit organizations
operate by steering business to their nonprofit related entities.
Another commenter expressed support for the requirement's focus on
increasing transparency but stated that the extent to which the
proposed rules build on existing CSP guidance or set an entirely new
standard is unclear. This commenter recommended that we remove
``substantial'' from the requirement where it suggests that
arrangements under which a for-profit entity, including a nonprofit CMO
operated by or on behalf of a for-profit entity, exercises full or
``substantial'' administrative control over the charter school because
the commenter believes such a restriction is not permissible under CSP-
funded projects.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that it is important for
CSP grantees and subgrantees to exercise fiscal and operational
transparency by disclosing their contractual relationships with for-
profit management organizations. For this reason, the proposed
requirements and assurances included the phrase, ``including a
nonprofit management organization operated by or on behalf of a for-
profit entity,'' after references to for-profit management
organization, where appropriate. In addition, we are adding the phrase,
``or its related entities,'' where appropriate, to ensure that this
provision applies to those applicants with related for-profit arms that
access CSP funds through their non-profit related entities.
Furthermore, as stated in the NPP, this requirement is based, in part,
on Federal regulations at 34 CFR 75.701 and 76.701, which require
grantees and subgrantees, respectively, to directly administer or
supervise the administration of their projects. It builds on existing
non-regulatory guidance and is not intended to establish a new standard
but rather to further clarify an existing standard. The
[[Page 40416]]
term ``substantial'' refers to the management organization's control
over the charter school. We believe it is important to distinguish
between control over the charter school and control over the CSP
project, as a management organization could control certain aspects of
the charter school without controlling the CSP grant or subgrant. The
use of the term ``substantial'' in this context is intended to put
grantees and subgrantees on notice that, in most cases, a management
organization that exercises ``substantial'' control over a charter
school would be considered to be exercising an impermissible amount of
control over the CSP project.
Changes: We changed the first paragraph of Requirement 2 applicable
to CMO and Developer Grants to cover ``related entities'' of for-profit
management organizations as well as the management organizations
themselves. Additionally, to ease the burden on applicants, we
clarified that applicants can meet the requirement by providing
equivalent information that they have submitted to the authorized
public chartering agency.
We modified paragraph (a) to require applicants either to submit a
copy of the existing contract with a for-profit management organization
or to describe the terms of such contract. We also streamlined the
requirement by combining paragraphs (a) and (b), and paragraphs (d) and
(e). Additionally, we revised the provision to require, in addition to
the name and contact information for each member of the governing board
of the charter school, a list of the management organization's
officers, chief administrator, other administrators, and any staff
involved in approving or executing the management contract. Finally, we
added paragraph (d) requiring applicants to describe how they will
ensure that members of the governing board of the charter school are
not selected, removed, controlled or employed by the management
organization and that the charter school's legal, accounting, and
auditing services will be procured independently from the management
organization. We also made corresponding changes to Requirement 2
applicable to State Entity Grants to align with the changes in
Requirement 2 applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants.
Requirement 3 for CMO Grants and Developer Grants
Comments: We received minimal comments in response to this
requirement, but the majority of commenters offered general support for
requiring applicants to provide more information regarding the approval
status of their charter application from an authorized public
chartering agency. One commenter recommended changing the language to
request the dates the charter application was submitted and approved by
the authorized public chartering agency rather than requiring a signed
copy of the school's charter application. The commenter also
recommended requiring applicants to identify the authorized public
chartering agency to which they submitted the charter application and
to provide proof that the application was submitted. Finally, the
commenter recommended adding the leading phrase, ``In its budget,'' to
paragraph (d), which requires applicants to submit documentation on
planning costs.
Discussion: Under section 4310(6) of the ESEA, an applicant that
has applied (and provided adequate and timely notice of its CSP
application) to an authorized public chartering agency is eligible to
apply for and receive CSP planning funds, even if the charter
application has not yet been approved. Given the Department's interest
in collecting more information regarding the status of grantees'
charter applications, particularly as it relates to applicants that
receive funding before obtaining charter approval, we believe that
requiring applicants to submit this information is warranted and have
revised the requirement based on all the recommended changes previously
noted. We hope to gain greater insight into the charter authorizing
process from this data.
Changes: We changed paragraph (a) to cover all applicants. We
changed paragraph (a)(1) to request the name and address of the
authorized public chartering agency that issued the applicant's
approved charter or, in the case of an applicant that has not yet
received an approved charter, the authorized public chartering agency
to which the applicant has applied. We removed the proposed requirement
for an applicant to provide a timeline from the authorized public
chartering agency for providing a final decision on the charter
application, and changed paragraph (a)(2) to request the date on which
an applicant that has not yet received an approved charter submitted
its charter application to the authorized public chartering agency and
an estimated date by which the authorized public chartering agency will
issue its final decision on the charter application. Additionally, we
changed paragraph (a)(3) to require applicants to provide documentation
that they have provided notice to the authorized public chartering
agency that they have applied for a CSP grant. Lastly, we changed
paragraph (a)(4) to require applicants to include in their proposed
budgets a description of any post-award planning costs, including
planning costs expected to be incurred prior to the date the authorized
public chartering agency issues a decision on the charter application.
Requirements Applicable to State Entity Grants
Requirements 1 and 2 for State Entity Grants
For comments, discussion, and changes applicable to these
requirements, see the above discussion for Requirement 1 for CMO Grants
and Developer Grants and Requirement 2 for CMO Grants and Developer
Grants, which include parallel requirements within the context of those
programs.
Requirement 3 for State Entity Grants
Comments: While some commenters expressed general support for the
requirement for State Entity applicants to provide a detailed
description of how they will review applications from eligible
applicants, slightly more commenters opposed the requirement. Some of
the commenters who opposed the requirement questioned the Secretary's
authority to create the requirement given that the program statute
provides flexibility for State Entity applicants to describe how they
will review subgrant applications. One commenter said the requirement
may inhibit the ability of developers to propose new high-quality
charter schools by discouraging CSP grant applications for State Entity
review. Another commenter stated that paperwork to process a subgrant
for review would increase as a result of the proposed requirement,
discouraging schools from applying, especially single site and
community schools. Another commenter noted that some State statutes
conflict with the proposed requirement. This commenter asserted that,
given the likely timing of the release of the NFP, the Department would
have very little time to provide guidance on reconciling subgrant
application requirements with State law requirements, further narrowing
the ability for charter school developers to apply for CSP grants and
subgrants and to open schools.
Discussion: We agree with some commenters that the program statute
offers some flexibilities to State entity applicants regarding the
development and implementation of their CSP subgrant programs,
including the review of subgrant applications. Under the CSP,
[[Page 40417]]
State Entity grantees are given flexibility to design and implement
their subgrant programs in a manner that enables them to achieve their
policy goals and objectives, consistent with CSP requirements.
Requirement 3 Applicable to State Entity Grants merely requires SE
applicants to explain how they will review applications; it does not
limit a State Entity's flexibility in developing the review process or
adhering to State statutes. Thus, while grantees and subgrantees must
comply with the CSP authorizing statute, applicable regulations, and
their approved applications, the Department believes State entities are
in the best position to establish the standards and guardrails that are
necessary for their subgrantees to create, replicate, and expand high-
quality charter schools that meet the educational needs of their
students and comply with CSP requirements. Requirement 3 applicable to
State Entity Grants holds State entities accountable for designing and
implementing high-quality subgrant programs and, we believe, enhances
the overall quality of charter school subgrantees in the areas of
transparency, oversight, and accountability. We also do not believe
this requirement will inhibit or discourage charter school subgrantees
from applying to the State entity for funding as the requirement does
not add any burden to charter school subgrant applicants. Therefore, we
decline to eliminate or change the requirement.
Changes: None.
Requirement 4 for State Entity Grants
Comments: Commenters generally expressed support for this
requirement for State Entity Grant applicants to provide a detailed
description of how the SE will monitor and report on subgrant
performance. One commenter recommended that the Department modify the
language slightly to encourage collaboration between the State entity
and authorized public chartering agency of a given school to eliminate
unnecessary duplication of oversight activities. That commenter noted
that high-quality charter school authorizers should already be
conducting some level of operational and fiscal oversight of such
entities. Two commenters suggested that the Department require
subgrantee monitoring review teams to include at least one reviewer
representative from the traditional school district in the community.
Discussion: The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that CSP
State entity grantees implement high-quality compliance monitoring
reviews that address and mitigate subgrantee risk. We also recognize
that, in many instances, charter school authorizers are required to
monitor and oversee the charter schools they authorize for operational
and fiscal management and agree that such monitoring and oversight
should be conducted widely across all authorized public chartering
agencies in tandem with State entity subgrantee monitoring. It should
be noted, however, that charter school authorizers generally monitor
their charter schools for compliance with the terms of the charter,
which may include compliance with State and Federal laws, while State
entity grantees are responsible for monitoring their subgrantees to
ensure compliance with CSP requirements. Nevertheless, the Department
agrees with this recommendation and deems such collaboration between
charter school authorizers and State entity grantees to be a best
practice for ensuring the quality and effectiveness of CSP grants and
subgrants. We do not, however, agree with the recommendation to require
State entity grantees to include at least one representative from a
traditional school district on the monitoring review team for the
charter school as the district representative would not necessarily
have the expertise to ensure compliance with CSP requirements;
therefore, we decline to make this change.
Changes: We added a reference to ``subgrant activities'' to the
introductory paragraph and, to avoid duplication, removed the prior
paragraph (d) regarding monitoring for progress and compliance. We
added paragraph (h) that requires applicants for State Entity Grants to
describe how they will work with authorized public chartering agencies
to share information regarding the monitoring of subgrantees, including
in areas related to fiscal protocols and organizational governance, for
the purpose of reducing the reporting burden on charter schools.
Requirement 5 for State Entity Grants
Comments: None.
Changes: None.
Requirement 6 for State Entity Grants
For comments, discussion, and changes applicable to this
requirement, see the above discussions for Priority 1--Promoting High-
Quality Educator- and Community-Centered Charter Schools to Support
Underserved Students and Priority 2--Charter School and Traditional
Public School or District Collaborations that Benefit Students and
Families, which establish priorities for CMO Grants and Developer
Grants that are parallel to what a State entity prioritizes and
encourages under this requirement when awarding subgrants.
Assurances Applicable to State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer
Grants
Assurance (a) for State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants
Comments: None.
Changes: We added a parenthetical to Assurance (a) to clarify that
State entity and CMO grantees must ensure that charter schools that
they fund meet the requirement.
Assurance (b) for State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants
Comments: None.
Changes: We added a parenthetical to Assurance (b) to clarify that
State entity and CMO grantees must ensure that charter schools that
they fund meet the requirement.
Assurance (c) for State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants
For comments, discussion, and changes applicable to this assurance,
see the above discussion for Requirement 2 for CMO Grants and Developer
Grants, which include parallel requirements within the context of those
programs.
Assurance (d) for State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants
Comments: None.
Changes: We added a parenthetical to Assurance (d) to clarify that
State entity and CMO grantees must ensure that charter schools that
they fund meet the requirement.
Assurance (e) for State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants
Comments: One commenter expressed support for Assurance (e), which
requires CMO Grant and Developer Grant applicants, and subgrant
applicants under the State Entity Grant program, to provide an
assurance that they (or, in the case of an applicant for a CMO Grant,
each charter school it proposes to fund) will hold or participate in a
public hearing in the community where the charter school will be
located to obtain information and feedback regarding the potential
impact of the charter school, including the steps the applicant has
taken or will take to ensure that the proposed charter school would not
negatively affect any desegregation efforts in the public school
districts from which students would be drawn to attend the charter
school and to ensure that the proposed charter school would not
otherwise increase racial or socioeconomic segregation or isolation in
such schools.
[[Page 40418]]
However, the commenter recommended that the Department modify the
language to expand the focus of such public hearing to include multiple
topics relevant to the affected community. The commenter expressed
concern that the assurance language, as written, is too restrictive
regarding the nature of the public hearings and the topics that must be
covered.
Discussion: The main purposes of Assurance (e) are to ensure
transparency regarding the creation, replication, and expansion of
proposed charter schools and to ensure that the applicant engages the
community in the planning and implementation of CSP-funded charter
schools. The assurance requires the applicant to obtain ``information
and feedback'' from the community regarding the potential impact of the
charter school. The applicant must also obtain information and feedback
regarding the steps it has taken or will take to ensure that the
proposed charter school does not negatively affect any desegregation
efforts or otherwise increase racial or socioeconomic segregation or
isolation in the public school districts from which students are, or
would be, drawn to attend the charter school. We agree with the
commenter that the hearing, which may take place as part of or
concurrent with a public hearing in which the applicant participates or
conducts for other purposes (e.g., as part of a pre-opening requirement
of a charter school authorizer or under State-law), also should cover
other topics related to the charter school project that are of interest
to the community.
Changes: We added a parenthetical to Assurance (e) to clarify that
State entity and CMO grantees must ensure that charter schools that
they fund meet the requirement. We also modified Assurance (e) to
specify that the public hearing must include a discussion of how the
proposed charter school will increase the availability of high-quality
public school options for traditionally underserved students in the
local community in which the charter school would be located; promote
racial and socio-economic diversity in such community, be located in a
racially or socio-economically segregated of isolated community, have a
specific educational mission, for example, serving targeted underserved
students; and not increase racial or socio-economic segregation or
isolation in the school districts from which students would be drawn to
attend the charter school.
Assurance (f) for State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants
Comments: Some commenters expressed support for Assurance (f),
which requires State Entity, CMO Grant, and Developer Grant applicants,
and subgrant applicants under the State Entity Grant program, to
provide an assurance that they will not use or provide CSP
``implementation'' funds for a charter school until after the charter
school has received a charter from an authorized public chartering
agency and has obtained a facility in which to operate. One commenter
recommended that we keep the assurance but clarify its purpose. Another
commenter noted the significance of the assurance to prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse under the CSP and provided statistics regarding the
percentage of previous recipients of CSP ``planning'' funds between
2006 and 2015 that never opened the proposed charter school and the
number of charter schools that opened and received CSP funds but have
since closed. Another commenter recommended imposing a spending cap on
the use of implementation funds before a prospective new charter school
is authorized or secures a facility, rather than prohibiting the use of
CSP funds if these milestones are not met right away. Similarly,
several other commenters recommended imposing a $10,000 cap on the
amount of CSP funds an applicant may use for planning purposes and
releasing the remaining planning funds when the charter is approved.
Another commenter supported continuing to allow funds for planning and
program design to be provided to applicants even if they have not yet
secured a facility given the challenges many charter schools face when
trying to obtain a new site in various communities.
A number of commenters strongly opposed Assurance (f), citing
concerns that the assurance will create a standard that is very
difficult for CMO Grant applicants to meet. The commenters stated that
research indicates that it sometimes takes up to 5 years for a new
charter school to gain approval and, thus, a CMO Grant applicant might
have to wait several years before they are eligible to apply for CSP
funding.
Discussion: Under section 4310(6) of the ESEA, a charter school
developer that has applied to an authorized public chartering agency
for approval to operate a charter school is eligible to apply for a CSP
grant or subgrant, even if the developer has not yet received an
approved charter or secured a facility. Under the CSP, planning funds
may be used to cover post-award costs associated with planning and
designing the educational program of the charter school before it
opens, and implementation funds are used to cover costs associated with
the initial implementation of the charter school after it opens.
Planning funds can be used, for example, for hiring and compensating
teachers, school leaders, and specialized instructional support
personnel; providing training and professional development to staff; or
other critical activities that need to occur prior to opening. The CSP
statute limits grantees and subgrantees to no more than 18 months for
planning activities. Assurance (f) requires State Entity Grant, CMO
Grant, and Developer Grant applicants, and subgrant applicants under
the State Entity Grant program, to provide an assurance that they will
not use CSP ``implementation'' funds for a charter school until after
the charter school has received a charter from an authorized public
chartering agency and has obtained a facility in which to operate.
Assurance (f) is consistent with how previous administrations have
addressed this issue by distinguishing between planning funds and
implementation funds and restricting the use of implementation funds to
costs related to operating the charter school. As stated above, a CSP
applicant may receive ``planning'' funds before charter approval is
obtained or a facility is secured. Assurance (f) does not restrict the
use of planning funds beyond what is prescribed in the statute, but
rather, is intended to clarify expectations for charter school
developers to obtain charter approval and secure a facility during the
18-month planning period of the grant or subgrant. We also believe this
assurance will help to mitigate the risk of CSP implementation funds
being used to support charter schools that never open because the
charter was not approved or the applicant was unable to secure a
facility in a timely manner. The Department recognizes that the charter
approval process may exceed the 18-month planning period for CSP grants
and subgrants, as prescribed under section 4303(d)(1)(B) of the ESEA.
In such a case, applicants may request approval from the Department or
the State entity to amend their application to request an extension of
the 18-month planning period. Under section 4303(d)(5) of the ESEA, the
Secretary, in his discretion, may waive any statutory or regulatory
requirement over which he exercises administrative authority, except
the requirements related to the definition of ``charter school'' in
section
[[Page 40419]]
4310(2), provided that the waiver is requested in an approved
application and the Secretary determines that granting the waiver will
promote the purposes of the CSP. It is also worth noting that a grantee
may request approval from the Department, and a State entity subgrantee
may request approval from the State entity, to amend its approved
application and budget to cover additional planning costs that it may
incur due to an unexpected delay in the charter approval process or for
other reasons.
Changes: We amended Assurance (f) to remove the requirement that
applicants provide an assurance that they will not ``use or provide''
implementation funds for a charter school until after the eligible
applicant has received an approved charter and secured a facility, so
that applicants are required only to provide an assurance that they
will not ``use'' implementation funds prior to receiving an approved
charter and securing a facility. We also added a parenthetical to
clarify that State entity and CMO grantees must ensure that charter
schools that they fund meet the requirement. Additionally, we added
language specifying some of the allowable uses of planning funds,
stating that consistent with sections 4303(b)(1), 4303(h)(1)(B), and
4310(6) of the ESEA, an eligible applicant may use CSP planning funds
for post-award planning and design of the educational program of a
proposed new or replicated high-quality charter school that has not yet
opened, which may include hiring and compensating teachers, school
leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel; providing
training and professional development to staff; and other critical
planning activities that need to occur prior to the charter school
opening when such costs cannot be met from other sources.
Assurance Applicable to State Entity Grants and CMO Grants
Comments: One commenter expressed support for the assurance that
requires State entity and CMO grantees, and subgrantees under the State
Entity Grant program, to post specific information regarding the
proposed charter schools on their respective websites within 30 days of
receiving the grant or subgrant award notification. The commenter
recommended changing the time limit to 120 days to align with the
timing of grant administration activities by the Department and the
multi-year way that CMO grantees make decisions about where to allocate
funds to individual charter schools. The same commenter recommended
revising the assurance to require State Entity Grant and CMO Grant
applicants to assure that they will update annually the list of charter
schools slated to receive CSP funds, including charter schools that
have been approved to receive CSP planning funds but do not yet have a
campus or facility identified.
Discussion: We agree that a 120-day time limit would allow more
efficient timing for award recipients to post the required information
on their websites after making decisions about how to allocate their
grant funds. We also agree that CMO grantees should update their lists
of charter schools approved to receive CSP funding at least once per
year. In addition, we believe CMO grantees should be transparent
regarding the anticipated number of charter schools likely to receive
CSP planning funds prior to having a facility or campus identified.
Since the assurance requires State entity grantees to post information
regarding the subgrants they award after each local subgrant
competition, depending on the number of subgrant competitions a State
entity holds during the year, the State entity could be required to
post such information more frequently than once a year.
Changes: We deleted the reference to ``subgrantee'' so that only
State entity and CMO grantees are required to post the required
information regarding the charter schools funded under their grants,
since subgrantees are unlikely to have access to the required
information for all subgrants awarded by the State entity. We increased
from 30 days to 120 days after award notification the time period
within which State Entity Grant and CMO Grant recipients must post the
required information on their websites. We also added a paragraph (b)
to this assurance that requires CMO applicants to assure that they will
update their lists of charter schools that have been approved for
funding at least annually and include on the list the charter schools
that will receive CSP planning funds prior to securing a facility.
Finally, in paragraph (a)(6), we added the phrase, ``For State entity
grantees,'' and deleted ``grant or'' from the phrase, ``grant or
subgrant,'' to clarify that only State entity grantees are required to
post peer review materials on their website since CMO grantees do not
hold local subgrant competitions. The Department posts such information
regarding CMO Grants on the CSP website.
Selection Criteria Applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants
Comments: We received relatively few comments that addressed the
selection criteria or that provided specific recommendations for
changes; however, of the comments received, most offered general
support for the proposed selection criteria. One commenter who
expressed support for the selection criteria specifically noted the
focus on requiring applicants for State Entity Grants to address how
they will estimate the number of subgrants they intend to provide.
Discussion: We agree with the one commenter that it is important to
hold applicants accountable for providing realistic estimates of the
number of subgrants they plan to award. The selection criteria are
designed to provide peer reviewers with clear and measurable parameters
to identify the best quality applications that are most likely to
succeed in supporting the development and implementation of high-
quality charter schools, and that are driven by the needs of families
and their communities. We revise the Quality of Needs Analysis
criterion to align with the revisions made to the needs analysis
requirement and its emphasis on ensuring that an applicant's needs
analysis demonstrates a clear need for the proposed charter school.
Changes: We changed the title of the Quality of the Community
Impact Analysis criterion to Quality of Needs Analysis to align with
corresponding changes to the Needs Analysis application requirements
and assurance. We also revised the third subpart of Quality of Needs
Analysis a(1), replacing ``and will not otherwise increase racial or
socio-economic segregation or isolation in the schools from which the
students are, or would be, drawn to attend the charter school'' to
``demonstrates sufficient demand for the charter school.''
Definitions Applicable to State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and
Developer Grants
Comments: A few commenters recommended that the Department
establish definitions for ``diverse,'' ``racial isolation,'' and
``substantial.'' Similarly, a commenter stated that because the term
``racial isolation'' is not defined in the notice, applicants may have
difficulty determining whether a school is segregated under Requirement
1 applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants and Requirement 1
applicable to State Entity Grants. Some commenters also expressed
support for providing a definition for ``community asset,'' noting that
many stakeholders believe a community-centered approach is
[[Page 40420]]
necessary to ensure quality charter school authorizing.
Discussion: We understand that the meanings of the terms
``diverse,'' ``racial isolation,'' and ``substantial'' are somewhat
broad. Because of the universal nature of these terms, however, we do
not believe it is necessary to define them. For these reasons, we
decline to define ``diverse,'' ``racial isolation,'' and
``substantial.'' The definition for the term ``community assets'' that
was proposed in the NPP is included in the final Definitions applicable
to State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants.
Changes: To simplify the definition of ``community assets'' we
removed the reference to ``political assets''. FINAL PRIORITIES,
REQUIREMENTS, DEFINITIONS, AND SELECTION CRITERIA: The Department
establishes the following priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for use in any future CSP grant competitions.
Final Priorities
Priorities Applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants
Priority 1--Promoting High-Quality Educator- and Community-Centered
Charter Schools to Support Underserved Students.
(a) Under this priority, an applicant must propose to open a new
charter school, or to replicate or expand a high-quality charter
school, that is developed and implemented--
(1) With meaningful and ongoing engagement with current or former
teachers and other educators; and
(2) Using a community-centered approach that includes an assessment
of community assets, informs the development of the charter school, and
includes the implementation of protocols and practices designed to
ensure that the charter school will use and interact with community
assets on an ongoing basis to create and maintain strong community
ties.
(b) In its application, an applicant must provide a high-quality
plan that demonstrates how its proposed project would meet the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this priority, accompanied by a
timeline for key milestones that span the course of planning,
development, and implementation of the charter school.
Priority 2--Collaborations between Charter Schools and Traditional
Public Schools or Districts that Benefit Students and Families across
Schools.
(a) Under this priority, an applicant must propose a new
collaboration, or the continuation of an existing collaboration, with
at least one traditional public school or traditional school district
that is designed to benefit students or families served by at least one
member of the collaboration, is designed to lead to increased or
improved educational opportunities for students served by at least one
member of the collaboration, and includes implementation of one or more
of the following--
(1) Co-developed or shared curricular and instructional resources
or academic course offerings.
(2) Professional development opportunities for teachers and other
educators, which may include professional learning communities,
opportunities for teachers to earn additional certifications, such as
in a high-need area or national board certification, and partnerships
with educator preparation programs to support teaching residencies.
(3) Evidence-based (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA)
practices to improve academic performance for underserved students.
(4) Policies and practices to create safe, supportive, and
inclusive learning environments, such as systems of positive behavioral
intervention and support.
(5) Transparent enrollment and retention practices and processes
that include clear and consistent disclosure to families of policies or
requirements (e.g., discipline policies, purchasing and wearing
specific uniforms and other fees, or family participation), and any
services that are or are not provided, that could impact a family's
ability to enroll or remain enrolled in the school (e.g.,
transportation services or participation in the National School Lunch
Program).
(6) A shared transportation plan and system that reduces
transportation costs for at least one member of the collaboration and
takes into consideration various transportation options, including
public transportation and district-provided or shared transportation
options, cost-sharing or free or reduced-cost fare options, and any
distance considerations for prioritized bus services.
(7) A shared special education collaborative designed to address a
significant barrier or challenge faced by participating charter schools
or traditional public schools in improving academic and developmental
outcomes and services for students with disabilities (as defined in
section 8101 of the ESEA);
(8) A shared English learner (as defined in section 8101 of the
ESEA) collaborative designed to address a significant barrier or
challenge faced by participating charter schools or traditional public
schools in providing educational programs to improve academic outcomes
for English learners;
(9) Other collaborations, such as the sharing of innovative and
best practices, designed to address a significant barrier or challenge
faced by participating charter schools or traditional public schools in
providing educational programs to improve academic outcomes for all
students served by members of the collaboration.
(b) In its application, an applicant must provide a description of
the collaboration that--
(1) Describes each member of the collaboration and whether the
collaboration would be a new or existing commitment;
(2) States the purpose and duration of the collaboration;
(3) Describes the anticipated roles and responsibilities of each
member of the collaboration) ;
(4) Describes how the collaboration will benefit one or more
members of the collaboration, including how it will benefit students or
families affiliated with a member and lead to increased educational
opportunities for students, and meet specific and measurable, if
applicable, goals;
(5) Describes the resources members of the collaboration will
contribute; and
(6) Contains any other relevant information.
(c) Within 120 days of receiving a grant award or within 120 days
of the date the collaboration is scheduled to begin, whichever is
later, provide evidence of participation in the collaboration (which
may include, but is not required to include, an MOU).
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)). Depending on
the grant competition, applicants may have the option to choose one or
more of several absolute priorities.
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
[[Page 40421]]
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 Application Requirements
Requirements Applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants
Requirement 1:
Each applicant must provide a needs analysis and describe the need
for the proposed project, including how the proposed project would
serve the interests and meet the needs of students and families in the
communities the charter school intends to serve. The needs analysis,
which may consist of information and documents previously submitted to
an authorized public chartering agency to address need, must include,
but is not necessarily limited to, the following:
(a) Descriptions of the local community support, including
information that demonstrates interest in, and need for, the charter
school; benefits to the community; and other evidence of demand for the
charter school that demonstrates a strong likelihood the charter school
will achieve and maintain its enrollment projections. Such information
may include information on waiting lists for the proposed charter
school or existing charter schools or traditional public schools; data
on access to seats in high-quality public schools in the districts from
which the charter school expects to draw students; or evidence of
family interest in specialized instructional approaches proposed to be
implemented at the charter school.
(b) Information on the proposed charter school's projected student
enrollment, and evidence to support the projected enrollment based on
the needs analysis and other relevant data and factors, such as the
methodology and calculations used.
(c) An analysis of the proposed charter school's projected student
demographics and a description of the demographics of students
attending public schools in the local community in which the proposed
charter school would be located and the school districts from which
students are, or would be, drawn to attend the charter school; a
description of how the applicant plans to establish and maintain a
racially and socio-economically diverse student body, including
proposed strategies (that are consistent with applicable legal
requirements) to recruit, admit, enroll, and retain a diverse student
body. An applicant that is unlikely to establish and maintain a
racially and socio-economically diverse student body at the proposed
charter school because the charter school would be located in a
racially or socio-economically segregated or isolated community, or due
to the charter school's specific educational mission, must describe--
(i) why it is unlikely to establish and maintain a racially and
socio-economically diverse student body at the proposed charter school;
(ii) how the anticipated racial and socio-economic makeup of the
student body would promote the purposes of the CSP, including to
provide high-quality educational opportunities to underserved students,
which may include a specialized educational program or mission; and
(iii) the anticipated impact of the proposed charter school on the
racial and socio-economic diversity of the public schools and school
districts from which students would be drawn to attend the charter
school.
(d) A robust family and community engagement plan designed to
ensure the active participation of families and the community that
includes the following:
(1) How families and the community were, are, or will be engaged in
determining the vision and design for the charter school, including
specific examples of how families' and the community's input was, is,
or is expected to be incorporated into the vision and design for the
charter school.
(2) How the charter school will meaningfully engage with both
families and the community to create strong and ongoing partnerships.
(3) How the charter school will foster a collaborative culture that
involves the families of all students, including underserved students,
in ensuring their ongoing input in school decision-making.
(4) How the charter school's recruitment, admissions, enrollment,
and retention policies and practices will engage and accommodate
students and families from diverse backgrounds, including English
learners, students with disabilities, and students of color, including
holding enrollment and recruitment events on weekends or during non-
standard work hours, making interpreters available, and providing
enrollment and recruitment information in widely accessible formats
(e.g., hard copy and online in multiple languages; as appropriate,
large print or braille for visually-impaired individuals) through
widely available and transparent means (e.g., online and at community
locations).
(5) How the charter school has engaged or will engage families and
the community to develop an instructional model to best serve the
targeted student population and their families, including students with
disabilities and English learners.
(e) How the plans for the operation of the charter school will
support and reflect the needs of students and families in the
community, including consideration of district or community assets and
how the school's location, or anticipated location if a facility has
not been secured, will facilitate access for the targeted student
population (e.g., access to public transportation or other
transportation options, the demographics of neighborhoods within
walking distance of the school, and transportation plans and costs for
students who are not able to walk or use public transportation to
access the school).
(f) A description of the steps the applicant has taken or will take
to ensure that the proposed charter school (1) would not hamper, delay,
or negatively affect any desegregation efforts in the local community
in which the charter school would be located or in the public school
districts from which students are, or would be, drawn to attend the
charter school, including efforts to comply with a court order,
statutory obligation, or voluntary efforts to create and maintain
desegregated public schools,; and (2) to ensure that the proposed
charter school would not otherwise increase racial or socio-economic
segregation or isolation in the schools from which the students are, or
would be, drawn to attend the charter school.
Requirement 2:
For any existing or proposed contract with a for-profit management
organization (including a nonprofit management organization operated by
or on behalf of a for-profit entity), without regard to whether the
management organization or its related entities exercise full or
substantial administrative control over the charter school or the CSP
project, the applicant must provide the following information or
equivalent information that the applicant has submitted to the
authorized public chartering agency--
(a) A copy of the existing contract with the for-profit management
organization or a description of the terms of the contract, including
the name and contact information of the management organization; the
cost (i.e., fixed costs and estimates of any ongoing costs), including
the amount of CSP
[[Page 40422]]
funds proposed to be used toward such cost, and the percentage such
cost represents of the school's total funding; the duration; roles and
responsibilities of the management organization; and steps the
applicant will take to ensure that it pays fair market value for any
services or other items purchased or leased from the management
organization, makes all programmatic decisions, maintains control over
all CSP funds, and directly administers or supervises the
administration of the grant in accordance with 34 CFR 75.701;
(b) A description of any business or financial relationship between
the charter school developer and the management organization, including
payments, contract terms, and any property owned, operated, or
controlled by the management organization or related individuals or
entities that will be used by the charter school;
(c) The name and contact information for each member of the
governing board of the charter school and list of the management
organization's officers, chief administrator, and other administrators,
and any staff involved in approving or executing the management
contract; and a description of any actual or perceived conflicts of
interest, including financial interests, and how the applicant resolved
or will resolve any actual or perceived conflicts of interest to ensure
compliance with 2 CFR 200.318(c);
(d) A description of how the applicant will ensure that members of
the governing board of the charter school are not selected, removed,
controlled, or employed by the management organization and that the
charter school's legal, accounting, and auditing services will be
procured independently from the management organization;
(e) An explanation of how the applicant will ensure that the
management contract is severable, severing the management contract will
not cause the proposed charter school to close, the duration of the
management contract will not extend beyond the expiration date of the
school's charter, and renewal of the management contract will not occur
without approval and affirmative action by the governing board of the
charter school; and
(f) A description of the steps the applicant will take to ensure
that it maintains control over all student records and has a process in
place to provide those records to another public school or school
district in a timely manner upon the transfer of a student from the
charter school to another public school, including due to closure of
the charter school, in accordance with section 4308 of the ESEA.
Requirement 3:
(a) Each applicant must provide--
(1) The name and address of the authorized public chartering agency
that issued the applicant's approved charter or, in the case of an
applicant that has not yet received an approved charter, the authorized
public chartering agency to which the applicant has applied;
(2) A copy of the approved charter or, in the case of an applicant
that has not yet received an approved charter, a copy of the charter
application that was submitted to the authorized public chartering
agency, including the date the application was submitted, and an
estimated date by which the authorized public chartering agency will
issue its final decision on the charter application;
(3) Documentation that the applicant has provided notice to the
authorized public chartering agency that it has applied for a CSP
grant; and
(4) A proposed budget, including a detailed description of any
post-award planning costs and, for an applicant that does not yet have
an approved charter, any planning costs expected to be incurred prior
to the date the authorized public chartering agency issues a decision
on the charter application.
Requirements Applicable to State Entity Grants
Requirement 1:
Each applicant must certify that it will require each subgrant
applicant to provide a needs analysis and describe in its subgrant
application the need for the proposed project, including how the
proposed project would serve the interests and meet the needs of
students and families in the communities the charter school intends to
serve. The needs analysis, which may consist of information and
documents previously submitted to an authorized public chartering
agency to address need, must include, but is not necessarily limited
to, the following:
(a) Descriptions of the local community support, including
information that demonstrates interest in, and need for, the charter
school; benefits to the community; and other evidence of demand for the
charter school that demonstrates a strong likelihood the charter school
will achieve and maintain its enrollment projections. Such information
may include information on waiting lists for the proposed charter
school or existing charter schools or traditional public schools; data
on access to seats in high-quality public schools in the districts from
which the charter school expects to draw students; or evidence of
family interest in specialized instructional approaches proposed to be
implemented at the charter school.
(b) Information on the proposed charter school's projected student
enrollment, and evidence to support the projected enrollment based on
the needs analysis and other relevant data and factors, such as the
methodology and calculations used.
(c) An analysis of the proposed charter school's projected student
demographics and a description of the demographics of students
attending public schools in the local community in which the proposed
charter school would be located and the school districts from which
students are, or would be, drawn to attend the charter school; a
description of how the applicant plans to establish and maintain a
racially and socio-economically diverse student body, including
proposed strategies (that are consistent with applicable legal
requirements) to recruit, admit, enroll, and retain a diverse student
body. An applicant that is unlikely to be able to establish and
maintain a racially and socio-economically diverse student body at the
proposed charter school because the charter school would be located in
a racially or socio-economically segregated or isolated community, or
due to the charter school's specific educational mission must
describe--
(i) why it is unlikely to establish and maintain a racially and
socio-economically diverse student body at the proposed charter school;
(ii) How the anticipated racial and socio-economic makeup of the
student body would promote the purposes of the CSP, including to
provide high-quality educational opportunities to underserved students,
which may include a specialized educational program or mission; and
(iii) The anticipated impact of the proposed charter school on the
racial and socio-economic diversity of the public schools and school
districts from which students would be drawn to attend the charter
school.
(d) A robust family and community engagement plan designed to
ensure the active participation of families and the community that
includes the following:
(1) How families and the community were, are, or will be engaged in
determining the vision and design for the charter school, including
specific examples of how families' and the community's input was, is,
or is expected to be incorporated into the vision and design for the
charter school.
(2) How the charter school will meaningfully engage with both
families
[[Page 40423]]
and the community to create strong and ongoing partnerships.
(3) How the charter school will foster a collaborative culture that
involves the families of all students, including underserved students,
in ensuring their ongoing input in school decision-making.
(4) How the charter school's recruitment, admissions, enrollment,
and retention policies and practices will engage and accommodate
students and families from diverse backgrounds, including English
learners, students with disabilities, and students of color, including
by holding enrollment and recruitment events on weekends or during
nonstandard work hours, making interpreters available, and providing
enrollment and recruitment information in widely accessible formats
(e.g., hard copy and online in multiple languages; as appropriate,
large print or braille for visually-impaired individuals) through
widely available and transparent means (e.g., online and at community
locations).
(5) How the charter school has engaged or will engage families and
the community to develop an instructional model to best serve the
targeted student population and their families, including students with
disabilities and English learners.
(e) How the plans for the operation of the charter school will
support and reflect the needs of students and families in the
community, including consideration of district or community assets and
how the school's location, or anticipated location if a facility has
not been secured, will facilitate access for the targeted student
population (e.g., access to public transportation or other
transportation options, the demographics of neighborhoods within
walking distance of the school, and transportation plans and costs for
students who are not able to walk or use public transportation to
access the school).
(f) A description of the steps the applicant has taken or will take
to ensure that the proposed charter school would not hamper, delay, or
negatively affect any desegregation efforts in the public school
districts from which students are, or would be, drawn or in which the
charter school is or would be located, including efforts to comply with
a court order, statutory obligation, or voluntary efforts to create and
maintain desegregated public schools, and that it would not otherwise
increase racial or socio-economic segregation or isolation in the
schools from which the students are, or would be, drawn to attend the
charter school.
Requirement 2:
For any existing or proposed contract between a charter school and
a for-profit management organization (including a nonprofit management
organization operated by or on behalf of a for-profit entity), without
regard to whether the management organization or its related entities
exercise full or substantial administrative control over the charter
school or the CSP project, each applicant must certify that it will
require subgrant applications to include the following information or
equivalent information that the applicant has submitted to the
authorized public chartering agency--
(a) A copy of the existing contract with the for-profit management
organization or a description of the terms of the contract, including
the name and contact information of the management organization; the
cost (i.e., fixed costs and estimates of any ongoing costs), including
the amount of CSP funds proposed to be used toward such cost, and the
percentage such cost represents of the school's overall funding; the
duration; roles and responsibilities of the management organization;
and steps the applicant will take to ensure that it pays fair market
value for any services or other items purchased or leased from the
management organization, makes all programmatic decisions, maintains
control over all CSP funds, and directly administers or supervises the
administration of the grant in accordance with 34 CFR 75.701;
(b) A description of any business or financial relationship between
the charter school developer and the management organization, including
payments, contract terms, and any property owned, operated, or
controlled by the management organization or related individuals or
entities that will be used by the charter school;
(c) The name and contact information for each member of the
governing board of the charter school and a list of the management
organization's officers, chief administrator, other administrators, and
any staff involved in approving or executing the management contract;
and a description of any actual or perceived conflicts of interest,
including financial interests, and how the applicant resolved or will
resolve any actual or perceived conflicts of interest to ensure
compliance with 2 CFR 200.318(c);
(d) A description of how the applicant will ensure that members of
the governing board of the charter school are not selected, removed,
controlled, or employed by the management organization and that the
charter school's legal, accounting, and auditing services will be
procured independently from the management organization;
(e) An explanation of how the applicant will ensure that the
management contract is severable, severing the management contract will
not cause the proposed charter school to close, the duration of the
management contract will not extend beyond the expiration date of the
school's charter, and renewal of the management contract will not occur
without approval and affirmative action by the governing board of the
charter school; and
(f) A description of the steps the applicant will take to ensure
that it maintains control over all student records and has a process in
place to provide those records to another public school or school
district in a timely manner upon the transfer of a student from the
charter school to another public school, including due to closure of
the charter school, in accordance with section 4308 of the ESEA.
Requirement 3:
Each applicant must provide a detailed description of how it will
review applications from eligible applicants, including--
(a) How eligibility will be determined;
(b) How peer reviewers will be recruited and selected, including
efforts the applicant will make to recruit peer reviewers from diverse
backgrounds and underrepresented groups;
(c) How subgrant applications will be reviewed and evaluated;
(d) How cost analyses and budget reviews will be conducted to
ensure that costs are necessary, reasonable, and allocable to the
subgrant;
(e) How applicants will be assessed for risk (i.e., fiscal,
programmatic, and compliance); and
(f) How funding decisions will be made.
Requirement 4:
Each applicant must provide a detailed description, including a
timeline, of how the State entity will monitor subgrant activities and
report on subgrant performance in accordance with 2 CFR 200.329, and
address and mitigate subgrantee risk, including--
(a) How subgrantees will be selected for in-depth monitoring,
including factors that indicate higher risk (e.g., charter schools that
have management contracts with for-profit management organizations,
virtual charter schools, and charter schools with a history of poor
performance);
(b) How identified subgrantee risk will be addressed;
(c) How subgrantee expenditures will be monitored;
(d) How monitors will be trained;
(e) How monitoring findings will be shared with subgrantees;
[[Page 40424]]
(f) How corrective action plans will be used to resolve monitoring
findings;
(g) How the State entity will ensure transparency so that
monitoring findings and corrective action plans are available to
families and the public; and
(h) How the State entity will work with authorized public
chartering agencies to share information regarding the monitoring of
subgrantees, including in areas related to fiscal protocols and
organizational governance, for the purpose of reducing the reporting
burden on charter schools.
Requirement 5:
Each applicant must provide evidence to support the requested funds
and projected enrollment, such as explanations for the methodology and
calculations.
Requirement 6:
Each applicant must describe how, in awarding subgrants to eligible
applicants, the State entity will--
(a)(1) Give priority to eligible applicants that propose projects
that include the creation, replication, or expansion of a high-quality
charter school that is developed and implemented--
(i) With meaningful and ongoing engagement with current or former
teachers and other educators; and
(ii) Using a community-centered approach that includes an
assessment of community assets, informs the development of the charter
school, and includes the implementation of protocols and practices
designed to ensure that the charter school will use and interact with
community assets on an ongoing basis to create and maintain strong
community ties.
(2) In its application, an applicant must provide a high-quality
plan that demonstrates how its proposed project would meet the
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this priority, accompanied by a
timeline for key milestones that span the course of planning,
development, and implementation of the charter school.
(b)(1) Encourage, but not require, eligible applicants to propose
projects that include a new collaboration, or the continuation of an
existing collaboration, with at least one traditional public school or
traditional school district that is designed to benefit students or
families served by at least one member of the collaboration, is
designed to lead to increased and improved educational opportunities
for students served by at least one member of the collaboration, and
includes implementation of one or more of the following--
(i) Co-developed or shared curricular and instructional resources
or academic course offerings.
(ii) Professional development opportunities for teachers and other
educators, which may include professional learning communities,
opportunities for teachers to earn additional certifications, such as
in a high-need area or national board certification, and partnerships
with educator preparation programs to support teaching residencies.
(iii) Evidence-based (as defined in section 8101(21) of the ESEA)
practices to improve academic performance for underserved students.
(iv) Policies and practices to create safe, supportive, and
inclusive learning environments, such as systems of positive behavioral
intervention and support.
(v) Transparent enrollment and retention practices and processes
that include clear and consistent disclosure to families of policies or
requirements (e.g., discipline policies, purchasing and wearing
specific uniforms and other fees, or family participation), and any
services that are or are not provided that could impact a family's
ability to enroll or remain enrolled (e.g., transportation services or
participation in the National School Lunch Program).
(vi) A shared transportation plan and system that reduces
transportation costs for members of the collaboration and takes into
consideration various transportation options, including public
transportation and district-provided or shared transportation options,
cost-sharing or free or reduced-cost fare options, and any distance
considerations for prioritized bus services.
(vii) A shared special education collaborative designed to address
a significant barrier or challenge faced by participating charter
schools and traditional public schools in improving academic or
developmental outcomes and services for students with disabilities (as
defined in section 8101 of the ESEA);
(viii) A shared English learner collaborative designed to address a
significant barrier or challenge faced by participating charter schools
or traditional public schools in improving academic outcomes for
English learners (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA); or
(ix) Other collaborations, such as the sharing of innovative and
best practices, designed to address a significant barrier or challenge
faced by participating charter schools or traditional public schools
and designed to improve academic outcomes for all students served by
members of the collaboration.
(2) The State entity must certify that it will ask each eligible
applicant that proposes a project that includes such a collaboration
to--
(A) Provide in its subgrant application a description of the
collaboration that--
(i) Describes each member of the collaboration and whether the
collaboration would be a new or existing commitment;
(ii) States the purpose and duration of the collaboration;
(iii) Describes the anticipated roles and responsibilities of each
member of the collaboration;
(iv) Describes how the collaboration will benefit one or more
members of the collaboration, including how it will benefit students or
families affiliated with a member and lead to increased or improved
educational opportunities for students, and meet specific and
measurable, if applicable, goals;
(v) Describes the resources members of the collaboration will
contribute; and
(vi) Contains any other relevant information; and
(B) Within 120 days of receiving a subgrant award or within 120
days of the date the collaboration is scheduled to begin, whichever is
later, provide evidence of participation in the collaboration (which
may include, but is not required to include, an MOU).
Final Assurances
Assurances Applicable to State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and
Developer Grants:
(a) Each applicant for a State Entity Grant, CMO Grant, or
Developer Grant must provide an assurance that it (or, in the case of
an applicant for a State Entity Grant or CMO Grant, each charter school
that it funds) has not and will not enter into a contract with a for-
profit management organization, including a nonprofit management
organization operated by or on behalf of a for-profit entity, under
which the management organization, or its related entities, exercises
full or substantial administrative control over the charter school and,
thereby, the CSP project.
(b) Each applicant for a State Entity Grant, CMO Grant, or
Developer Grant must provide an assurance that any management contract
between the charter school (or, in the case of an applicant for a State
Entity Grant or CMO Grant, each charter school that it funds) and a
for-profit management organization, including a nonprofit CMO operated
by or on behalf of a for-profit entity, guarantees or will guarantee
that--
[[Page 40425]]
(1) The charter school maintains control over all CSP funds, makes
all programmatic decisions, and directly administers or supervises the
administration of the grant or subgrant;
(2) The management organization does not exercise full or
substantial administrative control over the charter school (and,
thereby, the CSP project), except that this does not limit the ability
of a charter school to enter into a contract with a management
organization for the provision of services that do not constitute full
or substantial control of the charter school project funded under the
CSP (e.g., food or payroll services) and that otherwise comply with
statutory and regulatory requirements;
(3) The charter school's governing board has access to financial
and other data pertaining to the charter school, the management
organization, and any related entities; and
(4) The charter school is in compliance with applicable Federal and
State laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest, and there
are no actual or perceived conflicts of interest between the charter
school and the management organization.
(c) Each applicant for a State Entity Grant, CMO Grant, or
Developer Grant must provide an assurance that it (or, in the case of
an applicant for a State Entity Grant or CMO Grant, each charter school
that it funds) will post on its website, on an annual basis, a copy of
any management contract between the charter school and a for-profit
management organization, including a nonprofit management organization
operated by or on behalf of a for-profit entity, and report information
on such contract to the Department (or, in the case of a charter school
that receives CSP funding through a State Entity Grant, to the State
Entity), including--
(1) A copy of the existing contract with the for-profit management
organization or description of the terms of the contract, including the
name and contact information of the management organization, the cost
(i.e., fixed costs and estimates of any ongoing costs), including the
amount of CSP funds proposed to be used toward such costs, and the
percentage such cost represents of the charter school's total funding,
the duration, roles and responsibilities of the management
organization, the steps the charter will take to ensure that it pays
fair market value for any services or other items purchased or leased
from the management organization, and the steps the charter school is
taking to ensure that it makes all programmatic decisions, maintains
control over all CSP funds, and directly administers or supervises the
administration of the grant or subgrant in accordance with 34 CFR
75.701 and 76.701;
(2) A description of any business or financial relationship between
the charter school developer or CMO and the management organization,
including payments, contract terms, and any property owned, operated,
or controlled by the management organization or related individuals or
entities to be used by the charter school;
(3) The names and contact information for each member of the
governing boards of the charter school, and a list of management
organization's officers, chief administrator, and other administrators,
and any staff involved in approving or executing the management
contract; and a description of any actual or perceived conflicts of
interest, including financial interests, and how the applicant resolved
or will resolve any actual or perceived conflicts of interest to ensure
compliance with 2 CFR 200.318(c); and
(4) A description of how the charter school ensured that such
contract is severable and that a change in management companies will
not cause the proposed charter school to close.
(d) Each applicant for a State Entity Grant, CMO Grant, or
Developer Grant must provide an assurance that it (or, in the case of
an applicant for a State Entity Grant or CMO Grant, each charter school
that it funds) will disclose, as part of the enrollment process, any
policies and requirements (e.g., purchasing and wearing specific
uniforms and other fees, or requirements for family participation), and
any services that are or are not provided, that could impact a family's
ability to enroll or remain enrolled in the school (e.g.,
transportation services or participation in the National School Lunch
Program).
(e) Each applicant for a State Entity Grant, CMO Grant, or
Developer Grant must provide an assurance that it (or, in the case of
an applicant for a State Entity Grant or CMO Grant, each charter school
that it funds) will hold or participate in a public hearing in the
local community in which the proposed charter school would be located
to obtain information and feedback regarding the potential benefit of
the charter school, which shall at least include how the proposed
charter school will increase the availability of high-quality public
school options for underserved students, promote racial and socio-
economic diversity in such community or have an educational mission to
serve primarily underserved students, and not increase racial or socio-
economic segregation or isolation in the school districts from which
students would be drawn to attend the charter school (consistent with
applicable laws). Applicants must ensure that the hearing (and notice
thereof) is accessible to individuals with disabilities and limited
English proficient individuals as required by law, actively solicit
participation in the hearing (i.e., provide widespread and timely
notice of the hearing), make good faith efforts to accommodate as many
people as possible (e.g., hold the hearing at a convenient time for
families or provide virtual participation options), and submit a
summary of the comments received as part of the application. The
hearing may be conducted as part of the charter authorizing process,
provided it meets the requirements above.
(f) Each applicant for a State Entity Grant, CMO Grant, or
Developer Grant must provide an assurance that it (or, in the case of
an applicant for a State Entity Grant or CMO Grant, any charter school
that it funds) will not use any implementation funds for a charter
school until after the charter school has received a charter from an
authorized public chartering agency and has a contract, lease,
mortgage, or other documentation indicating that it has a facility in
which to operate. Consistent with sections 4303(b)(1), 4303(h)(1)(B),
and 4310(6) of the ESEA, an eligible applicant may use CSP planning
funds for post-award planning and design of the educational program of
a proposed new or replicated high-quality charter school that has not
yet opened, which may include hiring and compensating teachers, school
leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel; providing
training and professional development to staff; and other critical
planning activities that need to occur prior to the charter school
opening when such costs cannot be met from other sources.
Assurance Applicable to State Entity Grants and CMO Grants:
Each applicant must provide an assurance that, within 120 days of
the date of the grant award notification (GAN), or the date of any
subgrant award notifications for State Entity Grants, the grantee will
post on its website:
(a) A list of the charter schools slated to receive CSP funds,
including the following for each school:
(1) The name, address, and grades served.
(2) A description of the educational model.
(3) If the charter school has contracted with a for-profit
management organization, the name of the management organization, the
amount
[[Page 40426]]
of CSP funding the management organization will receive from the
school, and a description of the services to be provided.
(4) The award amount, including any funding that has been approved
for the current year and any additional years of the CSP grant for
which the school will receive support.
(5) The grant or subgrant application (redacted as necessary).
(6) For State entity grantees, the peer review materials, including
reviewer comments and scores (redacted as necessary) from the subgrant
competition.
(b) As applicable for CMO grants, such a list must be updated at
least annually and provide the anticipated number of charter schools
that will receive CSP planning funds before securing a facility.
Final Definitions
Definitions Applicable to State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and
Developer Grants:
Community assets means resources that can be identified and
mobilized to improve conditions in the charter school and local
community. These assets may include--
(1) Human assets, including capacities, skills, knowledge base, and
abilities of individuals within a community; and
(2) Social assets, including networks, organizations, businesses,
and institutions that exist among and within groups and communities.
Disconnected youth means an individual, between the ages of 14 and
24, who may be from a low-income background, experiences homelessness,
is in foster care, is involved in the justice system, or is not working
or not enrolled in (or at risk of dropping out of) an educational
institution.
Educator means an individual who is an early learning educator,
teacher, principal or other school or district leader, specialized
instructional support personnel (e.g., school psychologist, counselor,
school social worker, early intervention service personnel),
paraprofessional, or faculty.
Underserved student means a student in one or more of the following
subgroups:
(1) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with
high concentrations of students living in poverty.
(2) A student of color.
(3) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian
Tribe.
(4) An English learner (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA).
(5) A child or student with a disability (as defined in section
8101 of the ESEA).
(6) A disconnected youth.
(7) A migrant student.
(8) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.
(9) A student who is in foster care.
(10) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.
(11) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly
incarcerated student.
(12) A student performing significantly below grade level.
Definitions Applicable to State Entity Grants:
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, children with
disabilities, migrant students, English learners, neglected or
delinquent students, homeless students, and students who are in foster
care.
Final Selection Criteria
Selection Criteria Applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants:
(a) Quality of the Needs Analysis. The Secretary considers the
quality of the needs analysis for the proposed project. In determining
the quality of the needs analysis, the Secretary considers one or more
of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the needs analysis demonstrates that the
proposed charter school will address the needs of all students served
by the charter school, including underserved students; will ensure
equitable access to high-quality learning opportunities; and
demonstrates sufficient demand for the charter school.
(2) The extent to which the needs analysis demonstrates that the
proposed charter school has considered and mitigated, whenever
possible, potential barriers to application, enrollment, and retention
of underserved students and their families.
(3) The extent to which the proposed charter school is supported by
families and the community, including the extent to which parents and
other members of the community were engaged in determining the need and
vision for the school and will continue to be engaged on an ongoing
basis, including in the academic, financial, organizational, and
operational performance of the charter school.
(b) Quality of the Charter School's Management Plan. The Secretary
considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the management plan, the Secretary
considers one or more of the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of the applicant's plan to maintain control over
all CSP grant funds.
(2) The adequacy of the applicant's plan to make all programmatic
decisions.
(3) The adequacy of the applicant's plan to administer or supervise
the administration of the grant, including maintaining management and
oversight responsibilities over the grant.
Selection Criterion Applicable to State Entity Grants:
(a) Quality of the Project Design. The Secretary considers the
quality of the project design for the proposed project. In determining
the quality of the project design for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the quality of the State Entity's process for
awarding subgrants, including--
(1) The extent to which the projected number of subgrant awards for
each grant project year is supported by evidence of demand and need;
and
(2) The extent to which the proposed average subgrant award amount
is supported by evidence of the need of applicants.
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,
definitions and selection criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866
and subject to review by 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;
[[Page 40427]]
(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.
OMB has determined that this final regulatory action is a
significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
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 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.
We estimate funding for new awards in FY 2022 will be approximately
$81,000,000 for State Entity Grants, $4,000,000 for Developer Grants,
and $94,000,000 for CMO Grants. The total cost to the Department for
this collection is estimated to be $179,000,000.
While this action would impose cost-bearing application
requirements on participating State Entity Grant, Developer Grant, and
CMO Grant applicants and on State Entity subgrant applicants, we expect
that applicants would include requests for funds to cover such costs in
their proposed project budgets. We believe this regulatory action will
strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds, and benefit
students, by helping to ensure that CSP grants and subgrants are
awarded to the entities that are most capable of expanding the number
of high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this regulatory action does not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business
Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small
businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not
dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue
below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities
if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their
field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small
organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a
population below 50,000.
The small entities that this regulatory action would affect are
charter school developers. We believe that the costs imposed on an
applicant by the priorities, requirements, definitions and selection
criteria would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an
application and that the benefits of these priorities, requirements,
definitions and selection criteria would outweigh any costs incurred by
the applicant. For these reasons these priorities, requirements,
definitions and selection criteria would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The CSP, including these final
priorities, requirements, definitions and selection criteria, contain
information collection requirements. These are new requirements for
applicants to conduct a needs analysis and to submit detailed
information on their management contracts with for-profit entities,
including non-profit charter management organizations operated by or on
behalf of for-profit entities. Consistent with prior information
collection requirements for the CSP, the new package also requires
applicants to describe the project for which funding is requested,
identify the objectives, activities, and timelines for the funding
period requested; describe the qualifications of key personnel; and
provide a detailed budget and description of resources.
The Department has developed the following burden estimates for the
information collection requirements associated with this NFP. For the
years that the Department holds State Entity Grant, CMO Grant, and
Developer Grant competitions and that State entities hold subgrant
competitions, we estimate that 365 applicants will apply and submit
applications. We estimate that it will take each applicant 60 hours to
complete and submit the application, including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. The total burden hour estimate for this
collection is 21,900 hours.
The Department requested and obtained a six month emergency
approval from OMB for a new information collection request, which
includes the requirements associated with this NFP. A separate notice
requesting public comment for this information collection is being
published in this issue of the Federal Register for emergency
processing. The Information Collection Request (ICR) notice also
provides a 30-day public comment period to solicit feedback on the
estimated paperwork burden and to obtain a standard three year approval
for the ICR. An assigned control number notifies the public that OMB
has
[[Page 40428]]
approved these information collection requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
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 notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible
format.
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 at www.govinfo.gov. 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.
Ruth E. Ryder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2022-14445 Filed 7-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P