[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41675-41688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15090]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0152]


Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Full-Service Community Schools

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Full-
Service Community Schools (FSCS) program, Assistance Listing Number 
84.215J. The Department may use these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year 
(FY) 2022 and in later years.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are effective August 12, 2022

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Hodgdon. U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E346, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6620. 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: The Department intends these priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to support 
competitions under the FSCS program for the purpose of awarding grants 
to projects in different stages of development, from capacity building 
to scaling full-service community schools approaches where the 
community and education leadership are ready to scale. These stages 
represent points of entry at the local, district, regional, and State 
levels to strategically scale the community school approach based on 
the readiness of the consortium applying for the grant.
    Purpose of Program: The FSCS program, established under sections 
4621-4625 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended 
(ESEA), provides support for the planning, implementation, and 
operation of full-service community schools that improve the 
coordination, integration, accessibility, and effectiveness of services 
for children and families, particularly for children attending schools 
with concentrated poverty, including rural schools.
    Program Authority: Sections 4621-4625 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 1771-
7273, 7275.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for this program in the Federal 
Register on January 12, 2022 (87 FR 1709) (the NPP). That document 
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 43 
parties submitted comments pertinent to the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. We discuss 
substantive issues under each priority, requirement, definition, or 
selection criteria to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address 
technical and other minor changes or suggested changes the law does not 
authorize us to make. In addition, we do not address comments that are 
outside the scope of the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.
    Proposed Priority 1--Capacity Building and Development Grants.
    Comments: Among the 15 comments related to Proposed Priority 1, all 
expressed overall support for the importance of and need for the 
priority.
    Six commenters recommended revisions to Proposed Priority 1, 
including striking the word ``sustain'' to better reflect that this 
priority is focused on building grantee capacity and the initial 
development of full-service community schools. Six commenters suggested 
that the Department clarify that the needs assessment could be done 
during, rather than before, the grant period. Two commenters 
recommended that we designate Priority 1 as an absolute priority, and 
three suggested that we set the grant period at 3 years. One commenter 
recommended that the Department reduce the funding available for 
Priority 1 grantees, which in FY 2019 was established at $500,000 per 
year for 5 years, at total of up to $2.5 million for the full grant 
period. One commenter requested that we clarify that a grantee can 
scale beyond the two schools required in Priority 1. One commenter 
suggested that Priority 1 should emphasize civic learning and 
development of civic knowledge and skills. Another commenter suggested 
that the Department require asset mapping as part of the needs 
assessment, as well as a clear plan for how the grantee will engage and 
collaborate with families. Another commenter suggested the Department 
encourage projects that approach

[[Page 41676]]

capacity building and development of programs holistically, including 
through collaboration and integration with early childhood education 
providers such as Head Start.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the proposed 
priority and concurs that the purpose of Priority 1 is to encourage 
grantees to begin the work to develop full-service community schools. 
As such, the Department clarifies that the needs assessment can be 
completed during the grant period and will eliminate the word 
``sustain'' from the description.
    The Department acknowledges the importance of a comprehensive, 
collaborative, equitable, accessible, culturally competent, and 
inclusive approach to completing a holistic and individualized needs 
assessment that considers community assets and engages a wide and 
representative range of participants, including families and early 
childhood educators such as Head Start providers. We are revising the 
language of the priority to include extensive community engagement as 
part of the development and coordination activities in Priority 1. The 
Department declines to require applicants to conduct asset mapping 
because the term is not used in section 4625(a)(4) of the ESEA and we 
want to maintain maximum flexibility for applicants. Additionally, 
nothing in the priority prevents an applicant from conducting asset 
mapping. Pillar 3 of the FSCS requirements includes active family and 
community engagement, and we are revising the definition of a broadly 
representative consortium to include student, family, and community 
voices. The Department thinks that the activities outlined in Pillar 3, 
which specifies that the school provides centralized supports for 
families and communities, which may include citizenship preparation, 
allows for a wide variety of activities. We appreciate the specific 
ideas about the organizations, individuals, and activities an applicant 
or grantee might engage in their plans to develop a full-service 
community school; maintaining the broad language in the priority, 
however, will allow for additional ideas.
    The Department appreciates the interest in distinguishing Priority 
1 as an absolute priority that is focused on development and capacity 
building, including the recommendation to rename the priority to 
reflect that focus, reduce the grant period to 3 years, and reduce the 
level of funding for awards. Regarding the duration of FSCS grants, 
section 4623(b) of the ESEA establishes that ``a grant awarded under 
this subpart shall be for a period of not more than 5 years, and may be 
extended for an additional 2 years.'' Applicants may propose shorter 
project periods, but the Department thinks it is important to allow 
applicants, including applicants that are building capacity and 
developing a full-service community school, with sufficient time to 
plan, develop and implement their project. A longer period of 
performance will also reduce the administrative burden on applicants by 
reducing the frequency of applications. As such, we decline the 
suggestion to shorten the length of the grant. The designation as an 
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority is 
established through the notice inviting applications (NIA).
    Section 4625(e) of the ESEA requires that FSCS grantees use their 
awards to coordinate three or more existing pipeline services and 
provide a minimum of two additional services at two or more public 
elementary or secondary schools. Given the statutory requirement that 
grantees coordinate existing services and provide additional services 
during their grant period, all FSCS grantees are required to implement 
a minimal number of full-service community schools' activities. The 
Department intends to reflect this requirement in the NIA and by 
maintaining the current title of the priority, Capacity Building and 
Development Grants. The priority allows for applications that propose 
to serve more than two schools, but we think the language that a 
grantee implement a full-service community school in ``two or more 
schools'' is sufficiently clear.
    Changes: We have revised Priority 1 by eliminating the word 
``sustain'' and clarifying that the needs assessment can be completed 
during the grant period. We have added that initial development and 
coordination activities include extensive community engagement. We 
discuss below our changes to definitions, including the change to the 
definition of the Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools to ensure 
that student, family, and community voice are included.
    Priority 2--Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants.
    Comments: Many commenters strongly supported a priority that 
expands implementation of full-service community schools beyond two 
school sites and into local educational agencies (LEAs). Seven 
commenters recommended that the Department retitle the priority to use 
the term ``Implementation Grants'' and include the expectation that 
grants awarded under this priority would be sustained beyond Federal 
funding. Further, one commenter requested that the Department clarify 
that funding under Priority 2 expand and sustain community schools 
within an LEA. An additional commenter proposed that the Department 
clarify that a grantee can expand to additional schools beyond the two 
required by section 4625(a)(3) of the ESEA.
    Four commenters recommended that Priority 2 require no more than 
one LEA, while three other commenters offered support for the inclusion 
of two or more LEAs, noting that the requirement that two or more LEAs 
work together benefits small and rural LEAs. Eight commenters requested 
that the Department revise the requirement that the LEAs be located in 
the same State, noting that in many places, including rural, remote and 
Tribal places, community identity is not limited by the legal 
boundaries of a State.
    One commenter requested that the Department clarify that the 
eligible applicants under this priority include those outlined in 
section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA--which is a consortium of one or more 
LEAs or the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and one or more community-
based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public 
entities--and that funds be reserved or designated for primary 
applicants that are not LEAs. One commenter suggested that the 
Department provide a comprehensive list of expanded learning 
professionals for all LEAs and allow for local flexibility for each 
school to choose those that best meet the needs of their community. One 
commenter did not support Priority 2 because unitary systems, such as 
Hawaii and Puerto Rico, would be ineligible under this priority.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for Priority 2 
and the design to scale development of full-service community schools 
into further implementation across two or more LEAs. Because Priority 1 
also requires that grantees develop and begin implementation of the 
full-service community school model, including an allowance for use of 
funds for planning in year one, we decline the suggestion to retitle 
Priority 2; however, although no revisions to the priority are 
required, we agree that grantees should plan how they will sustain 
their work in additional schools and LEAs. In response to the concern 
that applicants and grantees can expand support to additional schools 
beyond the statutorily required two schools, the Department is adding 
language requiring eligible entities to ``coordinate and provide 
services at two or more full-

[[Page 41677]]

service community schools.'' The Department agrees that it is important 
to clarify that, under Priority 2, two or more community schools would 
be implemented in each LEA.
    We appreciate the considerations of several commenters that 
implementing a community school approach across a single system, such 
as a single LEA, is sufficiently complex. However, we think that the 
distinction of working in no fewer than two LEAs is an important 
indicator of scaling the model. We also appreciate the considerations 
of small and rural LEAs who expressed that working in partnership with 
one or more additional LEAs supports their implementation of the model. 
The Department acknowledges that community identity often transcends 
official State boundaries and that, in some places, including rural and 
Tribal areas, it may be appropriate for the two or more LEAs to be 
located in different States, and thus, we are eliminating that 
requirement from Priority 2.
    Regarding the request that the Department consider reserving funds 
under Priority 2 for nonprofit-led consortia, we think individual 
communities and applicants are best positioned to determine the makeup 
of their consortium. As such, we decline to require Priority 2 
applications to be led by nonprofits or that a portion of funding be 
reserved for nonprofit-led consortia; however, we are adding language 
to clarify that eligible applicants are consortia that include LEAs or 
the BIE and nonprofit organizations. The Department appreciates the 
suggestion that each LEA be provided with a list of expanded learning 
professionals, but we know that individual communities are best 
positioned to assess the resources and potential partners that can 
address the needs and supplement the assets identified in the 
development of their full-service community schools. As such, we will 
not provide a list of expanded learning professionals to LEAs. While 
unitary systems where the State Educational Agency (SEA) is also the 
LEA would not be eligible to apply under Priority 2, those entities 
would be able to apply under Priorities 1 and 3. Further, the NPP 
included a citation within Proposed Priority 3, which stated that the 
District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico may apply for Statewide 
grants, as does the text of Final Priority 3 included in this NFP. This 
clarification is also included in the NIA.
    Changes: The Department has revised Priority 2 to require that an 
applicant implement and sustain the model in two or more schools and in 
two or more LEAs. The language of the priority clarifies that eligible 
applicants are consortia that include, and may be led by, community-
based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or public or private 
entities. The Department has eliminated the language in the priority 
that the two or more LEAs are located in the same State. Upon our 
internal review, we also added an exception for LEAs that oversee a 
single school--to the requirement to coordinate and provide services at 
two or more full-service community schools in each LEA--in recognition 
that some small, rural or charter school LEAs may only serve a single 
school.
    Priority 3--State Scaling Grants.
    Comments: The Department received numerous comments that support 
Priority 3's focus on scaling the full-service community school at the 
statewide level. Three commenters requested that the Department clarify 
that eligible applicants under Priority 3 are those outlined in section 
4622(1)(B) of the ESEA. Four commenters proposed that the Department 
require that the SEA apply as part of the required consortium, or that 
the consortium include documentation from the SEA, in the form of a 
letter of support, outlining the SEA's commitment to and partnership 
with the consortium.
    Two commenters proposed that the Department require, as a condition 
of eligibility, that States identify or establish a State steering 
committee that represents community schools stakeholders, including 
educators and other school staff, community school initiative leaders, 
education union or association designees, family leaders participating 
in community school programs, community partners, and community school 
coordinators from schools already implementing community schools in 
that State and that, in addition to serving as an advisory committee, 
also has the authority to make decisions about the design, 
implementation, and evaluation of State efforts for the grant. One 
commenter suggested that the Department require each grantee under 
Priority 3 to provide clear and consistent guidance for identifying 
LEAs, including the establishment of a minimum set of criteria so that 
the LEAs most in need are considered.
    Five commenters requested that the Department remove the 
requirement that six or more LEAs participate in a grant under Priority 
3; two commenters suggested that the Department require a percentage of 
the State's LEAs to participate, making the requirement more consistent 
across States with large and small numbers of LEAs. Several commenters 
recommended that funding available be commensurate with the number of 
LEAs included in a grant.
    Two commenters requested that the Department clarify that an 
applicant's receipt of a grant in partnership with an SEA does not 
preclude other applicants in the State from receiving an award under a 
separate priority. Two commenters shared that they do not support 
Priority 3, including one commenter who declined to support the 
priority because, in their reading, unitary systems such as Hawaii and 
Puerto Rico would be ineligible.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for scaling 
full-service community schools to the State level, as well as the 
suggestions commenters provided. In response to the request that the 
Department reaffirm the eligible applicants under the FSCS program, we 
recognize that the eligible applicants are established in section 
4622(1)(B) of the ESEA; therefore, the Department cannot make changes 
that would allow or require the SEA to be a lead applicant. The 
Department further agrees that the State scaling envisioned in Priority 
3 makes SEA involvement and commitment critical to successful 
implementation and scaling; SEA commitment must be demonstrated through 
the FSCS-required memorandum of understanding (MOU). The Department 
appreciates the insights of commenters regarding the need for and 
benefit of a statewide steering committee that can support 
implementation and scaling, including selection of participating LEAs. 
However, the Department thinks that applicants and grantees, working 
with their partners, including Tribal partners, the broadly 
representative consortium (as defined in this notice) and the statewide 
steering committee are best positioned to determine the process for 
selecting LEAs under Priority 3. Regarding the concern that selected 
LEAs have demonstrated need, section 4625(b) of the ESEA prioritizes 
schools eligible for a schoolwide program under section 114(b) of ESEA.
    The Department acknowledges the concerns that Priority 3 not set a 
minimum of participating LEAs and recognizes that there is wide 
variation in the number of LEAs and the number of schools within LEAs, 
across States. We agree that requiring a percentage of LEAs in the 
State would be a more equitable approach to scaling the model. However, 
the Department is interested in funding applications that propose to 
work with their partners to develop, implement, evaluate, and sustain 
full-service community schools at a level, and in a percentage of LEAs 
and

[[Page 41678]]

schools, across the State that will effectively scale the model 
statewide and are addressing this through revisions to the selection 
criteria. The Department will take into consideration the request that 
funding be made commensurate with the number of LEAs, and number of 
schools within those LEAs, that will be served, but funding levels are 
established in the NIA.
    The Department also recognizes the concern that a grant awarded 
under Priority 3 might inhibit submission of additional applications in 
that State under other priorities, and we will clarify through pre-
application technical assistance that multiple awards can be made in a 
State provided that funded activities do not overlap. The Department 
also understands the concern of unitary systems where the SEA is also 
the LEA; however, the NPP included a citation under Proposed Priority 3 
with the clarification that ``DC, HI, and PR may apply for Statewide 
grants.'' The final priority includes the same clarification.
    Changes: The Department has revised Priority 3 to require that the 
SEA document its commitment to the consortia and implementation of the 
grant, if awarded, through the required MOU. Additionally, the 
Department is requiring, under Priority 3, that the applicant commit to 
establishing a State steering committee. Finally, the Department has 
revised the requirement from six or more LEAs to a requirement that the 
applicant, in partnership with the SEA, determine the percentage of 
LEAs in the State that will develop, support, and expand full-service 
community schools over the 5-year grant performance period. We have 
included a selection criterion that will be used to assess the 
applicant's proposal to scale the FSCS model at the statewide level, 
including recommendations for considering the percentage of LEAs 
proposed when awarding points. Upon our internal review, we also added 
language recognizing that some small, rural, tribal, or charter school 
LEAs may only serve a single school.
    Proposed Priority 4--Participation in a National Evaluation.
    Comments: Of the 19 comments received related to Priority 4, most 
expressed concern about use of a randomized controlled trial evaluation 
design for the program. Two commenters supported the model.
    Six commenters objected to the national evaluation's randomized 
controlled study design. Five commenters encouraged the Department to 
use a different study design (such as various quasi-experimental 
designs) rather than a randomized controlled trial. One commenter 
expressed doubt that the national evaluation could control what was 
happening in the group of schools that would not receive funding.
    Six commenters objected to the Department not funding every 
interested and eligible school under the randomized controlled trial 
study design.
    There were six comments related to the data collected by the 
national evaluation. Four commenters recommended that the national 
evaluation require collection of specific quantitative and qualitative 
data aligned with the Full-Service Community Schools theory of action 
and its intended outcomes. One commenter asked how the Department will 
ensure that the outcomes measured go beyond test scores and include 
outcomes such as student physical and mental health and a range of key 
non-cognitive competencies, such as social and emotional learning and 
increased sense of safety and well-being. One commenter encouraged the 
Department to consider the baseline attributes and inputs of the 
community and include the experiences and perspectives of students, 
families, teachers, community partners, and stakeholders.
    Six commenters encouraged the Department to establish a technical 
advisory group to advise on the best approach to the national 
evaluation. One commenter suggested specific candidates to participate 
in such a group. There were four comments related to implementation of 
full-service community schools looking different across schools because 
the strategy is specific to the needs and assets of individual 
communities and schools.
    Two commenters indicated concern about how the lack of consistent 
services and activities could be captured in a randomized controlled 
trial. One commenter believed that it would be difficult to ascertain 
common practices across grantees that are most helpful for 
practitioners and policymakers to understand and advance. One commenter 
asked how the national evaluation will account for schools placing 
varying levels of emphasis on specific outcomes based on the 
characteristics of the student populations and communities they serve.
    Two commenters encouraged the Department to make participation in 
the national evaluation mandatory through the use of an absolute 
priority, stating that it would ensure that the sample size is 
sufficiently large and representative of grantees. One commenter 
pointed out that if only some of the grantees participate in the 
evaluation process, findings are limited and may not be representative 
or inclusive, and the opportunity to learn about the impacts of the 
program in different communities may be missed.
    Two commenters objected to the proposed requirement that applicants 
nominate four schools to receive program funding. In particular, this 
requirement could exclude smaller districts, which would limit the 
generalizability of the findings. It could also exclude larger 
districts that do not have at least four schools that are not fully 
implementing the four pillars of the community schools model.
    One commenter asked for clarification on how the data collected 
under the national evaluation would be used. One commenter asked what 
the national evaluation will assess and how the results will be shared. 
One commenter encouraged the Department to adopt an equity-based 
approach to the national evaluation, in partnership with community 
members.
    Seven commenters recommended that the Department require each 
grantee to conduct a third-party local evaluation. Those commenters 
encouraged the Department to require both quantitative and qualitative 
data that may include, but not be limited to, student chronic 
absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including suspensions and 
expulsions; school climate information, which may come from student, 
parent, or teacher surveys; provision of integrated student supports 
and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and 
opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact; 
information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school 
staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers, 
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and rates of teacher turnover; 
graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative 
leadership and practice strategies, which may include building the 
capacity of educators, principals, other school leaders, and other 
staff to lead collaborative school improvement structures, such as 
professional learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all 
initiative-level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county 
officials, children and youth cabinets, nonprofit service providers, 
public housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program 
quality and progress through individual student data, participant 
feedback, and aggregate

[[Page 41679]]

outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and organizing school 
personnel and community partners into working teams focused on specific 
issues identified in the needs and assets assessment.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments, concerns, and 
support shared by the field regarding a national evaluation of the FSCS 
program and we are committed to working with grantees and other 
stakeholders to design and implement the national evaluation required 
under section 4625(f) of the ESEA. To allow more time to conduct 
outreach with the field, the Department is not going to begin the 
national evaluation with the FY 2022 grant competition.
    The Department recognizes the potential benefit of requiring each 
grantee to partner with a local independent evaluator to study each 
grant award separately and support ongoing program improvements during 
the grant period. Such a local evaluation would not be in place of a 
national evaluation. As noted above, the authorizing legislation for 
the FSCS program requires a separate national evaluation that examines 
the effects of the grant program as a whole.
    The Department has not included the Participation in the National 
Evaluation priority in these final priorities but will continue to 
consider the national evaluation priority and the related comments. We 
will also conduct additional outreach to the field to gather and 
discuss recommendations for developing a robust national evaluation of 
the program and its grantees and to address some of the concerns 
raised. If we decide to finalize the national evaluation priority, the 
Department will summarize and respond to the comments in a separate NFP 
for that priority.
    Additionally, the Department will build upon the ESEA requirement 
that grantees conduct annual evaluations, use those evaluations to 
refine and improve activities carried out, and make results of such 
evaluations publicly available, by adding a requirement that grantees 
contract for a third-party independent evaluation to meet the FSCS 
local evaluation requirements.
    Changes: The Department has not included the Participation in the 
National Evaluation priority in these final priorities but will 
continue to consider the national evaluation priority and the related 
comments. Additionally, the Department will build upon the ESEA 
requirement that grantees conduct annual evaluations, use those 
evaluations to refine and improve activities carried out, and make 
results of such evaluations publicly available, by including a 
requirement that grantees contract for a third-party, external 
independent evaluation to meet the FSCS local evaluation requirements.
    Proposed Priority 5--Evidence-Based Integrated Student Supports.
    Comments: Four commenters expressed that they do not support 
Proposed Priority 5 and requested that it be eliminated. Commenters 
expressed concern that the priority is duplicative of the requirement 
that applicants address integrated student supports under the pillars 
of community schools. Many of those same commenters also noted that the 
proposed selection criteria evaluate applications on the ``extent to 
which the design of the proposed project reflects relevant and 
evidence-based findings from existing literature and includes a high-
quality plan for project implementation integrating the pillars of 
full-service community schools.'' Two commenters supported the 
inclusion of the priority because they agree with the importance of 
strong evidence to ensure effective programs; one of those commenters 
noted the importance of clarifying that the term ``evidence-based'' has 
the meaning provided in the ESEA. Two commenters recommended that the 
Department clarify what is meant by integrated student supports. Three 
commenters expressed support for this priority, including one commenter 
who recommended it be used as a competitive preference priority.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and suggestions 
provided, which make evident that the intention behind the priority, to 
encourage applicants and grantees to incorporate evidence-based models 
of integrated supports that identify and address the comprehensive 
needs of individual students into their community school initiatives, 
was not clearly communicated. We recognize that the use of the term 
``integrated student supports'' in Proposed Priority 5, as well as the 
proposed requirement and definition of the four pillars of community 
schools, may be confusing for applicants. In response to comments 
supporting the use of evidence-based activities and requests for 
confirmation that the definition is consistent with ESEA, the 
Department acknowledges that Section 4625(b)(2) of the ESEA prioritizes 
evidence-based activities in the FSCS program and cites the definition 
included in the ESEA.
    In order to encourage applicants and grantees to incorporate 
evidence-based models of integrated supports that identify and address 
the comprehensive needs of individual students into their community 
school initiatives, the Department will consider inclusion of 
applicable priorities from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities 
published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) 
(Supplemental Priorities).
    Changes: In recognition of the potential for confusion in using the 
term ``integrated student supports'' in Proposed Priority 5 and 
Requirement 1, and that the information may appear to be duplicative, 
the Department has not included Proposed Priority 5--Evidence-Based 
Integrated Student Supports in these final priorities.
    Additional Priorities
    Comments: A number of commenters suggested additional priorities 
for the FY 2022 FSCS program. Of those commenters, four requested that 
the Department include a competitive preference priority for applicants 
serving rural communities or schools. One of these commenters requested 
a priority for Tribal partners or applicants from rural or remote 
areas.
    A number of commenters expressed concern that grant resources and 
activities may not be focused on schools, students, and communities of 
greatest need. Of the 12 comments related to directing services and 
grants to those of greatest need, 10 recommended that the Department 
add selection criteria related to need and one proposed that the 
Department add a priority for providing services to low-income 
families.
    Six commenters encouraged the Department to more explicitly connect 
community school supports to classroom instruction and learning. Two 
commenters referenced the science of learning and development and 
recommended the FSCS program emphasize a whole child or whole learner 
approach. One commenter suggested that the FSCS program include a focus 
on schoolwide culture, including use of trauma-informed practices and 
adoption of disciplinary procedures and practices that are holistic and 
nondiscriminatory.
    One commenter recommended that the Department develop a competitive 
priority for applicants who have made structural changes to support 
community schools, applicants who have plans to develop and utilize 
shared data systems, and previous or current Promise Neighborhoods 
grantees.
    Two commenters suggested that, because the success of a full-
service community school relies on strong cross-agency collaboration, 
the Department consider using as a competitive preference priority the 
Secretary's Supplemental Priority 6--

[[Page 41680]]

Strengthening Cross-Agency Coordination and Community Engagement to 
Advance Systemic Change.
    Discussion: The purpose of the FSCS program is to provide support 
for the planning, implementation, and operation of full-service 
community schools, particularly for children attending schools, 
including rural and tribal schools, with high rates of poverty. 
Additionally, the authorizing legislation requires that not less than 
15 percent of grant funds be awarded to eligible entities that propose 
to carry out activities in rural areas.
    The legislation that authorizes FSCS requires the Department to 
prioritize both high-poverty and rural schools. Section 4625(b) of the 
ESEA requires the Department to give priority to eligible entities that 
(A) will serve a minimum of two or more full-service community schools 
eligible for a schoolwide program under section 1114(b), as part of a 
community- or district-wide strategy; or (B) include an LEA that 
satisfies the requirements of section 5211(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C); or 
section 5221(b)(1)(A) and (B). The Department will ensure that all 
statutory requirements for the program are met.
    The Department recognizes that delivery of integrated, accessible, 
and effective supports in full-service community schools are intended 
to improve student outcomes, including academic achievement. We agree 
that full-service community schools should support the whole child and 
their classroom experience, including support and professional 
development for educators to ensure the classroom is an environment 
that allows students to thrive. FSCS schools should also support school 
leadership, and adoption of practices and frameworks that meet the 
needs of all learners. The Department has taken these suggestions into 
consideration as it develops the NIA, which may include related 
priorities from the Supplemental Priorities. We think the Supplemental 
Priorities include a number of topics proposed by the commenters, and 
therefore do not think it necessary to rule-make on program-specific 
priorities when the Supplemental Priorities are available.
    The Department agrees with the comment that organizations that have 
successfully implemented Promise Neighborhoods grants have revised 
their school and community structures to improve interagency and cross-
sector implementation of shared goals and activities. These 
organizations use a shared data system to track and measure individual 
and program progress and are well positioned to successfully implement 
a FSCS grant. We decline, however, to include these as additional 
priorities because FSCS is designed to support schools and communities 
across a continuum of capacity to develop and implement full-service 
community schools.
    The Department concurs that cross-agency coordination at the local 
level is critical to successful full-service community schools. 
Further, the Biden-Harris Administration is committed to providing 
support for comprehensive evidence-based community violence initiatives 
that bring a cross-agency approach to community violence prevention and 
intervention. The Department will take these suggestions into 
consideration as it develops the NIA, which may include related 
priorities from the Supplemental Priorities.
    Changes: None.
    Requirements
    Requirement 1--Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools
    Comments: Among the comments received related to the proposed 
requirement that projects must describe the pillars of full-service 
community schools that they have in place or how they will establish 
these pillars, six expressed overall support for the pillars. Four 
commenters recommended that the Department provide applicants with 
examples of the pillars. Another commenter noted that any examples of 
the pillars should be evidence-based. One commenter suggested the 
Department provide applicants with workshops on the pillars. One 
commenter noted that the Department should add that the pillars of 
community schools must be underpinned by a strong instructional program 
that incorporates the science of learning and development.
    One commenter recommended that the Department clarify that an 
applicant that is implementing an evidence-based integrated student 
supports model is meeting the requirement as long as it is working in a 
school that is addressing all four pillars of a community school.
    One commenter recommended that the Department require that schools 
and districts make an adequate effort to reach students who will most 
benefit from the supports and require applicants to describe the 
strategies they will use to ensure the most vulnerable students and 
families are being reached. A similar comment recommended that the 
Department explicitly require that applicants collaborate with 
families.
    One commenter recommended that, instead of requiring applicants to 
describe their work using the framework of the four pillars, they 
should be required to describe their approach to strategic growth and 
address how community schools' strategies involve teaching and 
curriculum in order to reach the ultimate goal of impacting student 
learning.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates that applicants benefit from 
technical assistance and support throughout the application period and 
during program implementation. The Department has provided applicants 
information about the FY 2022 competition in the NIA, published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, and will provide 
support through pre-application webinars and frequently asked 
questions.
    While the Department is not revising the pillars to include a 
requirement that schools and districts describe how they will focus on 
the most vulnerable students and families, the NIA for the FY 2022 
competition uses a Supplemental Priority in Competitive Preference 
Priority 2, to encourage applicants to consider using multi-tiered 
systems of support that can identify and serve students and families of 
greatest need.
    The Department acknowledges that, while there are a variety of ways 
to address and frame community schools' practices, we are interested in 
maintaining a common structure that the pillars provide. The background 
section of the NPP cites evidence that implementation of the four 
pillars is associated with a range of positive outcomes for students. 
Additionally, the background section of the NIA for the FY 2022 
competition recognizes that the four pillars are supported by evidence 
from the science of learning and development and can be used to address 
the needs of the whole child, including those that the school and 
community partners determine to be most vulnerable. Use of this common 
structure allows applicants to develop programs with more fidelity to 
what has been shown to be effective and prepares the FSCS program and 
its grantees for a future national evaluation. Applicants are invited 
to share additional information that can supplement their response to 
the requirement and discussion of the four pillars, including the 
applicant's work with families, which is required in the third pillar 
(Active family and community engagement), use of evidence-based 
integrated student supports, how those supports address adverse 
childhood experiences (ACEs), and the applicant's approach to strategic 
growth. The Department declines to make any changes to the requirement 
that

[[Page 41681]]

applicants describe the pillars of full-service community schools.
    Changes: None.
    Other Requirements
    Comments: Several commenters suggested FSCS program requirements in 
addition to the proposed requirements.
    As discussed in connection with Proposed Priority 4, numerous 
commenters recommended that the Department establish a requirement that 
grantees work with an external evaluator and adopt a set of recommended 
measures of success, including student chronic absenteeism rates; 
student discipline rates, including suspensions and expulsions; school 
climate information; provision of integrated student supports and 
stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and 
opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact; 
information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school 
staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers, 
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and rates of teacher turnover; 
graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative 
leadership and practice strategies, including building the capacity of 
educators, principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead 
collaborative school improvement structures, such as professional 
learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-
level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials, 
children's cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public housing 
agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality and 
progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and 
aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and 
organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams 
focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets 
assessment.
    The Department received five comments requesting that we clarify 
the roles and responsibilities of consortium partners. Several comments 
were directed toward proposed selection criteria (d) and evaluation of 
roles and responsibilities of the broadly representative consortium.
    One commenter requested that the Department not consider 
applications from for-profit charter schools or charter schools within 
a 25-mile radius of a traditional public school, and that any school 
receiving funds be subject to the same operational and transparency 
rules as schools within the district in which it is located.
    Discussion: The Department concurs with recommendations to require 
an independent evaluation of the evaluation activities outlined in 
section 4625(g) of the ESEA. The Department is also adding a set of 
indicators recommended through comments that the independent evaluation 
must use to assess program success. These indicators are aligned with 
the annual measurable performance objectives included in section 
4625(a)(4)(C) of the ESEA.
    The Department agrees that it is important to clarify the roles and 
responsibilities of the eligible entity, defined in section 4622(1)(B) 
as a consortium of one or more LEAs or the BIE and one or more 
community-based organization, nonprofit organization, or other public 
or private entities, as well as the broadly representative consortium, 
which includes, but is not limited to, the eligible entity submitting 
the application. Under section 4625(a)(2), an application must include 
an MOU among all partner entities in the eligible entity that will 
assist the eligible entity to coordinate and provide pipeline services 
and that describes the roles the partner entities will assume. 
Recognizing that the FY 2022 FSCS competition includes priorities for 
building capacity and developing, implementing, and scaling full-
service community schools, and recognizing that section 4625(c) allows 
grantees to use up to 10 percent of their total award for planning 
purposes in the first year, the Department thinks it is most 
appropriate for the application to include a preliminary MOU that 
establishes the roles and responsibilities of the eligible entity, 
additional partners, and the broadly representative consortium. At the 
end of the first year of the grant, FSCS grantees will be required to 
submit a final MOU.
    The Department does not have the authority to revise or refine the 
eligible applicants specified in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, which 
means we cannot limit applications from certain charter schools, 
provided the charter school is an eligible applicant or in partnership 
with an eligible applicant. All applicants and grantees, including any 
charter schools, will be required to meet the Federal regulations cited 
in the NIA.
    Changes: The Department has added Requirement 2, which requires 
applicants to include an independent evaluation to address the 
evaluation requirements in section 4625(g)) of the ESEA. Within 
Requirement 2, the Department also established a set of indicators that 
the independent evaluation must use to assess program success and that 
are aligned with the required performance measures in section 
4625(a)(4)(C).
    The Department has added Requirement 3, which requires applicants 
to submit a preliminary MOU as part of their application. Within 
Requirement 3, the Department established the content that the 
preliminary MOU must include, which is aligned with the requirements in 
section 4625(a)(2). At the end of the first year of the grant, grantees 
are required to submit a final MOU, which must also align with the 
requirements in section 4625(a)(2).
    Definition--Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools
    Comments: The Department received sixteen comments in support of 
the definition of the Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools.
    Within the definition, one commenter recommended the Department 
provide more clarity regarding research-based elements of effective 
practices for implementing integrated student supports in pillar (A), 
Integrated student supports.
    Three commenters suggested that we revise pillar (C), Active family 
and community engagement, to include additional activities for ensuring 
community and family engagement. One commenter recommended that, in the 
definition, we address citizenship preparation to reflect the civic 
mission of schools and leverage their unique role in engaging families 
and communities.
    Ten commenters recommended that the Department revise pillar (D), 
Collaborative leadership, to expressly include student, family, and 
community voice. Another commenter recommended that we specify that 
``expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities'' must be 
culturally rooted and sustaining.
    One commenter suggested that we specify in the pillars that 
providers, teachers, and community school personnel should be 
representative of the students and communities they serve and that 
representation should be a focus throughout the program because this 
enhances staff and leadership understanding of local community context.
    One commenter suggested that we include in the definition 
references to whole learner and trauma-informed approaches.
    Discussion: We think the activities outlined in the first pillar, 
(A) Integrated student supports, are sufficiently broad to allow for 
applicants and grantees to address the issues of greatest relevance to 
their community and that there is no need to establish a separate 
definition of

[[Page 41682]]

``integrated student supports.'' The Department agrees that use of 
evidence-based practices is critical across all pillars, which is 
reflected in the language of the second pillar, (B) Expanded and 
enriched learning time and opportunities, through evidence-based 
strategies. This notice also includes selection criteria that will 
assess extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects 
relevant and evidence-based findings.
    We decline to include specific examples of citizenship preparation 
because we think that, as written, the priority would allow such a 
focus, and we think it is better to give applicants and schools 
flexibility to address community-specific needs. However, we agree that 
the definition of the third pillar, Active family and community 
engagement, should be expanded to include employment opportunities and 
other supportive services for adults.
    Activities implemented under the second pillar, Expanded and 
enriched learning time and opportunities, may be culturally rooted and 
sustaining. The Department thinks that, as written, the priority would 
allow such a culturally competent focus, and we think it is better to 
allow applicants and schools flexibility to address community-specific 
needs.
    Regarding recommendations related to the third pillar, (C) Active 
family and community engagement, the Department agrees that students 
and families benefit from working with leaders and service providers 
who have shared backgrounds and experiences. The Department also 
appreciates the need to have community members participate in the 
development of the program at all levels, including through 
participation in the broadly representative consortium to enhance 
cultural competency. While this is an important goal, it may not be 
practical for a grantee to ensure all staff and service providers are 
from or representative of the community. Rather, the FSCS program 
places emphasis on family and community inclusion in decision-making 
processes, including decisions related to selection of evidence-based, 
expanded, and enriched learning time and opportunities. The Department 
agrees that schools, and community schools in particular, can serve as 
resources for parents and communities to advance personal and communal 
goals, which may include civic engagement.
    The Department agrees with the suggestions for including student, 
family, and community voice in the fourth pillar, (D) Collaborative 
leadership.
    The Department recognizes the benefit of bringing a whole learner- 
and trauma-informed approach to working with students and families in a 
holistic way in order to prevent, intervene, and mitigate ACEs. We have 
incorporated those terms in the definitions of pillars of community 
schools; applicants may consider inclusion of those approaches in their 
development and implementation of full-service community schools, 
including through responding to any Secretary's Supplemental Priority 
included in the NIA.
    Changes: The Department has revised the language of the definition 
of Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools to include trauma-informed 
services to prevent, intervene and mitigate ACEs as part of integrated 
student supports. The Department has included adult employment 
opportunities and other supportive services in the third pillar, (C) 
Active family and community engagement; and student, family, and 
community voice is included in the fourth pillar (D) Collaborative 
leadership practices.
    Definition--Broadly Representative Consortium
    Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department revise 
selection criteria (d) to include family leadership in the broadly 
representative consortium.
    Discussion: The Department thinks including organizations that can 
represent family leadership is a critical addition to the broadly 
representative consortium; however, we think the change is more 
appropriate for the definition of the term rather than the selection 
criteria.
    Changes: The Department has revised the definition of ``broadly 
representative consortium'' to include organizations that represent 
families and family leadership.
    Other Definitions
    Comments: A few commenters suggested other terms for the Department 
to define. One commenter noted that there are many definitions of 
``community'' and recommended that the Department include a definition 
for a ``full-service community school.''
    Two commenters recommended that the Department define ``full-
service community school coordinator,'' a term used in the proposed 
selection criteria.
    One commenter requested that the Department include a definition 
for ``student success coaches,'' an evidence-based model for working 
with and providing comprehensive supports for students.
    Discussion: The Department acknowledges that there are many 
definitions of ``community.'' For the purposes of the FSCS program, 
section 4622(2) of the ESEA defines a ``full-service community school'' 
as a public elementary or secondary school that (A) participates in a 
community-based effort to coordinate and integrate educational, 
developmental, family, health, and other comprehensive services through 
community-based organizations and public and private partnerships; and 
(B) provides access to such services in school to students, families, 
and the community, such as access during the school year (including 
before- and after-school hours and weekends), as well as during the 
summer. The Department will include this definition of a full-service 
community school in the NIA.
    Although proposed selection criteria (d) indirectly described the 
role of the full-service community school coordinator, the Department 
agrees that it would be helpful to expressly define ``full-service 
community school coordinator,'' and we are adding a definition that 
describes this role in a manner consistent with selection criteria (d).
    While the Department appreciates the positive outcomes that have 
been documented with the use of student success coaches, we do not 
include definitions for specific activities or approaches that a 
grantee might choose to include in their application because we want 
grantees to have the flexibility to choose the best evidence-based 
approaches to meet student and community needs.
    Changes: The Department has defined ``full-service community school 
coordinator.''
    Selection Criteria--(c) Ensure Diversity of Perspectives
    Comments: Commenters offered broad support for this selection 
criterion. Two commenters requested that the Department include 
children and youth in the list of constituencies referenced. An 
additional commenter suggested the Department revise the selection 
criterion to include the perspectives of racially diverse families and 
traditionally marginalized families.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the support of those who 
offered comments. The Department considers children, students, and 
youth as beneficiaries of services, but we recognize that other 
intended beneficiaries are included in the list of constituencies and 
are adding students and youth. The Department further agrees that it is 
important for an applicant to include, or have a plan to include, the 
perspectives of racially diverse families, those that have been 
marginalized, and other underserved

[[Page 41683]]

individuals in the community; however, we think that the broad nature 
of the selection criterion allows applicants to include racially and 
otherwise diverse families in their design and operation of the 
proposed project. Additionally, the Department thinks that grantees may 
use the allowable planning time during year one of the grant to engage 
with families and other groups who have not been consistently 
represented in assessments of needs and assets as well as leadership.
    Changes: We have renumbered selection criterion (b) as selection 
criterion (c) and revised to include students and youth as constituents 
whose perspectives should be brought to bear in the design and 
operation of the projects.
    Selection Criteria--(d) Plans for Full-service Coordinator
    Comments: Commenters supported inclusion of a selection criterion 
to assess grantee plans for a full-service community schools 
coordinator. Because a full-service community school coordinator is not 
responsible for the delivery of the pipeline of services offered, four 
commenters recommended that we clarify the language of the criterion by 
removing ``deliver pipeline services'' and replacing it with 
``facilitate programs and partnerships.'' Several commenters also 
recommended including that the full-service community school 
coordinator ``lead a comprehensive needs and asset assessment that 
includes students, school staff, families, community members and 
partners.''
    Four commenters noted that the requirement for a full-time full-
service community school coordinator does not reflect the diverse 
communities that may apply or receive a grant, including some rural 
communities where a full-time coordinator is not needed.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and 
recommendations. We agree with the clarification offered and are 
revising selection criterion (d) to better reflect a full-service 
community school coordinator's responsibilities to facilitate programs 
and partnerships. While the full-service community school coordinator 
may, in some cases, lead the needs assessment, the Department 
recognizes that not all communities will expect the coordinator to lead 
that work. As such, we decline to include that edit.
    The Department appreciates that each community and its needs are 
unique; however, section 4625(a)(4)(E) of the ESEA requires that each 
full-service community school site has a full-time coordinator.
    Changes: The Department has renumbered proposed selection criteria 
(c) to final selection criteria (d) and revised selection criteria (d) 
to replace ``deliver pipeline services'' with ``facilitate programs and 
partnerships.''
    Selection Criteria--(e) Consortium Broadly Representative of 
Community
    Comments: While commenters support the inclusion of proposed 
selection criterion (e), two commenters noted that some applicants may 
not yet have a consortium in place and should not be penalized. Those 
commenters recommended that the Department revise the language to say, 
``the extent to which the grantee has, or demonstrates a strong plan to 
have, a consortium broadly representative of community stakeholders and 
needs.''
    One commenter proposed that the broadly representative consortium 
representative of community stakeholders and needs should also have a 
role in the oversight and management of the program, including the 
selection of schools. The commenter suggested the selection criteria be 
revised to say, ``the extent to which the grantee has a consortium 
broadly representative of community stakeholders and needs that informs 
the school selection process, operations and continued oversight of the 
project.''
    One commenter recommended that applications be assessed on the 
extent to which they have planned for open, consistent, and actionable 
communication among their consortia.
    Discussion: The Department will make FSCS awards to some applicants 
who will engage in capacity building and development of full-service 
community schools. As such, we concur that not all applicants will have 
an established broadly representative consortium and are editing the 
selection criterion.
    The Department concurs that applications and grant programs are 
strengthened through defined roles and responsibilities of leadership 
groups, such as the broadly representative consortium. Section 
4625(a)(2) of the ESEA requires an MOU among all partner entities in 
the eligible entity that will assist the eligible entity to coordinate 
and provide pipeline services and that describes the roles the partner 
entities will assume, which includes the broadly representative 
consortium and, for applications submitted under Priority 3, the 
statewide steering committee. The Department thinks that inclusion of a 
preliminary MOU with the application can further delineate 
communication and decision-making processes, such as school selection. 
The Department declines to include school selection as a role of the 
broadly representative consortium in the final selection criteria 
because we want to maintain maximum flexibility for applicants. 
Additionally, nothing in the NFP prevents an applicant from including 
school selection as a responsibility of the broadly based consortium.
    Changes: The Department has renumbered proposed selection criterion 
(d) to final selection criteria (e) and revised selection criterion (e) 
to allow for an applicant to demonstrate a plan to develop and put into 
place a broadly representative consortium and included language that 
the roles and responsibilities of the consortium are outlined in the 
required preliminary MOU. For applications submitted under Priority 3, 
the Department revised selection criterion (e) to allow for an 
applicant to demonstrate a plan to develop and put into place a broadly 
representative consortium and a statewide steering committee, and 
included language that the roles and responsibilities of the consortium 
and statewide steering committee are outlined in the preliminary MOU.
    Selection Criteria--(f) Demonstrates History of Effectiveness
    Comments: One commenter suggested the selection criteria be 
expanded to include a description of the applicant's history of working 
with a wide range of stakeholders--including students and families--in 
inclusive and equitable ways.
    One commenter recommended that we expand this selection criterion 
to consider the applicant's history of effectiveness in serving both 
current and past students in addition to the wider community.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important that an 
applicant's history of effectiveness (as defined in this notice) 
includes effectively working with a wide and diverse range of 
stakeholders, including students and families.
    Changes: The Department has renumbered proposed selection criterion 
(e) as final selection criterion (f) and revised selection criterion 
(f) to include working with diverse stakeholders, including students 
and families.
    Other Selection Criteria
    Comments: The Department received a significant number of comments 
related to ensuring that grants and services are focused on schools, 
communities, students, and families of greatest need. Ten commenters 
recommended that the Department include selection criteria related to 
need.

[[Page 41684]]

    Three commenters recommended that the FSCS program use selection 
criteria from the FY 2021 Promise Neighborhoods NIA. One commenter 
requested that the Department reinstate previous FSCS selection 
criteria for evaluation.
    One commenter requested that the Department include selection 
criteria that allows an applicant to propose using up to 6 months for 
planning and capacity building activities.
    Discussion: The FSCS program is intended to focus on children and 
youth attending schools with concentrated poverty, including rural and 
tribal schools. In addition to inclusion of a priority related to 
schoolwide poverty levels, the Department is adding selection criterion 
(a) to assess the extent to which the proposed project will provide 
support, resources, and services, close gaps in educational 
opportunity, or otherwise address the needs of the targeted population, 
including addressing the needs of underserved populations most impacted 
by the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed 
project.
    The Department appreciates the suggestions related to aligning the 
FSCS need criteria with that of the FY 2021 Promise Neighborhood 
program. However, the FSCS program is designed to allow grantees to use 
the first year of their grant to conduct a robust assessment of needs 
and assets, while the Promise Neighborhood program requires the 
applicant to include an analysis of needs and corresponding activities 
to address those needs. Therefore, the Department declines to use the 
FY 2021 Promise Neighborhood selection criteria.
    Related to selection criteria for the required evaluation, for the 
FY 2022 competition, the Department is using criteria from 34 CFR 
75.210 to assess the applicant's proposal to evaluate their FSCS 
project. For the FY 2022 competition, two of the three criteria are 
from previous FSCS competitions. The evaluation criteria are included 
in the NIA, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    The Department agrees that building a successful full-service 
community school requires significant planning and capacity building, 
including time to strengthen partnerships. Section 4625(c) of the ESEA 
allows a grantee to use up to 10 percent of the total grant award for 
planning purposes during the first year of the award. This applies to 
all applicants and grantees, and, as such, the Department will not make 
any changes to the time that grantees can allocate to planning.
    In accordance with 34 CFR 75.209, the Department included in the 
NIA selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210 that assesses the quality of 
an applicant's proposed local evaluation for the FY 2022 competition.
    As discussed in Priority 3, the Department agrees that requiring a 
percentage of LEAs in the State would be a more equitable approach to 
scaling the model. However, the Department is interested in funding 
applications that propose to work with their partners to develop, 
implement, evaluate, and sustain full-service community schools at a 
level, and in a percentage of LEAs and schools, across the State that 
will effectively scale the model statewide and are addressing this 
through revisions to the selection criteria.
    Changes: The Department added selection criterion (a) to assess the 
extent to which a proposed project will provide support, resources, and 
services; close gaps in educational opportunity; or otherwise address 
the needs of the targeted population, including addressing the needs of 
underserved populations most impacted by the issue, challenge, or 
opportunity to be addressed by the project. The Department also added 
selection criteria (g) to assess the extent to which the applicant 
demonstrates its commitment and strategy to scale full-service 
community schools at the statewide level. In determining the 
applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary 
considers the number and percentage of LEAs, and the number and 
percentage of schools within each LEA, the applicant, the SEA, and 
other partners propose to serve; the applicant's capacity (e.g., in 
terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management 
capacity) to further develop, implement, bring to scale and sustain 
additional full-service community schools in multiple LEAs; and the 
applicant's capacity to work with others, including the broadly 
representative consortium and the statewide steering committee, to 
ensure that the proposed process, products, strategies, or practices 
can be further developed and brought to scale, based on the regular 
findings of the proposed project and its independent evaluation.
    Final Priorities:
    This document contains four final priorities.
    Priority 1--Capacity Building and Development Grants.
    Projects that propose to (a) conduct initial development and 
coordination activities, including extensive community engagement, that 
leverage the findings of their needs assessment--which may be completed 
during or before the grant period--to develop the infrastructure, 
activities, and partnerships to implement full-service community 
schools in two or more schools, and (b) gather data on performance 
indicators.
    Priority 2--Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants.
    Projects that propose to implement and sustain full-service 
community schools in two or more LEAs. As outlined in section 
4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, an eligible entity for any FSCS grant is a 
consortium of one or more LEAs or the BIE and one or more community-
based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public or 
private entities. The project must, with the exception of LEAs that 
oversee a single school, coordinate and provide services at two or more 
full-service community schools in each LEA.
    Priority 3--FSCS State Scaling Grants \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unitary systems, such as the District of Columbia, Hawaii, 
and Puerto Rico, may apply for Absolute Priority 4 FSCS State 
Scaling Grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applications submitted under Priority 3 must include a written 
commitment of the SEA to participate in the partnership and to sustain 
the program beyond 2 years after the term of the grant, which can be 
submitted in the required preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU) 
that includes the roles and responsibilities of the SEA and other 
partners identified at the time of the application. The applicant, in 
partnership with the SEA, determines the number and percentage of State 
LEAs, and the number and percentage of schools across those LEAs, that 
will develop, support, and expand full-service community schools over 
the 5-year grant performance period.
    Applications under Priority 3 must also identify or establish a 
State steering committee (which may be a previously existing body) that 
represents relevant community schools' stakeholders, including 
educators and other school staff, community school initiative leaders, 
education union or association designees, family leaders participating 
in community school programs, community partners such as service 
providers, early childhood education providers such as Head Start, and 
community school coordinators from schools already implementing full-
service community schools in the State. In addition to serving as an 
advisory committee, the steering committee also has the authority to 
make decisions about the design, implementation, and evaluation for the 
grant, which may include identification or selection of LEAs that will 
partner in the

[[Page 41685]]

development and implementation of two or more community schools in each 
LEA, with the exception of LEAs that oversee a single school. The roles 
and responsibilities of the steering committee must be included in the 
required preliminary MOU.
    As outlined in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, an eligible entity 
for any FSCS grant is a consortium of one or more LEAs or the BIE and 
one or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or 
other public or private entities.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    This document does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
    Final Requirements:
    This document contains three final requirements.
    Requirement 1--Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools.
    An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and 
assurances required by section 4625(a) of the ESEA, provide the 
following:
    In addressing the application requirements set out in Section 
4625(a) of the ESEA, applicants must address the essential pillars of 
full-service community schools (as defined in this notice).
    Projects must describe the pillars of full-service community 
schools that they have in place or how they will establish these 
pillars, or how they will implement these pillars with partners, 
including community-based organizations and collaborating with school 
leadership and staff.
    Requirement 2--Independent Evaluation.
    An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and 
assurances required by section 4625(g) of the ESEA, commit to an 
independent evaluation that includes a design and implementation 
evaluation that will, at a minimum, (1) include annual evaluations of 
progress achieved with the grant; (2) be used to refine and improve 
activities carried out through the grant; (3) collect and report data 
that includes, but is not limited to, the following indicators: student 
chronic absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including 
suspensions and expulsions; school climate information, which may come 
from student, parent, or teacher surveys; provision of integrated 
student supports and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched 
learning time and opportunities; family and community engagement 
efforts and impact; information on the number, qualifications, and 
retention of school staff, including the number and percentage of fully 
certified teachers, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, rates of 
teacher turnover, and teacher experience; graduation rates; changes in 
school spending information; collaborative leadership and practice 
strategies, which may include building the capacity of educators, 
principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead collaborative 
school improvement structures, such as professional learning 
communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-level 
partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials, 
children's and youth's cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public 
housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality 
and progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and 
aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and 
organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams 
focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets 
assessment; and (4) make results of the evaluation publicly available.
    Requirement 3--Preliminary and Final Memoranda of Understanding.
    An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and 
assurances required in Section 4625(a)(2) of the ESEA, provide the 
following:
    In addressing the application requirements set out in Section 
4625(a)(2) of the ESEA, applicants must include a preliminary MOU among 
all partner entities of the eligible entity, identified at the time of 
the application, that will assist the eligible entity to plan, develop, 
coordinate, provide, and evaluate pipeline services and that describes 
the roles and responsibilities that the partners, including the broadly 
representative consortium, will assume. Applications submitted under 
Priority 3 FSCS State Scaling Grants must also include in the 
preliminary MOU a description of the State steering committee and the 
SEA's commitment to and partnership in the consortium, including the 
roles, responsibilities, and commitment of the SEA to the partnership 
and the scaling of full-service community schools to a percentage of 
State LEAs implementing schoolwide Title IA programs and where there is 
a commitment to sustain the program beyond two years after the term of 
the grant.
    Grantees must submit a final MOU at the end of their first year of 
the grant.
    Final Definitions:
    This document includes four final definitions. We may apply these 
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect. We also 
intend to use definitions from sections 4622 and 8101 of the ESEA.
    Broadly representative consortium means stakeholders representing 
broad groups of people working together for the best interest of 
children; such stakeholders may include, but are not limited to, 
families and family leadership, schools, nonprofits, government, 
philanthropy, and the business community.
    Full-service community school coordinator means an individual in a 
full-time position at each community school who serves to plan, 
integrate, coordinate, and facilitate the delivery of pipeline services 
at each school. The coordinator may also lead the school and community 
assessment of needs and assets and identify ways to sustain the 
services and partnerships beyond the duration of the grant.
    History of effectiveness means an eligible entity demonstrating the 
ability to successfully implement programs and policies. Such programs 
and policies must include, but shall not be limited to, successfully 
implementing with other organizations grants, policies, and programs 
for students from high need schools (as defined in ESEA section 2221).

[[Page 41686]]

    Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools means all of the 
following:
    (A) Integrated student supports at a community school that provide 
in- and out-of-school support for students, address well-being, and 
address out-of-school barriers to learning through partnerships with 
social and health service agencies, including mental and behavioral 
health agencies and providers, and coordinated by a community school 
coordinator, which may include--
    (i) Medical, dental, vision care, and mental and behavioral health 
services, including mental health literacy for students and staff, and 
trauma-informed services to prevent, intervene, and mitigate adverse 
childhood experiences (ACEs); and
    (ii) Individuals to assist with housing, transportation, nutrition, 
citizenship preparation, or criminal justice issues and other services.
    (B) Expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities, through 
evidence-based strategies, including before-school, after-school, 
during-school, weekend, and summer programs that provide additional 
academic instruction individualized academic support (such as evidence-
based tutoring, post-secondary transition support, student success 
coaches and mentoring programs), enrichment activities, or learning 
opportunities, for students at a community school that--
    (i) May emphasize real-world project-based learning where students 
can apply their learning to contexts that are relevant and engaging; 
and
    (ii) May include art, music, drama, creative writing, hands-on 
experience with engineering or science (including computer science), 
career and technical education, tutoring that is aligned with classroom 
success and homework help, and recreational programs that enhance and 
are consistent with the school's curriculum.
    (C) Active family and community engagement that--
    (i) Brings parents and families of students at the community school 
and community members and leaders into the school as partners in 
students' education, including meaningfully involving parents and 
families in the community school's decision-making processes;
    (ii) Makes the community school a hub for services, activities, and 
programs, for students, families, and members of the neighborhood that 
the community school serves;
    (iii) Provides adults with desired educational and employment 
opportunities and other supportive services; and
    (iv) Provides centralized supports for families and communities in 
community schools, which may include English as a second language 
classes, citizenship preparation, computer skills, art, housing 
assistance, child abuse and neglect prevention supports, health and 
mental health literacy programs, digital literacy training, or other 
programs that bring community members into a school building for 
meetings, events, or programming.
    (D) Collaborative leadership and practices that build a culture of 
professional learning, collective trust, and shared responsibility for 
each community school using strategies that--
    (i) At a minimum, include a school-based leadership team with 
representation of student, parent, and family leaders and a community 
voice; a community school coordinator; and a community-wide leadership 
team; and
    (ii) May include other leadership or governance teams, community 
school steering committees, or other community coalitions, educator 
learning communities, and other staff to manage the multiple, complex 
joint work of school and community organizations.
    Final Selection Criteria
    The Department may apply one or more of the following final 
selection criteria in any year in which the program is in effect. We 
will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion in 
the NIA. The Department may include additional selection criteria from 
34 CFR 75.210.
    (a) The extent to which the proposed project will provide support, 
resources, and services; close gaps in educational opportunity; or 
otherwise address the needs of the targeted population, including 
addressing the needs of underserved populations most impacted by the 
issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed 
project.
    (b) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects 
relevant and evidence-based findings from existing literature and 
includes a high-quality plan for project implementation integrating the 
four pillars of full-service community schools and the use of 
appropriate evaluation methods to ensure successful achievement of 
project objectives.
    (c) The extent to which the applicant will ensure that a diversity 
of perspectives is brought to bear in the design and operation of the 
proposed project, including those of students, youth, families, 
educators and staff, beneficiaries of services, school leadership, and 
community leadership.
    (d) The extent to which the grantee has plans for a full-time 
coordinator at each school, including a plan to sustain the position 
beyond the grant period, and a description of how this position will 
serve to plan, integrate, coordinate, and facilitate programs and 
services at each school.
    (e) The extent to which the grantee has, or demonstrates a strong 
plan to have, a broadly representative consortium that reflects the 
needs of the community and its stakeholders, and a description of the 
roles and responsibilities of the broadly representative consortium 
outlined in the required preliminary MOU.
    (f) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a history of 
effectiveness in working with a diverse range of stakeholders, 
including students and families.
    (g) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates its commitment 
and strategy to scale full-service community schools at the statewide 
level. In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the number and percentage of LEAs, and 
the number and percentage of schools within each LEA, the applicant, 
the SEA, and other partners propose to serve; the applicant's capacity 
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or 
management capacity) to further develop, implement, bring to scale and 
sustain additional full-service community schools in multiple LEAs; and 
the applicant's capacity to work with others, including the broadly 
representative consortium and the State steering committee, to ensure 
that the proposed process, products, strategies, or practices can be 
further developed and brought to scale, based on the regular findings 
of the proposed project and its independent evaluation.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order 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);

[[Page 41687]]

    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive Order.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as 
not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    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 the 
benefits justify the 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 these 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.
    Summary of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that these 
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
will not impose significant costs on the entities eligible to apply for 
FSCS. We also believe that the benefits of implementing the final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria justify 
any associated costs.
    The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements 
and those we have determined as necessary for administering the 
Department's programs and activities.
    Priority 1 gives the Department the opportunity to offer applicants 
time and resources to build the capacity required to develop two or 
more successful full-service community schools.
    Priority 2 gives the Department the opportunity to offer applicants 
funding to implement and sustain full-service community schools in two 
or more LEAs, with a minimum of two full-service community schools in 
each LEA.
    Priority 3 gives the Department the opportunity to offer applicants 
funding to scale the implementation of full-service community schools 
at the State level, in a percentage of LEAs in the State as determined 
by the applicant, the SEA, and other partners, with a minimum of two 
full-service-community schools in each LEA. Implementation of community 
schools at this scale offers the opportunity for States to enact 
legislation and develop funding streams to support the expansion and 
sustainability of full-service community schools in their State.
    Priority 4 gives the Department the opportunity to ensure that 
funds are targeted to reach the schools and communities of greatest 
need.
    Because these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria would neither expand nor restrict the universe of 
eligible entities for any Department grant program, and since 
application submission and participation in our discretionary grant 
programs is voluntary, there are no costs associated with these 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small 
Business Administration Size Standards define ``small entities'' as 
for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below 
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small 
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts), 
with a population of less than 50,000.
    The small entities that this regulatory action will affect are 
public or private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including 
institutions of higher education, that may apply. We believe that the 
costs imposed on an applicant by the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria will be limited to paperwork burden 
related to preparing an application and that the benefits of 
implementing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. 
Therefore, we do not believe that the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria will significantly impact small 
entities beyond the potential for receiving additional support should 
the small entity receive a competitive grant from the Department.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections 
of information, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public 
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can 
provide the requested

[[Page 41688]]

data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial 
resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, 
and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection 
requirements on respondents.
    The final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved 
by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: On request to the 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, 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 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. 2022-15090 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P