Final Definitions, Requirements, and Selection Criteria; Charter Schools Program (CSP)-Charter School Exemplary Collaboration Awards, 44475-44481 [2012-18573]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44475-44481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18573]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[CFDA Number: 84.282P]


Final Definitions, Requirements, and Selection Criteria; Charter 
Schools Program (CSP)--Charter School Exemplary Collaboration Awards

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

ACTION: Final definitions, requirements, and selection criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
announces final definitions, requirements, and selection criteria under 
the Charter Schools Program--Charter School Exemplary Collaboration 
Awards (Collaboration Awards). The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use 
one or more of these definitions, requirements, and selection criteria 
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2012 and later years. We take this 
action to create incentives for high-quality charter schools to 
collaborate with non-chartered public schools and non-chartered local 
educational agencies (LEAs) to share and transfer best educational and 
operational practices at the elementary and secondary school levels; 
and disseminate information about these collaborations nationwide.

[[Page 44476]]


DATES: Effective Date: These final definitions, requirements, and 
selection criteria are effective August 29, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Paulu, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W246, Washington, DC 20202-
5970; or Erin Pfeltz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue 
SW., Room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Emails and telephone 
numbers: ed.gov">nancy.paulu@ed.gov or (202) 205-5392; ed.gov">erin.pfeltz@ed.gov or 
(202) 205-3525.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program

    The purpose of the Charter Schools Program (CSP) is to increase 
national understanding of the charter schools model by--
    (1) Providing financial assistance for the planning, program 
design, and initial implementation of charter schools;
    (2) Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the 
effects on students, student academic achievement, staff, and parents;
    (3) Expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available 
to students across the Nation; and
    (4) Encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools 
for facilities financing in an amount that is more commensurate with 
the amount the States have typically provided for traditional public 
schools.
    The purpose of the Collaboration Awards competition (CFDA 84.282P) 
is to encourage high-quality charter schools (as defined in this 
notice) to partner with non-chartered public schools (as defined in 
this notice) and non-chartered LEAs (as defined in this notice) to 
share and transfer best educational and operational practices, and to 
disseminate information about such practices. By promoting strong 
partnerships and supporting the dissemination of information about the 
activities carried out through the partnerships, these Collaboration 
Awards should facilitate the exchange of best practices between public 
charter schools, non-chartered public schools, and non-chartered LEAs; 
and help the United States Department of Education (Department) 
identify and publicize successful collaborations. The Collaboration 
Awards competition is designed to encourage public charter schools, 
non-chartered public schools, and non-chartered LEAs to share resources 
and responsibilities; build trust and teamwork; boost academic 
excellence; and provide students and their parents with a range of 
effective educational options. The Department, through the 
Collaboration Awards competition, aims to increase national 
understanding of the charter schools model.

Program Authority

    The CSP is authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221-7221i; CSP national 
activities are authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221d.
    The Department published a notice of proposed definitions, 
requirements, and selection criteria (NPP) for the Collaboration Awards 
in the Federal Register on April 25, 2012 (77 FR 24690). The NPP 
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the 
particular definitions, requirements, and selection criteria.
    There are differences between the definitions, requirements, and 
selection criteria proposed in the NPP and these final definitions, 
requirements, and selection criteria, as discussed in the Analysis of 
Comments and Changes section elsewhere in this notice. The most 
significant changes are as follows: (1) Clarifying that only high-
quality charter schools are eligible to apply for Collaboration Awards; 
(2) adding a definition for ``high-quality charter school''; (3) 
creating an additional selection criterion, ``Quality of the lead 
applicant,'' which allows consideration of the extent to which an 
applicant is a high-quality charter school; (4) changing the title of 
the first selection criterion from ``Record of and potential for 
success'' to ``Record of and potential for success of collaboration''; 
(5) altering the title of the Collaboration Awards competition from 
``Exemplary Charter School Collaboration Awards'' to ``Charter School 
Exemplary Collaboration Awards'' in order to emphasize that the 
collaboration itself must be exemplary; and (6) adding ``school 
climate'' and access to charter schools for students with disabilities 
to the list of potential areas suitable for a collaboration.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, eight 
parties submitted comments on the proposed definitions, requirements, 
and selection criteria.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In 
addition, we do not address general comments that raise concerns not 
directly related to the definitions, requirements, or selection 
criteria.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
any changes in the definitions, requirements, and selection criteria 
since publication of the NPP follows.

Priorities

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we create a new priority, not 
included in the NPP, to encourage collaboration between public charter 
schools and non-chartered public schools that aims to improve access to 
charter schools for students with disabilities. The commenter stated 
that disseminating information about successful collaborations related 
to improving access to charter schools for students with disabilities 
would also make a positive contribution to the field of special 
education.
    Discussion: We agree that improving access to charter schools for 
students with disabilities is important, and an area in which charter 
schools frequently look for best practices and models. Because this is 
the first year of the competition, however, we believe that it is best 
to encourage applications from a broad range of charter schools and to 
avoid requirements or priorities that might discourage potential 
applicants from applying. This does not preclude the possibility of a 
priority related to improving access to charter schools for students 
with disabilities being included in future years.
    Change: We decline to create a priority to encourage collaboration 
between public charter schools and non-chartered public schools that 
aims to improve access to charter schools for students with 
disabilities. The Final Application Requirements section of this 
notice, however, lists examples of areas that might be appropriate for 
collaboration. This list includes access to charter schools by students 
with disabilities as an area suitable for collaboration. We have 
removed ``students with other special needs'' from the list in the 
Final Application Requirements section of areas that might be 
appropriate for collaboration because it duplicates other areas listed: 
``Special education services and access to charter schools by students 
with disabilities'' and ``English learners.''

Definitions

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the proposed definition of 
``collaboration'' align more closely with the intent of the 
Collaboration Awards as described in the NPP's Summary and Purpose of 
Program sections. The commenter recommended an expanded and more 
detailed definition of ``collaboration'' that incorporates much of the 
language used in the Summary and Purpose of Program sections.

[[Page 44477]]

    Discussion: We decline to revise the definition of 
``collaboration'' because a more detailed definition could be 
unnecessarily restrictive and could limit how applicants think about 
collaboration. The final definition reads, ``Collaboration refers to 
the activities of a partnership in which two or more organizations or 
entities work together to accomplish a common goal, which may involve 
sharing or transferring of best practices or strategies.'' We consider 
this definition appropriate because it provides applicants the 
flexibility to be creative in continuing, modifying, or expanding their 
collaborations.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that we define ``exemplary'' in 
order to clarify the expectations and standards for applicants and to 
help them determine whether their schools are qualified to apply for an 
award.
    Discussion: The Collaboration Awards competition is designed to 
identify exemplary partnerships between high-quality public charter 
schools and non-chartered public schools and non-chartered LEAs, as 
well as to support the dissemination of information about the 
activities carried out through the partnerships. To clarify the 
requirements for both the applicant and the collaboration, we are 
making several revisions to the final requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria.
    Changes: (1) We have changed the competition's title from 
``Exemplary Charter School Collaboration Awards'' to ``Charter School 
Exemplary Collaboration Awards'' to emphasize that the collaboration 
itself must be exemplary. (2) We have revised paragraph (a)(1) of the 
Final Program Requirements section of this notice to clarify that 
eligible applicants must be high-quality charter schools. (3) We have 
included a definition of ``high-quality charter school'' in this 
notice. Our definition is similar to the definition of ``high-quality 
charter school'' provided in the notice of final priorities for the 
replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools (CFDA 
No.84.282M), published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 
40901). (4) We have changed the title of the first selection criterion 
from ``Record of and potential for success'' to ``Record of and 
potential for success of collaboration.'' (5) We have added a selection 
criterion, ``Quality of the lead applicant.'' This criterion will allow 
reviewers to provide points to applicants based on the extent to which 
the lead applicant is a high-quality charter school.

Eligibility Requirements

    Comment: Three commenters recommended that high-performing magnet 
schools be allowed to apply for Collaboration Awards. They cited what 
they believe is a wealth of outstanding and innovative programs in 
magnet schools that are worth sharing with others. All three commenters 
noted that some of the Nation's highest-quality schools today are 
magnet schools that began as low-performing schools with students from 
low-income families admitted by lottery.
    Discussion: We agree that there are numerous high-performing magnet 
schools that are worthy of participating in a collaborative initiative. 
Because the Collaboration Awards are authorized under the CSP, however, 
only charter schools are the lead applicants. In order to qualify for a 
Collaboration Award, a charter school must enter into a partnership 
with a non-chartered public school (as defined in this notice) or a 
non-chartered LEA (as defined in this notice). Magnet schools are non-
chartered public schools and, as such, would be eligible to participate 
in this competition as partners with high-quality charter schools.
    Change: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: The NPP stated in the Proposed Eligibility Requirements 
section that ``an applicant may submit more than one application if 
each application proposes to carry out substantially different 
authorized activities.'' We are removing this language from the Final 
Eligibility Requirements because applicants do not need specific 
authorization to submit more than one application for a Collaboration 
Award. Applicants should be aware, however, that it is highly unlikely 
that more than one application from the same applicant will be approved 
for funding because the Department anticipates making only a limited 
amount of funding available for Collaboration Awards and it is within 
the Secretary's discretion to fund applications out of rank order in 
order to achieve geographic diversity.
    Change: We have removed the statement in the Eligibility section 
that ``An applicant may submit more than one application if each 
application proposes to carry out substantially different authorized 
activities.''

Application Requirements

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we revise the Application 
Requirements section to include ``school climate'' on the list of areas 
that may be suitable for a collaboration. The commenter cited the 
recent movie ``Bully,'' which documented the effects of bullying, and 
stated that communities and schools want to learn from others about 
providing all students with a safe learning environment. The commenter 
also cited parts of the ESEA that support the importance of a safe and 
positive school climate for all students. Finally, the commenter cited 
research that links a positive school climate to many indicators of a 
school's success.
    Discussion: We agree that a healthy school climate is an important 
factor in achieving positive educational outcomes. Bullying is one of 
many issues (drugs and gangs are examples of others) that can have a 
negative effect on the school environment.
    Change: We have revised paragraph (a)(3) of the Final Application 
Requirements section of this notice to include school climate on the 
list of potential areas suitable for a collaboration.

Selection Criteria

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we incorporate the 
following three indicators of operational quality into the first 
proposed selection criterion, ``Record of and potential for success of 
the collaboration'': (1) Financial performance and sustainability; (2) 
performance and stewardship; and (3) parent and community engagement. 
The commenter noted that these three indicators were developed and 
published by a well-respected consortium of charter school 
organizations as a tool to help the charter school community determine 
operational quality.
    Discussion: We agree that indicators similar to those recommended 
by the commenter will help applicants demonstrate operational quality 
and improve the overall quality of applications received. Applicants 
can use these indicators to show more clearly the extent to which their 
proposed collaboration and dissemination plans will improve operational 
practices and productivity among all partners in the collaboration.
    Change: We have incorporated three indicators similar to those 
suggested by the commenter in the first selection criterion, ``Record 
of and potential for success of the collaboration.'' The element in the 
NPP stated: ``Improved operational practices and productivity among all 
partners.'' The revised element (B)(i) of the first selection criterion 
now reads: ``Improved operational practices and productivity among all 
partners in such areas as financial performance and

[[Page 44478]]

sustainability, governing board performance and stewardship, and parent 
and community engagement.''
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we expand the first proposed 
selection criterion, ``Record of and potential for success of the 
collaboration,'' to include four indicators of academic quality: (1) 
Student achievement level; (2) student progress over time; (3) 
postsecondary readiness and success; and (4) student engagement.
    Discussion: Three of the four indicators that the commenter lists 
were included in the first selection criterion proposed in the NPP and 
are also included in the Final Selection Criteria. The first selection 
criterion contains an element, ``Improved student achievement,'' which 
peer reviewers will use to judge how the collaboration has improved 
student achievement in the past, as well as how it will improve student 
achievement in the future. The first selection criterion also addresses 
postsecondary readiness and success with elements such as improved high 
school graduation rates, improved rates of college matriculation and 
college graduation, and improved rates of attendance and graduation 
from other postsecondary (i.e., non-college) institutions or programs. 
However, the first selection criterion, as proposed, did not address 
student engagement. We agree with the commenter that it should do so 
and have expanded it accordingly.
    Change: We have revised element (B)(iii) in the first selection 
criterion, ``Record of and potential for success of the 
collaboration,'' by adding two factors related to student engagement--
attendance and retention. The revised element now reads, ``Improved 
student attendance and retention, and improved high school graduation 
rates.''
    Comment: One commenter noted that the NPP states that the proposed 
selection criteria for this competition were designed to expand the 
number of high-quality charter schools, among other things. The 
commenter stated, however, that the competition's proposed selection 
criteria would not encourage applicants to address issues or undertake 
activities designed primarily to increase the number of high-quality 
charter schools. The commenter recommended adding a selection criterion 
aimed at encouraging applicants to develop a collaboration project that 
might increase the number of high-quality charter schools nationwide 
and improve services to students attending these schools. Specifically, 
the commenter recommended a new selection criterion that would reward 
collaborators for jointly: (1) Developing a process to ensure equitable 
funding for public charter schools and non-chartered public schools; 
(2) sharing data and information among schools; and (3) developing and 
implementing activities in schools, such as teacher professional 
development, building maintenance, and nutrition programs.
    Discussion: The commenter is correct in that one purpose of these 
Collaboration Awards is to increase national understanding of the 
charter school model by expanding the number of high-quality charter 
schools available to students nationwide. We also agree that the 
commenter's proposed selection criterion (and its three elements) would 
promote this purpose. We believe, however, that the definitions, 
requirements, and selection criteria set forth in this notice will be 
more effective not only in increasing the number of high-quality 
charter schools available to students across the Nation, but also, in 
promoting the other purposes of the Collaboration Awards.
    Change: Although we decline to add the new selection criterion 
proposed by the commenter, we have revised section (a)(1) of the 
Eligibility Requirements of this notice to allow public charter schools 
that do not qualify as high-quality charter schools (as defined in this 
notice) to be included as partners in the collaboration so long as (1) 
the lead applicant is a high-quality charter school; (2) the lead 
applicant is separate and distinct from other charter schools included 
as partners in the collaboration; and (3) at least one non-chartered 
public school (as defined in this notice) or non-chartered LEA (as 
defined in this notice) also is a part of the collaboration. We also 
have added a sentence to section (a)(2) of the Eligibility Requirements 
section of this notice to clarify that public charter schools that are 
not high-quality charter schools are ineligible to serve as the lead 
applicant or fiscal agent; and revised section (b)(4) of this notice 
(Funding Restrictions) to allow collaborations to expand by adding 
public charter schools that are not high-quality charter schools, as 
described in the grant application. We think these changes further 
support the goal of increasing the number of high-quality charter 
schools.

Final Program Requirements

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes the following program requirements for the Collaboration 
Awards. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in 
which this program is in effect.
    (a) Eligibility:
    (1) Eligible applicants must be high-quality charter schools (as 
defined in this notice) that apply in partnership with at least one 
non-chartered public school (as defined in this notice) or non-
chartered LEA (as defined in this notice) and have the support of the 
partner(s) to participate in the Collaboration Awards competition in 
accordance with requirements in the Final Application Requirements 
section of this notice. Other public charter schools that do not 
qualify as high-quality charter schools may be included in the 
collaboration so long as (1) the lead applicant is a high-quality 
charter school; (2) the lead applicant is separate and distinct from 
any other charter schools included as partners in the collaboration; 
and (3) at least one non-chartered public school (as defined in this 
notice) or non-chartered LEA (as defined in this notice) also is a part 
of the collaboration.
    (2) The partnership must comply with the requirements for group 
applications set forth in 34 CFR 75.127-75.129.

    Note:  Only an eligible entity (a high-quality charter school) 
may apply for a grant or be the fiscal agent for a grant. Thus, 
neither a non-chartered public school (as defined in this notice) 
nor a non-chartered LEA (as defined in this notice) is eligible to 
serve as the lead applicant or fiscal agent for a Collaboration 
Award. Nor is a public charter school that is not a high-quality 
charter school eligible to serve as the lead applicant or fiscal 
agent.

    (3) Eligible applicants may not have any significant compliance 
issues (as defined in this notice), including in the areas of student 
safety, financial management, and statutory or regulatory compliance.
    (b) Funding Restrictions: A Collaboration Award recipient must use 
the grant funds for one or more of the following: (1) Continuing the 
collaboration for which it received the award, as described in its 
grant application; (2) modifying the collaboration for which it 
received the award, as described in the grant application; (3) 
expanding the collaboration for which it received the award by adding 
additional areas of collaboration, as described in the grant 
application; (4) expanding the collaboration for which it received the 
award by adding additional partners (non-chartered public schools (as 
defined in this notice), non-chartered LEAs (as defined in this 
notice), or public charter schools that are not high-quality charter 
schools), as described in the grant application. Collaboration Award 
recipients also must use a portion of the grant funds to disseminate 
information about the

[[Page 44479]]

collaboration activities to other public schools, including public 
charter schools, non-chartered public schools (as defined in this 
notice), and non-chartered LEAs (as defined in this notice). All 
activities carried out under the Collaboration Awards must fall within 
the scope of authorized activities set forth in section 5205(a) of the 
ESEA.

Final Application Requirements

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes the following application requirements for the CSP 
Collaboration Awards competition. We may apply one or more of these 
requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
    An applicant for a Collaboration Award must--
    (a) Provide a detailed narrative describing (1) the applicant's 
past or existing collaboration (which may involve more than one 
partner); (2) the applicant's proposal to continue, modify, or expand 
(by adding new areas of collaboration or new partners) the 
collaboration; and (3) the applicant's plan to disseminate information 
about the collaboration (which may include information about best 
practices) to other public schools, including public charter schools, 
non-chartered public schools, and non-chartered LEAs.
    The proposed collaboration may focus on a wide range of areas 
within the scope of activities authorized under section 5205(a) of the 
ESEA. The list of potential areas includes, but is not limited to, 
curriculum and instruction, data management and sharing, organization 
and management, personnel, facilities, finances, Federal programs, 
standards, assessments, special education services and access to 
charter schools by students with disabilities, English learners, 
student transportation, professional development and training, and 
school climate.
    (b) Provide written assurances from authorized officials of the 
entities involved in the partnership that all participants--
     Agree to submit an application for an award under the 
competition and have read, understand, and agree with the application 
for the competition; and
     Authorize the executive summary or narrative of the 
application, with proprietary information redacted, to be published on 
the U.S. Department of Education's Web site (ed.gov), data.ed.gov, the 
National Charter School Resource Center Web site 
(charterschoolcenter.org), or any other Web site or publication deemed 
appropriate by the Secretary;
    (c) Submit a partnership agreement that meets the requirements of 
34 CFR 75.128(b);
    (d) Provide a clear description of the goals and desired outcomes 
of the proposed collaboration and current or proposed measures that 
would be used to gauge success in meeting those goals and desired 
outcomes;
    (e) Describe any past, existing, or anticipated obstacles to 
implementing the collaboration or to disseminating information about 
the collaboration, and the strategies that were or will be used to 
overcome those obstacles;
    (f) Specify how the award money will be used to implement the 
collaboration and to disseminate information about the collaboration in 
accordance with section 5205(a) of the ESEA; and
    (g) Specify how the award money will be allocated between the lead 
applicant and the partner(s) named in the application, including the 
specific activities that will be carried out by the lead applicant and 
its partner(s).

Definitions

    In addition to the definitions in section 5210 of the ESEA, which 
include the definition of ``charter school,'' we are establishing the 
following definitions for the Collaboration Awards competition. We may 
apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which we make 
awards under a Collaboration Awards competition.
    Collaboration means the activities of a partnership in which two or 
more organizations or entities work together to accomplish a common 
goal, which may involve sharing or transferring best practices or 
strategies.
    High-quality charter school means a charter school (as defined in 
section 5210(1) of the ESEA) that has no significant compliance issue 
(as defined in this notice) and shows evidence of strong academic 
results for the past three years (or over the life of the school if the 
school has been open for fewer than three years), based on the 
following factors:
    (1) Increased student achievement (as defined in this notice) and 
attainment for all students, including, as applicable, educationally 
disadvantaged students served by the charter school.
    (2) Either--
    (i) Demonstrated success in closing historic achievement gaps for 
the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of 
the ESEA at the charter school; or
    (ii) No significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups 
of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at 
the charter school and significant gains in student achievement (as 
defined in this notice) with all populations of students served by the 
charter school.
    (3) Results (including, where applicable and available, performance 
on statewide tests, attendance and retention rates, high school 
graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence 
rates) for low-income and other educationally disadvantaged students 
served by the charter school that are above the average achievement 
results for such students in the State.
    Non-chartered local educational agency (LEA) means an LEA that does 
not qualify as a charter school as defined in section 5210(1) of the 
ESEA or under State law.
    Non-chartered public school means a public school that does not 
qualify as a charter school under section 5210(1) of the ESEA or under 
State law.
    Significant compliance issue means a violation that did, will, or 
could lead to the revocation of a school's charter.
    Student achievement means--
    (a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the 
State's assessments under the ESEA; and (2) as appropriate, other 
measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) 
of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across 
schools.
    (b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of 
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests 
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language 
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that 
are rigorous and comparable across schools.

Final Selection Criteria

    The Secretary establishes the following selection criteria for 
Collaboration Awards competitions and may apply one or more of these 
criteria alone or in combination with one or more selection criteria 
(1) based on the CSP authorizing statute or (2) in 34 CFR 75.210, in 
any year in which this program is in effect. In the notice inviting 
applications or the application package, or both, we will announce the 
maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.
    The Secretary may make awards to the top-rated applications 
proposing to carry out activities in specific areas of focus (e.g., 
curriculum and instruction, data management and sharing, organization 
and management) within the scope of authorized activities under section 
5205(a) of the ESEA. In a particular year, the Secretary may

[[Page 44480]]

restrict applications to one or more areas of focus. Additionally, in 
making awards, the Secretary may fund applications out of rank order in 
order to ensure that the Collaboration Awards are distributed 
throughout each area of the Nation or a State.
    (1) Record of and potential for success of collaboration. (A) The 
extent to which the applicant's past or existing collaboration has 
improved educational outcomes and operational practices; and (B) The 
extent to which the applicant's proposed collaboration and 
dissemination plan will achieve one or more of the following 
demonstrable results:
    (i) Improved operational practices and productivity among all 
partners in such areas as financial performance and sustainability, 
governing board performance and stewardship, and parent and community 
engagement.
    (ii) Improved student achievement (as defined in this notice).
    (iii) Improved student attendance and retention, and improved high 
school graduation rates.
    (iv) Improved rates of college matriculation and college 
graduation.
    (v) Improved rates of attendance and graduation from other 
postsecondary (i.e., non-college) institutions or programs.
    (2) Quality of the lead applicant. (A) The degree, including the 
consistency over the past three years, to which the applicant has 
demonstrated success in significantly increasing student achievement 
(as defined in this notice) and attainment for all students, including, 
as applicable, educationally disadvantaged students served by the 
charter school.
    (B) Either--
    (i) The degree, including the consistency over the past three 
years, to which the applicant has demonstrated success in closing 
historic achievement gaps for the subgroups of students described in 
section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the charter school; or
    (ii) The degree, including the consistency over the past three 
years, to which there have not been significant achievement gaps 
between any of the subgroups of students described in section 
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the charter school and to which 
significant gains in student achievement (as defined in this notice) 
have been made with all populations of students served by the charter 
school.
    (C) The degree, including the consistency over the past three 
years, to which the applicant has achieved results (including, where 
applicable and available, performance on statewide tests, student 
attendance and retention rates, high school graduation rates, college 
attendance rates, and college persistence rates) for students from low-
income families and other educationally disadvantaged students served 
by the charter school that are above the average academic achievement 
results for such students attending other public schools in the State.
    (3) Quality of the project design. The extent to which the 
applicant proposes a high-quality plan to use its Collaboration Award 
funds to improve educational outcomes and operational practices in 
public schools, including public charter schools.
    (4) Potential for scalability. The extent to which the applicant's 
proposed collaboration can be replicated or adapted beyond the 
participating partners by other public schools or LEAs, including 
public charter schools and charter school LEAs, and sustained over the 
long-term.
    (5) Innovation. The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that 
its proposed collaboration, as well as its dissemination plan, are 
either (a) substantially different from other efforts in its area of 
focus; or (b) substantially more effective than similar efforts in its 
area of focus.

Final Definitions, Requirements, and Selection Criteria

    Note: This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, 
subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.


    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these definitions, 
requirements, and selection criteria we invite applications through 
a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We have also reviewed this 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 definitions, requirements, and selection 
criteria only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify 
their costs. In choosing

[[Page 44481]]

among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that maximize net benefits. The Department believes that this 
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 
13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 does not require you to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The collection of 
information is approved under OMB control number 1855-0026.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to either of the program contact 
persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: July 25, 2012.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2012-18573 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P