Proposed Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions-Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants for National Leadership Activities, 72600-72605 [2013-28939]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72600
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
Proposed Priorities, Requirements,
and Definitions—Charter Schools
Program (CSP) Grants for National
Leadership Activities
Office of Innovation and
Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities,
requirements, and definitions.
AGENCY:
CFDA NUMBER: 84.282N.
SUMMARY: The Assistant
Deputy
Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement proposes priorities,
requirements, and definitions for CSP
Grants for National Leadership
Activities and may use these priorities,
requirements, and definitions for a
competition in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and
later years. The Assistant Deputy
Secretary is taking this action to ensure
that projects funded with CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities address
key policy issues currently facing
charter schools and impact stakeholders
on a national scale.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before January 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about
this notice to Brian Martin, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., Room 4W224,
Washington, DC 20202–5970.
If you prefer to send your comments
by email, use the following address:
brian.martin@ed.gov. You must include
the term ‘‘National Leadership
Activities’’ in the subject line of your
electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Martin. Telephone: (202) 205–
9085 or by email: brian.martin@ed.gov.
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.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
document. To ensure that your
comments have maximum effect in
developing the final priorities,
requirements, and definitions, we urge
you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, or
definition that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 and their overall requirement
of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from these proposed
priorities, requirements, and definitions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Dec 02, 2013
Jkt 232001
Please let us know of any further ways
we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the Department’s
programs and activities.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice in room 4W224, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Washington,
DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time,
Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the CSP is to increase national
understanding of the charter school
model by—
(1) Providing financial assistance for
the planning, program design, and
initial implementation of charter
schools;
(2) Evaluating the effects of charter
schools, including the effects on
students, student achievement, student
growth, staff, and parents;
(3) Expanding the number of highquality charter schools available to
students across the Nation; and
(4) Encouraging the States to provide
support to charter schools for facilities
financing in an amount more nearly
commensurate to the amount the States
have typically provided for traditional
public schools.
The purpose of the CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities is to
support efforts by eligible entities to
improve the quality of charter schools
by providing technical assistance and
other types of support on issues of
national significance and scope.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221–7221i.
CSP Grants for National Leadership
Activities are authorized under 20 U.S.C.
7221d(a).
Proposed Priortities: This notice
contains five proposed priorities.
Background
The Department most recently
conducted competitions for CSP Grants
for National Leadership Activities in
FYs 2006 and 2010. In those
competitions, we invited applications
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for projects designed to improve
stakeholder capacity to support highquality charter schools but did not
require or give competitive preference to
particular types of projects. As a result,
applications submitted under the
competition varied considerably in
scope and content.
To ensure that projects funded with
CSP Grants for National Leadership
Activities in future years address key
policy issues facing charter schools on
a national scale, the Department
proposes the priorities in this notice.
These priorities take into consideration
the continuing growth of charter schools
across the nation and the increasing
need to support the capacity and
oversight of all charter schools. The
priorities also recognize the important
role that charter schools can play in
improving educational outcomes for
students with disabilities and English
Learners and in creating personalized,
technology-based learning environments
for high-need students (as defined in
this notice).
Proposed Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency Through Economies of Scale
Background
Traditional public school districts
benefit from economies of scale across
multiple aspects of school operations.
Compared to charter schools, traditional
public schools tend to have higher
student enrollment, which may result in
lower average costs per student for
various activities or a wider variety of
available support services. For example,
traditional public school districts can
make mass purchases of supplies,
equipment, and non-academic services,
including facilities maintenance, food,
data systems, insurance, and
transportation services. These districts
can consolidate academic services
across a large number of schools,
including services such as curriculum
development and alignment, student
assessments, and professional
development for teachers and school
leaders. They can consolidate services
for specific student populations, such as
students with disabilities or English
Learners. They can provide a range of
arts and athletic opportunities for their
students. They have the ability, through
different funding structures, sustained
economies of scale, and historical
relationships with colleges, universities,
and nonprofit organizations, to recruit
teachers and leaders more broadly, and
in a more structured way, than charter
schools.
Charter schools are explicitly
designed to have the autonomy to
employ innovative, promising
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
approaches to public education. This
autonomy, however, can limit charter
schools’ ability to take advantage of the
economies of scale available to
traditional public school districts,
impeding the charter school sector’s
ability to improve its performance and
scale up high-quality charter school
models.
As the charter school sector continues
to grow, there is an increasing
opportunity for charter schools to form
consortia to achieve the benefits of
economies of scale and, thus, improve
performance and increase the number of
high-quality charter schools nationwide.
The Department proposes this priority
to support such efforts.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects
of national significance and scope that
promote shared systems for acquiring
goods or services to achieve efficiencies
in the use of time, staff, money, services
for special populations, or other
resources for the purpose of creating
and sustaining high-quality charter
schools (as defined in this notice).
An applicant addressing this priority
is not required to apply as part of a
partnership or consortium, but must
include plans for developing a
consortium, or consortia of charter
schools that will share systems for
acquiring goods or services. The plans
must include detailed descriptions
(including supporting documentation)
of the following:
(1) The activities of the proposed
consortium or consortia and
demonstrate how and to what extent the
activities will achieve efficiencies in the
use of time, staff, money, services for
special populations, or other areas
related to operating high-quality charter
schools;
(2) Proposed members of the
consortium or consortia, how the
composition of this consortium or
consortia contributes to achieving
efficiencies, the specific activities each
member will carry out, and how specific
activities will include entities outside of
the network that the lead applicant
currently manages;
(3) How proposed project activities
will help create and sustain high-quality
charter schools;
(4) How information about the
proposed project’s activities will be
disseminated primarily to charter
schools as the primary stakeholder
group, and secondarily to other
stakeholders, such as charter school
support organizations and authorized
public chartering agencies, as
appropriate, at the charter school
national level (as defined in this notice);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Dec 02, 2013
Jkt 232001
(5) How the dissemination strategy
will include assembling a community of
practice (as defined in this notice) for
the stakeholder group(s) served; and
(6) The national significance and
scope of the proposed project.
Proposed Priority 2—Improving
Accountability
Background
While there are many high-performing
charter schools across the nation,
charter school performance varies
significantly and too many persistently
low-performing charter schools are not
held accountable for their results. (For
example, see the January 30, 2013 report
from the Center for Research on
Education Outcome’s entitled, ‘‘Charter
School Growth and Replication’’, which
analyzes student performance and
progress data from 25 States, and the
District of Columbia, that have enacted
charter school laws.) 1
Despite 43 distinct sets of State laws
governing charter schools, and almost
1,000 different entities authorizing
charter schools, there are some common
promising practices that provide the
degree of oversight necessary to ensure
that charter schools deliver on their
promises. Over the lifespan of a charter
school, authorizing practices will have a
direct impact on the quality of the
charter school sector. Authorizers are
responsible for conducting rigorous
application reviews to ensure new
schools are of a high quality. Once
schools are open, accountability
practices for charter schools need to be
strengthened within States. For
example, charter school renewal should
occur regularly enough to ensure
accountability and provide an
opportunity for amendment of the
charter or closure of poor-performing
schools. Authorizers should have clear
policies to hold schools accountable
more consistently for meeting their
academic, financial, and operational
performance goals, as well as for
complying with all applicable laws,
including civil rights laws requiring
equal access.
Through the development,
refinement, and dissemination of
authorizers’ promising practices in areas
such as charter school approval,
performance monitoring, charter
contract renewal, and charter school
closure, the Department expects
authorizers to hold charter schools more
accountable and to increase the number
of high-quality seats available to
students. These promising practices will
help ensure that new charter schools
1 https://credo.stanford.edu/.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72601
have demonstrated that they are
positioned to succeed, poor-performing
charter schools are closed, and highquality charter schools are replicated
and expanded to serve more students.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects
of national significance and scope that
are designed to improve authorized
public chartering agencies’ capacity to
conduct rigorous application reviews,
monitor and oversee charter schools
using data and measurable performance
goals, close underperforming schools,
replicate and expand high-performing
schools, maintain a portfolio of highquality charter schools, and evaluate
and communicate the performance of
that portfolio.
Applicants addressing this priority
must provide detailed descriptions
(including supporting documentation)
of the following:
(1) How the proposed project will
improve, within a variety of
communities in one or more States,
authorized public chartering agencies’
capacity to:
i. Approve only high-quality charter
schools that meet the standards of a
rigorous application process and review;
ii. Monitor and oversee charter
schools through the regular collection of
data, including student performance
and financial data, and measurable
performance goals;
iii. Identify schools eligible for
renewal and those that should be closed
through clear renewal and revocation
criteria;
iv. Maintain portfolios of high-quality
charter schools by evaluating authorizer
and portfolio performance and
disseminating information on the
performance of those portfolios;
(2) The applicant’s prior success in
improving, within a variety of
communities in one or more States,
authorized public chartering agencies’
capacity to:
i. Approve only high-quality charter
schools that meet the standards of a
rigorous application process and review;
ii. Monitor and oversee charter
schools through the regular collection of
data, including student performance
and financial data, and measurable
performance goals;
iii. Identify schools eligible for
renewal and those that should be closed
through clear renewal and revocation
criteria;
iv. Maintain portfolios of high-quality
charter schools by evaluating authorizer
and portfolio performance and
disseminating information on the
performance of those portfolios, and
help improve the ability of other
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
72602
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
authorized public chartering agencies to
produce similar results;
(3) How dissemination activities focus
on authorized public chartering
agencies as the primary stakeholder
group, and secondarily on other
stakeholders, such as charter school
support organizations or charter
schools, as appropriate, at the charter
school national level;
(4) How the dissemination strategy
will include assembling a community of
practice for the stakeholder group(s)
served; and
(5) The national significance and
scope of the proposed project.
Proposed Priority 3—Students With
Disabilities
Background
As public schools, it is essential that
charter schools provide equitable access
and appropriate educational services to
all students, regardless of disability, as
set forth in the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 and the Department’s Section 504
regulations. A GAO report released in
June, 2012 found that charter schools
enrolled a lower percentage of students
with disabilities than traditional public
schools. This discrepancy may have
many contributing factors that are likely
to vary from school to school.
Regardless, charter schools should have
the capacity to serve all students with
disabilities irrespective of severity or
type of disability. The Department
believes that charter schools are wellpositioned to develop new approaches
to meeting the needs of students with
disabilities and improve educational
outcomes for these students. The
Department proposes a priority for
projects designed to improve charter
schools’ capacity, through a variety of
methods, to recruit and serve students
with disabilities more effectively.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects
of national significance and scope that
are designed to increase access to
charter schools for students with
disabilities and increase the schools’
enrollment, as well as improve
achievement (including student
achievement and student growth) and
attainment (including high school
graduation rates and college enrollment
rates) for students with disabilities in
charter schools, through one or both of
the following activities:
(1) Developing strategies and tools to
increase access to charter schools for
students with disabilities and increase
the schools’ capacity to enroll students
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Dec 02, 2013
Jkt 232001
with disabilities, and improve student
achievement, student growth, high
school graduation rates, and college
enrollment rates for students with
disabilities.
(2) Disseminating promising practices
that increase access to charter schools
for students with disabilities and
increase the schools’ capacity to enroll
students with disabilities; and improve
student achievement, student growth,
high school graduation rates, and
college enrollment rates for students
with disabilities.
Proposed Priority 4—English Learners
Background
From 2001 to 2010 the number of
students identified as English Learners
increased significantly, growing from
approximately 3,700,000 to 4,660,275
nationwide. In 2011, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress
reports on mathematics, reading, and
science showed a difference in scores
between English Learners and nonEnglish Learners of 49, 47, and 62
percent, respectively.2 The Department
believes that charter schools are wellpositioned to develop new approaches
to meeting the needs of English Learners
and can play an integral role in closing
the achievement and attainment gaps
between English Learners and their
peers. The Department proposes a
priority for projects designed to improve
charter schools’ capacity, through a
variety of methods, to recruit and serve
English Learners more effectively.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects
of national significance and scope that
are designed to increase access to
charter schools for English Learners and
increase the schools’ enrollment, as well
as improve achievement (including
student achievement and student
growth) and attainment (including
English proficiency, high school
graduation rates, and college enrollment
rates) for English Learners in charter
schools, through one or more of the
following activities:
(1) Developing strategies and tools to
increase access to charter schools for
English Learners and increase the
schools’ capacity to enroll English
Learners, and improve student
achievement, student growth, English
proficiency, high school graduation
rates, and college enrollment rates for
English Learner students.
(2) Disseminating promising practices
that increase access to charter schools
for English Learners and increase the
2 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/tableell-1.asp.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
schools’ capacity to enroll English
Learners, and improve student
achievement, student growth, English
proficiency, high school graduation
rates, and college enrollment rates for
English Learners.
Proposed Priority 5—Personalized
Technology-Enabled Learning
Background
Learning models that blend
traditional, classroom-based teaching
and learning with virtual, online, or
digital delivery of personalized
instructional content offer the potential
to transform public education and create
significant improvements in students’
achievement, growth, engagement, and
non-cognitive skills. In order to achieve
superior outcomes, the effective
development and implementation of
these models are essential.
In particular, technology-enabled
learning tools must be functional,
engaging, user-friendly, appropriate for
students with diverse learning needs,
and aligned with college-and-careerready standards. Moreover, it is of great
importance to ensure equitable access to
and use of these tools and supports by
high-need students.
In light of the operational autonomy
that charter schools possess and the
focus that many of these schools have
on serving high-need students, charter
schools are uniquely positioned to
contribute to the development and
implementation of instructional models
that effectively incorporate technologyenabled personalized learning tools and
supports for high-need students. The
Department proposes this priority to
stimulate and support such efforts.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects
of national significance and scope that
are designed to improve achievement
and attainment outcomes for high-need
students through the development and
implementation in charter schools of
technology-enabled instructional
models, tools, and supports that
personalize instruction.
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,
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirements
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for
Innovation and Improvement proposes
the following requirements for this
program. We may apply one or more of
these requirements in any year in which
this program is in effect. By requiring
that applicants provide a charter school
logic model supporting their projects
and restricting eligibility for grants to
specific types of entities, the
Department will ensure that grantees
have the preparation and experience to
be successful with a CSP Grant for
National Leadership Activities.
Proposed Application Requirements
Logic Model
An applicant for a CSP Grant for
National Leadership Activities must
provide a charter school logic model (as
defined in this notice) supporting its
project.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Eligibility
Eligible applicants include (1) State
educational agencies (SEAs) in States
with a State statute specifically
authorizing the establishment of charter
schools; (2) authorized public chartering
agencies; (3) public and private
nonprofit organizations with a mission
that explicitly includes supporting
charter schools; and (4) public and
private nonprofit organizations in
partnership with an SEA, authorized
public chartering agency, or a public or
private nonprofit organization with a
mission that explicitly includes
supporting charter schools. Eligible
applicants may apply as a group or
consortium.
Note: The Secretary invites comment on
this eligibility requirement, particularly
regarding whether public and private
nonprofit organizations should be required to
have a mission that explicitly includes
supporting charter schools and the elements
that should be required to confirm eligibility.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Dec 02, 2013
Jkt 232001
Proposed Definitions
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for
Innovation and Improvement proposes
the following definitions for this
program. We may apply one or more of
these definitions in any year in which
the program is in effect.
The proposed definitions for ‘‘highquality charter school’’ and ‘‘significant
compliance issue’’ are based on the
definitions in the notice of final
priorities, requirements, and definitions
for the CSP Replication and Expansion
grant program, published in the Federal
Register on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40898).
The proposed definitions for
‘‘graduation rate’’ and ‘‘student
achievement’’ are identical to the
definitions in the Supplemental
Priorities for Discretionary Grant
Programs, published in the Federal
Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR
78510), and corrected on May 12, 2011
(76 FR 27637). The proposed definitions
for ‘‘student growth’’ and ‘‘high-need
students’’ are based on the definitions in
the Supplemental Priorities for
Discretionary Grant Programs,
published in the Federal Register on
December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78510), and
corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR
27637). The proposed definition for
‘‘charter school logic model’’ is based on
the definition of ‘‘logic model’’ in the
Direct Grant Programs and Definitions
That Apply to Department Regulations
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
published in the Federal Register on
December 14, 2012 (77 FR 74392).
Charter school logic model means a
well-specified conceptual framework
that identifies key components of the
proposed practice, strategy, or
intervention (i.e., the active
‘‘ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to
be critical to achieving the relevant
outcomes) and describes the
relationships among the key
components and outcomes, theoretically
and operationally.
Charter school national level means,
with respect to an applicant’s
dissemination strategy, that the strategy
covers a wide variety of charter schools,
authorized public chartering agencies,
charter support organizations, and other
stakeholder groups within multiple
States across the country, including
rural and urban areas.
Community of practice means a group
of stakeholders that interacts regularly
to solve a persistent problem or to
improve practice in an area that is
important to them and the success of the
grant project.
Graduation rate means a four-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72603
may also include an extended-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if
the State in which the proposed project
is implemented has been approved by
the Secretary to use such a rate under
Title I of the ESEA.
High-need students means children
and students at risk of educational
failure, such as children and students
who are living in poverty, who are
English Learners, who are far below
grade level or who are not on track to
becoming college- or career-ready by
graduation, who have left school or
college before receiving, respectively, a
regular high school diploma or a college
degree or certificate, who are at risk of
not graduating with a diploma on time,
who are homeless, who are in foster
care, who are pregnant or parenting
teenagers, who have been incarcerated,
who are new immigrants, who are
migrant, or who have disabilities.
High-quality charter school means a
school that shows evidence of strong
academic results for the past three years
(or over the life of the school, if the
school has been open for fewer than
three years), based on the following
factors:
(1) Increased student academic
achievement and attainment for all
students, including, as applicable,
educationally disadvantaged students;
(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;
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 and
significant gains in student academic
achievement have been made with all
populations of students served by the
charter school;
(3) Achieved results (including
performance on statewide tests, annual
high school graduation rates, college
attendance rates, and college persistence
rates where applicable and available) for
low-income and other educationally
disadvantaged students served by the
charter school; and
(4) No significant compliance issues
(as defined in this notice), particularly
in the areas of student safety and
financial management.
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, as
appropriate,
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
72604
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(2) 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.
Student growth means the change in
achievement data for an individual
student between two or more points in
time. Growth may also include other
measures that are rigorous and
comparable across classrooms.
Final Priorities, Requirements and
Definitions
We will announce the final priorities,
requirements, and definitions in a
notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities,
requirements, and definitions after
considering responses to this notice and
other information available to the
Department. 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 proposed
priorities, requirements, and definitions, we
invite applications through a notice in the
Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Dec 02, 2013
Jkt 232001
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not
a significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practical—the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing these proposed
priorities, requirements, and definitions
only on a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits.
The Department believes that this
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regulatory action is consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department conducts a
preclearance consultation program to
provide 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 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.
These proposed regulations contain
information collection requirements that
are approved by OMB under OMB
control number 1894–0006; these
proposed regulations do not affect the
currently approved data collection.
We estimate that each applicant
would spend approximately 176 hours
of staff time to address the proposed
requirements, prepare the application,
and obtain necessary clearances. The
total number of hours for all expected
applicants is an estimated 7,040 hours.
We estimate the total cost per hour of
the applicant-level staff who will carry
out this work to be $57 per hour. The
total estimated cost for all applicants
would be $401,280.
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.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. 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: November 26, 2013.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary for the
Office of Innovation and Improvement,
delegated the authority to perform the
functions and duties of the Assistant Deputy
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–28939 Filed 12–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
[NPS–LAMR–13812; PPIMLAMRS0,
PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000]
RIN 1024–AE12
Special Regulations, Areas of the
National Park System, Lake Meredith
National Recreation Area, Bicycling
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Through the preparation of a
Multi-Use Trail Environmental
Assessment, the National Park Service
has decided to construct an unpaved,
multi-use recreational trail in Lake
Meredith National Recreation Area. The
multi-use trail will be approximately 22
miles in length and be open to
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Dec 02, 2013
Jkt 232001
pedestrian and bicycle use only.
National Park Service regulations
require promulgation of a special
regulation to designate new routes for
bicycle use off park roads and outside
developed areas. The multi-use trail will
consist of five contiguous sections
constructed in five phases, as resources
become available. This multi-use trail
will help address the lack of land-based
recreational opportunities in the region;
increase the availability of interpretive
resources in the recreation area; provide
a firebreak at the urban-wildland
interface; and improve access for
emergency response personnel.
DATES: Comments must be received by
February 3, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments, identified by Regulation
Identifier Number (RIN) 1024–AE12, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Lake Meredith National
Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch,
TX 79036
• Hand Deliver to: Superintendent’s
Office, Fritch, TX.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or RIN for this
rulemaking. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Arlene Wimer, Chief of Resource
Management, Lake Meredith National
Recreation Area, at 806–857–0309 or at
the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Congress established Lake Meredith
National Recreation Area (LAMR or
recreation area) in 1990 ‘‘to provide for
public outdoor recreation use and
enjoyment of the lands and waters
associated with Lake Meredith in the
State of Texas, and to protect the scenic,
scientific, cultural, and other values
contributing to the public enjoyment of
such lands and waters. . . .’’ Situated
approximately 35 miles north of
Amarillo, Texas within Potter, Moore,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72605
Hutchinson, and Carson counties,
LAMR is approximately 45,000 acres in
size and is the largest public landmass
in the Texas Panhandle.
Purpose of Multi-Use Trail
Recreational Opportunities
LAMR provides water-based public
recreational opportunities such as
fishing, boating, water skiing, and
swimming. However, dropping water
levels have caused a substantial loss of
public access to the lake and a
corresponding reduction in water-based
recreational opportunities. Visitation to
the recreation area has declined over the
last 10 years, and lower water levels and
reduced access could be a contributing
factor to this decline in use. Water
levels are not expected to increase in the
near future, and the addition of a multiuse trail could provide visitors with an
alternative, land-based form of
recreation which may attract more
visitors to LAMR.
LAMR provides some land-based
recreational opportunities, such as
hiking, horseback riding, hunting, offroad vehicle use, and camping. Over the
past several years, bicycling has become
more popular in the Texas Panhandle,
as evidenced by increased bike use at
nearby Palo Duro Canyon State Park. A
multi-use trail at LAMR will help
address the increasing demand for bike
trails in the Texas Panhandle. The
multi-use trail will also provide
additional hiking opportunities on the
trail, and primitive camping
opportunities in Turkey Creek Canyon.
Interpretive Resources
LAMR contains natural and cultural
resources that are unique to the region.
The natural and geologic resources of
the recreation area have enabled human
survival, subsistence, and adaptation
that have resulted in a continuum of
human presence in the area for more
than 13,000 years. Cultural sites in
LAMR and the adjacent Alibates Flint
Quarries National Monument offer
views of lifeways in cultural periods
from the Paleo Indians (9,500 BC–6,000
BC) to the present day. The exposed
geologic features on the walls of the
Canadian River valley (i.e. the ‘‘breaks’’)
reveal active geologic processes that are
easily visible to an extent not present
elsewhere in the region. The topography
and geography of the Canadian River
breaks create a divergence from the
surrounding landscape that offers scenic
values and opportunities not found
elsewhere in the region.
Despite these extraordinary resources,
LAMR lacks interpretive facilities to
allow visitors to fully understand and
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72600-72605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28939]
[[Page 72600]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions--Charter
Schools Program (CSP) Grants for National Leadership Activities
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CFDA Number: 84.282N.
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes priorities, requirements, and definitions for CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities and may use these priorities,
requirements, and definitions for a competition in fiscal year (FY)
2013 and later years. The Assistant Deputy Secretary is taking this
action to ensure that projects funded with CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities address key policy issues currently facing
charter schools and impact stakeholders on a national scale.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Brian Martin, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W224,
Washington, DC 20202-5970.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following
address: brian.martin@ed.gov. You must include the term ``National
Leadership Activities'' in the subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Martin. Telephone: (202) 205-
9085 or by email: brian.martin@ed.gov.
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:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this document. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the final priorities, requirements, and definitions, we urge
you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, or
definition that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these
proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. Please let us know
of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase
potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in room 4W224, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record. If you want to schedule an appointment for
this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the CSP is to increase national
understanding of the charter school model by--
(1) Providing financial assistance for the planning, program
design, and initial implementation of charter schools;
(2) Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the
effects on students, student achievement, student growth, staff, and
parents;
(3) Expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available
to students across the Nation; and
(4) Encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools
for facilities financing in an amount more nearly commensurate to the
amount the States have typically provided for traditional public
schools.
The purpose of the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities is
to support efforts by eligible entities to improve the quality of
charter schools by providing technical assistance and other types of
support on issues of national significance and scope.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221-7221i. CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities are authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221d(a).
Proposed Priortities: This notice contains five proposed
priorities.
Background
The Department most recently conducted competitions for CSP Grants
for National Leadership Activities in FYs 2006 and 2010. In those
competitions, we invited applications for projects designed to improve
stakeholder capacity to support high-quality charter schools but did
not require or give competitive preference to particular types of
projects. As a result, applications submitted under the competition
varied considerably in scope and content.
To ensure that projects funded with CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities in future years address key policy issues facing
charter schools on a national scale, the Department proposes the
priorities in this notice. These priorities take into consideration the
continuing growth of charter schools across the nation and the
increasing need to support the capacity and oversight of all charter
schools. The priorities also recognize the important role that charter
schools can play in improving educational outcomes for students with
disabilities and English Learners and in creating personalized,
technology-based learning environments for high-need students (as
defined in this notice).
Proposed Priority 1--Improving Efficiency Through Economies of Scale
Background
Traditional public school districts benefit from economies of scale
across multiple aspects of school operations. Compared to charter
schools, traditional public schools tend to have higher student
enrollment, which may result in lower average costs per student for
various activities or a wider variety of available support services.
For example, traditional public school districts can make mass
purchases of supplies, equipment, and non-academic services, including
facilities maintenance, food, data systems, insurance, and
transportation services. These districts can consolidate academic
services across a large number of schools, including services such as
curriculum development and alignment, student assessments, and
professional development for teachers and school leaders. They can
consolidate services for specific student populations, such as students
with disabilities or English Learners. They can provide a range of arts
and athletic opportunities for their students. They have the ability,
through different funding structures, sustained economies of scale, and
historical relationships with colleges, universities, and nonprofit
organizations, to recruit teachers and leaders more broadly, and in a
more structured way, than charter schools.
Charter schools are explicitly designed to have the autonomy to
employ innovative, promising
[[Page 72601]]
approaches to public education. This autonomy, however, can limit
charter schools' ability to take advantage of the economies of scale
available to traditional public school districts, impeding the charter
school sector's ability to improve its performance and scale up high-
quality charter school models.
As the charter school sector continues to grow, there is an
increasing opportunity for charter schools to form consortia to achieve
the benefits of economies of scale and, thus, improve performance and
increase the number of high-quality charter schools nationwide. The
Department proposes this priority to support such efforts.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and
scope that promote shared systems for acquiring goods or services to
achieve efficiencies in the use of time, staff, money, services for
special populations, or other resources for the purpose of creating and
sustaining high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice).
An applicant addressing this priority is not required to apply as
part of a partnership or consortium, but must include plans for
developing a consortium, or consortia of charter schools that will
share systems for acquiring goods or services. The plans must include
detailed descriptions (including supporting documentation) of the
following:
(1) The activities of the proposed consortium or consortia and
demonstrate how and to what extent the activities will achieve
efficiencies in the use of time, staff, money, services for special
populations, or other areas related to operating high-quality charter
schools;
(2) Proposed members of the consortium or consortia, how the
composition of this consortium or consortia contributes to achieving
efficiencies, the specific activities each member will carry out, and
how specific activities will include entities outside of the network
that the lead applicant currently manages;
(3) How proposed project activities will help create and sustain
high-quality charter schools;
(4) How information about the proposed project's activities will be
disseminated primarily to charter schools as the primary stakeholder
group, and secondarily to other stakeholders, such as charter school
support organizations and authorized public chartering agencies, as
appropriate, at the charter school national level (as defined in this
notice);
(5) How the dissemination strategy will include assembling a
community of practice (as defined in this notice) for the stakeholder
group(s) served; and
(6) The national significance and scope of the proposed project.
Proposed Priority 2--Improving Accountability
Background
While there are many high-performing charter schools across the
nation, charter school performance varies significantly and too many
persistently low-performing charter schools are not held accountable
for their results. (For example, see the January 30, 2013 report from
the Center for Research on Education Outcome's entitled, ``Charter
School Growth and Replication'', which analyzes student performance and
progress data from 25 States, and the District of Columbia, that have
enacted charter school laws.) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://credo.stanford.edu/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite 43 distinct sets of State laws governing charter schools,
and almost 1,000 different entities authorizing charter schools, there
are some common promising practices that provide the degree of
oversight necessary to ensure that charter schools deliver on their
promises. Over the lifespan of a charter school, authorizing practices
will have a direct impact on the quality of the charter school sector.
Authorizers are responsible for conducting rigorous application reviews
to ensure new schools are of a high quality. Once schools are open,
accountability practices for charter schools need to be strengthened
within States. For example, charter school renewal should occur
regularly enough to ensure accountability and provide an opportunity
for amendment of the charter or closure of poor-performing schools.
Authorizers should have clear policies to hold schools accountable more
consistently for meeting their academic, financial, and operational
performance goals, as well as for complying with all applicable laws,
including civil rights laws requiring equal access.
Through the development, refinement, and dissemination of
authorizers' promising practices in areas such as charter school
approval, performance monitoring, charter contract renewal, and charter
school closure, the Department expects authorizers to hold charter
schools more accountable and to increase the number of high-quality
seats available to students. These promising practices will help ensure
that new charter schools have demonstrated that they are positioned to
succeed, poor-performing charter schools are closed, and high-quality
charter schools are replicated and expanded to serve more students.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and
scope that are designed to improve authorized public chartering
agencies' capacity to conduct rigorous application reviews, monitor and
oversee charter schools using data and measurable performance goals,
close underperforming schools, replicate and expand high-performing
schools, maintain a portfolio of high-quality charter schools, and
evaluate and communicate the performance of that portfolio.
Applicants addressing this priority must provide detailed
descriptions (including supporting documentation) of the following:
(1) How the proposed project will improve, within a variety of
communities in one or more States, authorized public chartering
agencies' capacity to:
i. Approve only high-quality charter schools that meet the
standards of a rigorous application process and review;
ii. Monitor and oversee charter schools through the regular
collection of data, including student performance and financial data,
and measurable performance goals;
iii. Identify schools eligible for renewal and those that should be
closed through clear renewal and revocation criteria;
iv. Maintain portfolios of high-quality charter schools by
evaluating authorizer and portfolio performance and disseminating
information on the performance of those portfolios;
(2) The applicant's prior success in improving, within a variety of
communities in one or more States, authorized public chartering
agencies' capacity to:
i. Approve only high-quality charter schools that meet the
standards of a rigorous application process and review;
ii. Monitor and oversee charter schools through the regular
collection of data, including student performance and financial data,
and measurable performance goals;
iii. Identify schools eligible for renewal and those that should be
closed through clear renewal and revocation criteria;
iv. Maintain portfolios of high-quality charter schools by
evaluating authorizer and portfolio performance and disseminating
information on the performance of those portfolios, and help improve
the ability of other
[[Page 72602]]
authorized public chartering agencies to produce similar results;
(3) How dissemination activities focus on authorized public
chartering agencies as the primary stakeholder group, and secondarily
on other stakeholders, such as charter school support organizations or
charter schools, as appropriate, at the charter school national level;
(4) How the dissemination strategy will include assembling a
community of practice for the stakeholder group(s) served; and
(5) The national significance and scope of the proposed project.
Proposed Priority 3--Students With Disabilities
Background
As public schools, it is essential that charter schools provide
equitable access and appropriate educational services to all students,
regardless of disability, as set forth in the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and the Department's Section 504 regulations. A GAO report
released in June, 2012 found that charter schools enrolled a lower
percentage of students with disabilities than traditional public
schools. This discrepancy may have many contributing factors that are
likely to vary from school to school. Regardless, charter schools
should have the capacity to serve all students with disabilities
irrespective of severity or type of disability. The Department believes
that charter schools are well-positioned to develop new approaches to
meeting the needs of students with disabilities and improve educational
outcomes for these students. The Department proposes a priority for
projects designed to improve charter schools' capacity, through a
variety of methods, to recruit and serve students with disabilities
more effectively.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and
scope that are designed to increase access to charter schools for
students with disabilities and increase the schools' enrollment, as
well as improve achievement (including student achievement and student
growth) and attainment (including high school graduation rates and
college enrollment rates) for students with disabilities in charter
schools, through one or both of the following activities:
(1) Developing strategies and tools to increase access to charter
schools for students with disabilities and increase the schools'
capacity to enroll students with disabilities, and improve student
achievement, student growth, high school graduation rates, and college
enrollment rates for students with disabilities.
(2) Disseminating promising practices that increase access to
charter schools for students with disabilities and increase the
schools' capacity to enroll students with disabilities; and improve
student achievement, student growth, high school graduation rates, and
college enrollment rates for students with disabilities.
Proposed Priority 4--English Learners
Background
From 2001 to 2010 the number of students identified as English
Learners increased significantly, growing from approximately 3,700,000
to 4,660,275 nationwide. In 2011, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress reports on mathematics, reading, and science
showed a difference in scores between English Learners and non-English
Learners of 49, 47, and 62 percent, respectively.\2\ The Department
believes that charter schools are well-positioned to develop new
approaches to meeting the needs of English Learners and can play an
integral role in closing the achievement and attainment gaps between
English Learners and their peers. The Department proposes a priority
for projects designed to improve charter schools' capacity, through a
variety of methods, to recruit and serve English Learners more
effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ell-1.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and
scope that are designed to increase access to charter schools for
English Learners and increase the schools' enrollment, as well as
improve achievement (including student achievement and student growth)
and attainment (including English proficiency, high school graduation
rates, and college enrollment rates) for English Learners in charter
schools, through one or more of the following activities:
(1) Developing strategies and tools to increase access to charter
schools for English Learners and increase the schools' capacity to
enroll English Learners, and improve student achievement, student
growth, English proficiency, high school graduation rates, and college
enrollment rates for English Learner students.
(2) Disseminating promising practices that increase access to
charter schools for English Learners and increase the schools' capacity
to enroll English Learners, and improve student achievement, student
growth, English proficiency, high school graduation rates, and college
enrollment rates for English Learners.
Proposed Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning
Background
Learning models that blend traditional, classroom-based teaching
and learning with virtual, online, or digital delivery of personalized
instructional content offer the potential to transform public education
and create significant improvements in students' achievement, growth,
engagement, and non-cognitive skills. In order to achieve superior
outcomes, the effective development and implementation of these models
are essential.
In particular, technology-enabled learning tools must be
functional, engaging, user-friendly, appropriate for students with
diverse learning needs, and aligned with college-and-career-ready
standards. Moreover, it is of great importance to ensure equitable
access to and use of these tools and supports by high-need students.
In light of the operational autonomy that charter schools possess
and the focus that many of these schools have on serving high-need
students, charter schools are uniquely positioned to contribute to the
development and implementation of instructional models that effectively
incorporate technology-enabled personalized learning tools and supports
for high-need students. The Department proposes this priority to
stimulate and support such efforts.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and
scope that are designed to improve achievement and attainment outcomes
for high-need students through the development and implementation in
charter schools of technology-enabled instructional models, tools, and
supports that personalize instruction.
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,
[[Page 72603]]
we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding
additional points, depending on the extent to which the application
meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an
application that meets the priority over an application of comparable
merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirements
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes the following requirements for this program. We may apply one
or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in
effect. By requiring that applicants provide a charter school logic
model supporting their projects and restricting eligibility for grants
to specific types of entities, the Department will ensure that grantees
have the preparation and experience to be successful with a CSP Grant
for National Leadership Activities.
Proposed Application Requirements
Logic Model
An applicant for a CSP Grant for National Leadership Activities
must provide a charter school logic model (as defined in this notice)
supporting its project.
Eligibility
Eligible applicants include (1) State educational agencies (SEAs)
in States with a State statute specifically authorizing the
establishment of charter schools; (2) authorized public chartering
agencies; (3) public and private nonprofit organizations with a mission
that explicitly includes supporting charter schools; and (4) public and
private nonprofit organizations in partnership with an SEA, authorized
public chartering agency, or a public or private nonprofit organization
with a mission that explicitly includes supporting charter schools.
Eligible applicants may apply as a group or consortium.
Note: The Secretary invites comment on this eligibility
requirement, particularly regarding whether public and private
nonprofit organizations should be required to have a mission that
explicitly includes supporting charter schools and the elements that
should be required to confirm eligibility.
Proposed Definitions
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes the following definitions for this program. We may apply one
or more of these definitions in any year in which the program is in
effect.
The proposed definitions for ``high-quality charter school'' and
``significant compliance issue'' are based on the definitions in the
notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions for the CSP
Replication and Expansion grant program, published in the Federal
Register on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40898). The proposed definitions for
``graduation rate'' and ``student achievement'' are identical to the
definitions in the Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary Grant
Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR
78510), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637). The proposed
definitions for ``student growth'' and ``high-need students'' are based
on the definitions in the Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary
Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010
(75 FR 78510), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637). The
proposed definition for ``charter school logic model'' is based on the
definition of ``logic model'' in the Direct Grant Programs and
Definitions That Apply to Department Regulations Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2012 (77
FR 74392).
Charter school logic model means a well-specified conceptual
framework that identifies key components of the proposed practice,
strategy, or intervention (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are
hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and
describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes,
theoretically and operationally.
Charter school national level means, with respect to an applicant's
dissemination strategy, that the strategy covers a wide variety of
charter schools, authorized public chartering agencies, charter support
organizations, and other stakeholder groups within multiple States
across the country, including rural and urban areas.
Community of practice means a group of stakeholders that interacts
regularly to solve a persistent problem or to improve practice in an
area that is important to them and the success of the grant project.
Graduation rate means a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and may also include an extended-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(v) if the State in which the proposed project is
implemented has been approved by the Secretary to use such a rate under
Title I of the ESEA.
High-need students means children and students at risk of
educational failure, such as children and students who are living in
poverty, who are English Learners, who are far below grade level or who
are not on track to becoming college- or career-ready by graduation,
who have left school or college before receiving, respectively, a
regular high school diploma or a college degree or certificate, who are
at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who
are in foster care, who are pregnant or parenting teenagers, who have
been incarcerated, who are new immigrants, who are migrant, or who have
disabilities.
High-quality charter school means a school that shows evidence of
strong academic results for the past three years (or over the life of
the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years),
based on the following factors:
(1) Increased student academic achievement and attainment for all
students, including, as applicable, educationally disadvantaged
students;
(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; 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 and
significant gains in student academic achievement have been made with
all populations of students served by the charter school;
(3) Achieved results (including performance on statewide tests,
annual high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and
college persistence rates where applicable and available) for low-
income and other educationally disadvantaged students served by the
charter school; and
(4) No significant compliance issues (as defined in this notice),
particularly in the areas of student safety and financial management.
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, as appropriate,
[[Page 72604]]
(2) 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.
Student growth means the change in achievement data for an
individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may also
include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across
classrooms.
Final Priorities, Requirements and Definitions
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, and
definitions in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the
final priorities, requirements, and definitions after considering
responses to this notice and other information available to the
Department. 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 proposed priorities,
requirements, and definitions, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practical--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements, and
definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits
justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.
The Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide 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 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.
These proposed regulations contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0006; these proposed regulations do not affect the currently approved
data collection.
We estimate that each applicant would spend approximately 176 hours
of staff time to address the proposed requirements, prepare the
application, and obtain necessary clearances. The total number of hours
for all expected applicants is an estimated 7,040 hours. We estimate
the total cost per hour of the applicant-level staff who will carry out
this work to be $57 per hour. The total estimated cost for all
applicants would be $401,280.
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.
[[Page 72605]]
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. 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: November 26, 2013.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Innovation and
Improvement, delegated the authority to perform the functions and
duties of the Assistant Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28939 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
