Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions-Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants for National Leadership Activities, 40647-40662 [2014-16462]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
§ 165.T09–0539 Safety Zone; City of
Menominee Fireworks; Green Bay,
Menominee, MI.
The Assistant Deputy
Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement announces final priorities,
requirements, and definitions under the
CSP Grants for National Leadership
Activities. The Assistant Deputy
Secretary may use one or more of these
priorities, requirements, and definitions
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015
and later years.
DATES: Effective Date: These final
priorities, requirements, and definitions
are effective August 13, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Martin, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 4W224, Washington, DC 20202–
5970. 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.
SUMMARY:
(a) Location. All waters of Green Bay,
in the vicinity of Menominee Marina
within a 1000-foot radius of a position
at 45°6′26.3″ N and 087°35′59.2″ W
(NAD 83).
(b) Effective and enforcement periods.
This rule is effective from July 4, 2014
until August 9, 2014. This rule will be
enforced with actual notice from 9 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2014, and
from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August
9, 2014.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23, entry
into, transiting, or anchoring within this
safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan or her designated onscene representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan or her designated onscene representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan
is any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan to act on her behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone must
contact the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan or her on-scene representative
to obtain permission to do so. The
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or
her on-scene representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or
her on-scene representative.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program
34 CFR Chapter II
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 academic
achievement, staff, and parents;
(3) Expanding the number of highquality charter schools (as defined in
the notice) 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 nonchartered public schools.
The purpose of the CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities (CFDA
84.282N) 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.
[CFDA Number: 84.282N]
Program Authority
Dated: June 30, 2014.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2014–16327 Filed 7–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Final Priorities, Requirements, and
Definitions—Charter Schools Program
(CSP) Grants for National Leadership
Activities
Office of Innovation and
Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements,
and definitions.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
The CSP is authorized under 20
U.S.C. 7221–7221i; CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities are
authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221d.
The U.S. Department of Education
(Department) published a notice of
proposed priorities, requirements, and
definitions (NPP) for the CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities in the
Federal Register on December 3, 2013
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40647
(78 FR 72600). The NPP contained
background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular priorities,
requirements, and definitions.
The Analysis of Comments and
Changes section in this notice describes
the differences between the priorities,
requirements, and definitions we
proposed in the NPP and these final
priorities, requirements, and definitions.
The two most significant changes are as
follows:
We revised the language in Priority
2—Improving Accountability to clarify
how applicants can describe how their
projects will improve authorized public
chartering agencies’ capacity to approve
new charter schools. We made this
change because the proposed priority
referred to authorized public chartering
agencies’ capacity to approve only highquality charter schools, which, as
defined in this notice, requires that the
school show 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). While authorized public
chartering agencies, or authorizers,
should approve only high-quality
charter petitions, it is not feasible for
authorizers to approve only high-quality
charter schools as defined in this notice,
as the definition would not allow an
authorizer to approve a new charter
school with no academic achievement
data.
We revised Priority 3—Students with
Disabilities and Priority 4—English
Learners to allow applicants to address
the priorities by promoting collaborative
activities between charter schools, nonchartered public schools, and as
applicable, key special education
stakeholders or key English learner
stakeholders, which are designed to
improve academic achievement and
attainment outcomes for these student
subgroups.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the NPP, 38 parties
submitted comments on the proposed
priorities, requirements, and definitions.
Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address comments
that raise concerns not directly related
to the proposed priorities, requirements,
or definitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and any
changes in the proposed priorities,
requirements, and definitions since
publication of the NPP follows.
Priorities
Comment: Multiple commenters made
suggestions regarding how each of the
priorities should be designated (i.e.,
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40648
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational). Specifically, one
commenter suggested that we use
Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale as an
invitational priority because, according
to the commenter, the objectives of the
priority are already in place through
cooperative agreements with school
districts and private organizations.
Another commenter suggested that due
to the overall growth of English learners,
Priority 4—English Learners should be a
competitive preference priority. A third
commenter suggested that Priority 5—
Personalized Technology-Enabled
Learning should be an absolute priority,
as positive impact can be seen across all
student subgroups.
Discussion: This notice is designed
only to establish the priorities that we
may choose to use in the CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities
competitions in 2015 and future years.
We do not designate whether a priority
will be absolute, competitive, or
invitational in this notice; we retain the
flexibility to determine how best to
designate the priorities to ensure that
funded projects address the most
pressing areas of need for competitions
in 2015 or in future years. When
inviting applications for a competition
using one or more of these priorities, we
will designate the type of each priority
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that each of the priorities should place
more of an emphasis on communication
and dissemination activities in order to
ensure that each project’s effectiveness
can be reviewed and evaluated by other
organizations.
Discussion: We appreciate the
suggestion and agree that the evaluation
of a project and the communication and
dissemination of information about a
project’s effectiveness are important.
Because entities receiving the CSP
Grants for National Leadership
Activities are required to demonstrate
how they will disseminate information
at the charter school national level (as
defined in this notice), an emphasis on
communication and dissemination
already exists in this notice. Although
we agree project evaluation and
dissemination of the results of the
evaluation are critical to the CSP Grants
for National Leadership Activities, we
do not think it is necessary to develop
a program-specific requirement
regarding evaluation because evaluation
design can be addressed through
selection criteria. Specifically, the
Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)
include a selection criterion under 34
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
CFR 75.210(h), Quality of the Project
Evaluation, that provides selection
factors that encourage applicants to
conduct rigorous evaluations of their
projects and disseminate relevant
findings, which could be incorporated
in the selection criteria for a future
competition under this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
creating a priority designed to increase
the development and refinement of
charter school leaders. One of the
commenters stated that creating a
leadership pipeline was important,
particularly in the current context of
major reforms, including the
implementation of Common Core State
Standards and new teacher evaluation
systems. Both commenters stated that
high-quality leaders are of critical
national importance as States launch
new assessments aligned with collegeand career-ready standards.
Discussion: We agree that improving
human capital development for the
charter school sector is of national
significance. However, we do not think
a separate priority is needed to address
this issue. We note that applicants
already have flexibility to incorporate
activities involving human capital
development as part of projects
addressing Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed
that the Department add an additional
priority, ‘‘Promoting Racial and
Economic Diversity.’’ Another
commenter proposed we add a similar
priority with a focus on diversity and
cultural competency. Both commenters
noted that the absence of a school
diversity priority is especially troubling
in light of Department publications that
emphasize the importance of, and offer
guidance with respect to, issues
regarding diversity in public education.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ concerns and agree that
increasing diversity is important;
however, we do not think a separate
priority is needed. We note that efforts
to increase diversity and cultural
competency can be included as
allowable activities under the priorities
selected for CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities competitions. In
addition, the eligible applicants under
other CSP competitions, such as those
under the CSP State Educational Agency
(SEA) competition, whose grantees
provide start-up and dissemination
grants directly to individual charter
schools, are likely better suited to
increase diversity in charter schools.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we create an additional priority that
rewards applicants that demonstrate
their schools have an expulsion and
suspension rate similar to, or lower
than, the schools in their surrounding
communities or school districts. In
addition, the commenter recommended
preference be given to grant applicants
under this program that have a record of
serving students with disabilities and
English learners at the same or better
rates than their surrounding
communities or school districts.
Discussion: Although we appreciate
the commenter’s concerns, the CSP
Grants for National Leadership
Activities competition is designed to
support projects of national significance
for charter schools and is not meant to
award points based on the specific
characteristics of a given school.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
we add a priority addressing the
following topics: curriculum,
instruction and assessment, data-driven
decision-making and analysis,
performance management, and
professional learning communities.
Discussion: We agree that each of the
topics above, especially for the purpose
of improving student achievement and
teacher effectiveness, is an area of
national significance. However, we do
not think a separate priority is needed
to address these topics as applicants
already have flexibility to incorporate
these topics as part of projects
addressing Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that many charter school incubators and
other investing organizations play a
major role in opening and closing
charter schools; therefore, the
Department should consider assisting
such organizations in increasing the
quality of their investment processes
and the sharing of their best practices
under this program.
Discussion: We think investing
organizations, such as charter school
incubators, play an important role in the
charter school sector. We note that
applicants already have flexibility to
incorporate these concepts as part of
projects addressing Priority 1—
Improving Efficiency through Economies
of Scale.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended removing the national
scope requirement from Priority 1—
Improving Efficiency through Economies
of Scale and Priority 2—Improving
Accountability. The commenter stated
that, for Priority 1, the costs of
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
providing services for English learners
and students with disabilities, and
educators, in addition to the costs
associated with bringing schools in
different geographic locations together,
far outweigh the costs saved by
developing systems of scale. The
commenter stated that Priority 2’s
requirement for projects of national
significance and scope would exclude
authorized public chartering agencies
that limit their charters to only one
State.
Discussion: As the CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities
competition is dedicated to national
activities, it is important that we award
grants for projects with a national
relevance. We disagree that the cost of
implementing a project that is national
in its scope outweighs the benefits of
developing shared systems of
collaboration and information. In
Priority 1, the Department encourages
organizations affiliated with the charter
school sector to implement innovative
ideas for achieving economies of scale
and aggregating demand in the charter
sector. Applicants addressing these
priorities must describe how the project
will have national significance and
scope. However, the priorities do not
dictate how an individual applicant
should incorporate national significance
or scope into its proposed project. We
think that if an applicant proposed a
project that would occur within only
one State, but still demonstrated that the
proposed project is of national
significance and scope and meets all
requirements, the proposed project
could be eligible under Priority 1 or
Priority 2.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
eliminating Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale.
One commenter felt that the priority
does not warrant enough importance for
this competition. A second commenter
stated that the idea behind the priority
was appealing, but that, in practice,
transaction costs often outweigh any
sustainable economies of scale.
Discussion: We think Priority 1 is
important for this competition, as it will
encourage more collaboration and
improve efficiencies in the charter
sector. This priority is intended to
address the barriers that charter schools
experience when trying to achieve
economies of scale, and to promote
shared systems for acquiring and
developing resources supporting the
charter school sector. By promoting
projects of national significance that can
encourage such shared systems and that
support the dissemination and
replication of successful practices
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
nationally, including the assembly of
communities of practice, we think
eligible applicants will address the
concerns and transaction costs that can
potentially discourage such
partnerships and collaborations. In
addition, we think that the creation of
partnerships and collaborations will
foster the development of innovative
practices in scaling operational services
that may benefit schools. This priority is
not only for charter school
collaborations that are achieving
economies of scale but could also be for
organizations bringing charter schools
together to develop economies of scale
and thus reduce the costs and burden
placed on the schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that
Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale appears to
indicate that urban centers may receive
preferential treatment over rural areas.
The commenter suggested that a
competition of truly national scope
must include a goal of creating and
supporting both a single site and a
network of vibrant rural sites, as well as
serving large urban areas.
Discussion: The priorities are
designed to encourage charter school
projects with a national scope and
significance. The definition of ‘‘charter
school national level’’ used in Priority
1—Improving Efficiency through
Economies of Scale and Priority 2—
Improving Accountability states that the
applicant’s dissemination strategy at the
charter school national level will consist
of working across multiple States across
the country, including rural and urban
areas. Other priorities only require that
projects are of national significance and
scope, which does not give preference to
urban centers over rural areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged that
a series of in-depth cost studies be
undertaken to provide a detailed
overview of the types of costs associated
with Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s concern regarding the
types of costs associated with Priority
1—Improving Efficiency through
Economies of Scale. Applicants that
apply under this priority would need to
describe how, and the extent to which,
the activities proposed in their
applications will achieve efficiencies.
These narrative descriptions in the
applications, along with the other
measures in paragraphs (2) through (5)
of Priority 1 will allow peer reviewers
to evaluate whether, and to what extent,
applicants will achieve efficiencies in
the use of time, staff, money, services
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40649
for special populations, or other
resources. Provided an applicant meets
all requirements under this priority, the
applicant could propose to use these
funds to conduct a cost study as part of
its proposed project activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked if
Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale supports
economies of scale that can arise from
teacher-based cooperative arrangements
or human capital management
solutions. The commenter also asked
how the priority would apply to
individual schools, or whether a critical
evaluation of office products or services,
group licensing of licensed services, or
a comparison with various sources of
teachers and leaders from the cost
efficiency perspective would be
sufficient to meeting the requirements of
the priority. In addition, the commenter
asked if Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale would
apply to efficiencies across providers
within a sector.
Discussion: Individual charter
schools, provided they meet all
requirements under this priority, would
be eligible to apply as part of an existing
or proposed partnership or consortium.
An individual charter school would not
be eligible to apply under this priority
independent of an existing or proposed
partnership or consortium. As stated in
Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale, applicants
should seek innovative solutions to
achieve efficiencies in the use of time,
staff, money, services for special
populations, or other resources for the
purpose of creating, supporting, and
sustaining high-quality charter schools
(as defined in this notice). If teacherbased cooperative agreements, human
capital management solutions, critical
evaluations of office products or
services, group licensing of licensed
services, a comparison with various
sources of teachers and leaders from the
cost efficiency perspective, or other
proposed activities would achieve these
efficiencies, an applicant could include
these activities to address Priority 1.
Similarly, if proposed activities to
increase the efficiencies across
providers within a sector meet all
requirements under this priority, an
applicant could include those activities
to address Priority 1.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that under Priority 1—
Improving Efficiency through Economies
of Scale, we consider how applicants
can demonstrate that their policies,
processes, and communications will
achieve efficiencies in assisting special
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40650
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
populations, or any activities related to
running a high-quality charter school.
Discussion: Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale is
not limited to specific economies of
scale, such as assisting special
populations, or the specific activities of
operating a high-quality charter school
(as defined in this notice). We want all
applicants to consider, based on their
experience, the areas of greatest need for
the charter school sector to determine
how to address the priority. As such,
applicants have the flexibility and
discretion to propose projects that
achieve efficiencies in any of the areas
included in the priority language.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale include the
possibility for organizations that have
collaborations already in place to apply
for funding.
Discussion: Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale is
intended to encourage the development
of consortia of charter schools that will
share systems for acquiring goods or
services. We edited the second
introductory paragraph of Priority 1—
Improving Efficiency through Economies
of Scale to clarify that existing
partnerships or consortia could apply
under this priority. We agree that this
change is appropriate to further the
purpose of the program and Priority 1.
Changes: We changed the second
introductory paragraph of Priority 1 to
‘‘An applicant addressing this priority
must apply as part of an existing or
proposed partnership or consortium that
includes two or more high-quality
charter schools, as defined in this
notice . . .’’
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the goal of Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale is
undermined by not including charter
management organizations (CMOs)
seeking to promote shared services and
systems. The commenter noted that
CMOs are often at the forefront of efforts
to share services and systems, and that
successful CMOs can serve as national
models and leaders for district and
charter schools in developing these
shared systems and economies of scale.
Conversely, another commenter
suggested that Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale
clarify whether eligible applicants must
be CMOs.
Discussion: To clarify, CMOs are
eligible applicants under Priority 1.
Eligible applicants include public and
private nonprofit organizations with a
mission that explicitly includes
operating, supporting, or managing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
charter schools; this eligibility includes
CMOs and many other types of
organizations. In addition, upon further
review, we determined that the language
of the proposed priority would have
allowed a single CMO to develop a
partnership or consortium comprised
solely of schools within its network,
which was not the intent. We revised
paragraph (2) of Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale
to clarify that the applicant must
describe how activities will include
members or proposed members that are
not affiliated exclusively with a
common network (e.g., a charter
management organization). As such, a
CMO applicant’s project must include
other entities beyond its current
network. This requirement does not
exclude CMOs from applying, but it
does require project applications from
CMOs to identify members of the
proposed partnership or consortium
beyond their network.
Change: We revised paragraph (2) of
Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale to ‘‘The
members or proposed members of the
partnership or consortium, how the
composition of this partnership or
consortium contributes to achieving
efficiencies, and the specific activities
each member or proposed member will
implement. Applicants must
demonstrate that members of the
existing or proposed partnership or
consortium are not affiliated exclusively
with a common network (e.g., a charter
management organization).’’
Comment: Two commenters made
suggestions regarding consortia in
Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale. One
commenter suggested that charter
schools that are not yet high-quality
charter schools be allowed to participate
in consortia and receive services
through consortia. The commenter
noted that the current language could be
interpreted to only allow consortia to
serve schools that already meet the
definition of high-quality charter
schools, thus reducing the effectiveness
and viability of consortia. In addition,
one commenter suggested that the
priority should not be limited to
developing consortia of charter schools
but rather encourage the development of
any innovative system that achieves
economies of scale in the charter sector.
Discussion: The Department would
like to clarify that Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale
does not limit consortia to serving only
schools that meet the definition of highquality charter schools; however, all
charter schools that apply as part of a
partnership or consortium, or apply
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
under a group application, must meet
that definition. The purpose of this
priority is to establish a connected
group that will create an opportunity for
charter schools to develop strategies and
practices to assist the charter schools in
becoming high-quality charter schools
(as defined in this notice). This priority
creates an opportunity for charter
schools to develop strategies and
practices that will assist them in
becoming high-quality charter schools,
as defined by standards in this notice or
by State and authorizer standards,
whichever are more rigorous. Consortia
members are not limited to charter
schools; they may be comprised of any
organizations that meet the eligibility
requirements under the Eligibility
section of this notice. As discussed
elsewhere in this notice, we clarified
this point by editing the second
introductory paragraph of Priority 1. In
addition, upon further review of the
priority language, we changed the first
introductory paragraph of Priority 1 and
paragraph (3) of Priority 1. Creating and
sustaining high-quality charter schools
(as defined in this notice) is a
fundamental component of high-quality
authorizing; however, while authorized
public chartering agencies should only
approve petitions from applicants that
demonstrate the capacity to create highquality charter schools, we recognize
that it is not possible for newly created
charter schools to meet the definition of
a high-quality charter school because
the definition includes a requirement
that the school show 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). As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, new charter schools would
not be able to meet the requirements of
this definition. In addition to language
that would help in creating charter
schools that demonstrate the capacity to
become high-quality and in sustaining
those that are high-quality, we added
language to support new charter schools
in becoming high-quality.
Changes: We revised the first
introductory paragraph of Priority 1—
Improving Efficiency through Economies
of Scale by replacing ‘‘creating and
sustaining high-quality charter schools’’
with ‘‘creating, supporting, and
sustaining high-quality charter schools
(as defined in this notice).’’ In addition,
in paragraph (3) of Priority 1, we
replaced ‘‘How proposed project
activities will help create and sustain
high-quality charter schools’’ with
‘‘How the proposed project activities
will help create charter schools that
demonstrate the capacity to become
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
high-quality charter schools, support
new charter schools to become highquality charter schools, and sustain
charter schools that are high-quality.’’
Comment: One commenter suggested
that under Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale,
we broaden the scope of allowable
activities to encourage information
sharing and efforts, such as developing
common systems of open enrollment.
Discussion: As stated in Priority 1—
Improving Efficiency through Economies
of Scale, applicants should seek
innovative solutions to achieve
efficiencies in the use of time, staff,
money, services for special populations,
or other resources for the purpose of
creating, supporting, and sustaining
high-quality charter schools (as defined
in this notice). As written, the priority
language provides applicants the
flexibility and discretion to propose
projects that achieve efficiencies in any
of the areas included in the priority
language. As such, an applicant is not
prohibited from proposing activities to
encourage information sharing and
efforts such as developing common
systems of open enrollment so long as
that applicant meets the requirements of
this priority and all eligibility
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we add language to paragraphs (1)
and (2) under Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale
that requires applicants to document the
involvement of parents and other
members from the community where
the charter school will be located. The
commenter also suggested that
applicants should be required to
communicate guidance, rules, policy
changes, and expectations to approved
charter schools and the school’s student
applicants in an effective and timely
manner.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support for family and
community engagement and effective
communication with charter schools
and their applicants and think because
of the wide range of projects that could
be considered under this priority, it is
not appropriate to require a family and
community engagement component of
all applicants. In addition, a
requirement to communicate guidance,
rules, policy changes, and expectations
to approved charter schools and the
school’s student applicants in an
effective and timely manner would be
included in a grant application and not
in this final priority. Such requirements,
if any, will be detailed in the notice
inviting applications or application
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
package for any future competition
under this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review, we
determined that paragraph (1) of
proposed Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale,
which supports projects that improve
efficiency in the ‘‘use of time, staff,
money, services for special populations,
or other areas,’’ should be revised. We
think that the word ‘‘areas’’ is too broad,
and that ‘‘resources’’ suggests achieving
economic efficiencies in a way that
‘‘areas’’ does not.
Changes: In paragraph (1) of Priority
1—Improving Efficiency through
Economies of Scale, we replaced
‘‘areas’’ with ‘‘resources.’’ This change
also maintains consistency in the
language with the first sentence of the
priority.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review, we
realized that in the introductory
paragraph of Priority 1—Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale,
we refer to ‘‘partnership or consortium’’
but we also refer to ‘‘consortium or
consortia’’ in the priority. We want to
maintain consistent language in these
references.
Changes: We replaced ‘‘consortium or
consortia’’ in the second introductory
paragraph and paragraph (1) with
‘‘partnership or consortium.’’
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review, we
determined that we could avoid using
both ‘‘primarily’’ and ‘‘primary’’ in the
same sentence in paragraph (4) of
Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale without
changing the intended meaning.
Accordingly, we have replaced
‘‘primary’’ with ‘‘chief.’’ In addition, in
that same paragraph, we added LEAs as
an example of a stakeholder group to
whom the project activities could be
disseminated secondarily.
Changes: We replaced the phrase
‘‘primarily to charter schools as the
primary stakeholder group’’ with
‘‘primarily to charter schools as the
chief stakeholder group.’’ We also
included the term ‘‘LEAs’’ to read
‘‘. . . such as charter school support
organizations, LEAs, and authorized
public chartering agencies, as
appropriate, at the charter school
national level (as defined in this
notice).’’
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of
Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale, we
determined that the dissemination
strategy required under paragraph (4)
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40651
includes dissemination at the charter
school national level (as defined in this
notice) and this creates confusion with
the ‘‘national significance and scope’’
described in paragraph (6). To clarify
our intent, we have edited ‘‘national
significance and scope’’ to ‘‘national
significance’’ in paragraph (6).
Changes: We replaced ‘‘national
significance and scope’’ with ‘‘national
significance’’ in paragraph (6) of Priority
1—Improving Efficiency through
Economies of Scale.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that a statement in the background
section to Proposed Priority 2-–
Improving Accountability in the NPP be
retracted. The sentence in the NPP said,
‘‘Once schools are open, accountability
practices for charter schools need to be
strengthened within States.’’ In
addition, the commenter noted that use
of the term ‘‘more consistently’’ in this
same section of the background in the
NPP has no backing to substantiate the
claim that authorizers need to review
their accountability practices.
Discussion: In the background section
for this priority in the NPP, we provided
an explanation of the development of
the priority. Because charter schools
across the country are not authorized by
a single entity and 43 distinct sets of
State laws govern charter schools, the
potential for inconsistency exists in how
charter schools are held accountable for
their academic, financial, and
operational performance results. In
addition, we think that accountability
practices for charter schools need to be
strengthened within States. Priority 2—
Improving Accountability is designed to
support improvements in the
accountability of authorizers.
Specifically, this priority aims to
support the dissemination of effective
authorizing practices to all authorizers
so they adopt practices that will
strengthen oversight.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the language in paragraph (2) of Priority
2—Improving Accountability precludes
applicants that serve charter schools in
one State, or one city, from the
opportunity to apply for funds and to
extend their reach nationally. The
commenter noted that the CSP Grants
for National Leadership Activities
competition would exclude the best of
local authorized public chartering
agencies that authorize charter schools
in only one State or city.
Discussion: The purpose of Priority
2—Improving Accountability is to
ensure that applicants build authorizer
capacity and disseminate successful
practices within multiple regions of the
United States. While this requirement
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40652
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
would limit local authorized public
chartering agencies from applying
individually, eligible applicants may
apply as a partnership or consortium,
allowing them to pool their experiences,
skills, and resources. An authorized
public chartering agency that authorizes
charter schools in only one State could
propose a project to improve authorized
public chartering agencies’ capacity at
the regional level or national level.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we add language to Priority 2—
Improving Accountability that would
require authorizers to develop and
implement policies on how they will
monitor charter applicants providing
services to students with disabilities.
Discussion: To the extent that the
commenter is referring to authorizer
monitoring of the academic performance
of charter schools, we agree that it is
important for authorizers to focus in
particular on students with disabilities.
In addition, upon further review, we
think it is also important for authorizers
to focus similarly on English learners
and other students in need of
specialized services. Accordingly, we
revised Priority 2—Improving
Accountability by adding language that
requires CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities applicants to
include metrics to assess educational
equity for students with disabilities,
English learners, and other students in
need of specialized services in their
descriptions of the types of data
authorizers should use to monitor and
oversee charter schools. In addition, it is
important to note that under section
612(a)(11) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and
34 CFR 300.149(a)(2)(ii), the State
educational agency, in carrying out its
general supervisory responsibility, is
required to ensure that all educational
programs for students with disabilities
administered in the State, including any
other State agency or local agency, meet
the educational standards of the State
educational agency, including the
requirements in the IDEA. Thus, under
IDEA, the SEA has an overarching
responsibility to ensure that all program
requirements in the IDEA are met and
to monitor implementation of those
requirements by eligible entities,
including charter schools that operate as
LEAs that have established their
eligibility under section 613 of the IDEA
for Part B of the IDEA funds, and charter
schools that are public schools of LEAs
that receive Part B funds.
Changes: We revised paragraphs
(1)(ii) and (2)(ii) of Priority 2—
Improving Accountability to ‘‘Monitor
and oversee charter schools through
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
measureable performance goals and
multiple sources of regularly collected
academic and operational performance
data (using financial data, disaggregated
student discipline data, and
disaggregated student performance data,
including metrics to assess educational
equity for students with disabilities,
English learners, and other students in
need of specialized services).’’
Comment: One commenter suggested
we expand Priority 2—Improving
Accountability to ensure the eligibility
of projects proposed by charter support
organizations that are designed to
improve the capacity to develop and
track measurable performance goals.
The commenter stated that
responsibility for the success of a
charter school rests on the school and
its governing organization, and that any
priority for improved accountability
must also include activities that focus
on school-level accountability.
Discussion: We recognize the
importance of factors, such as
governance and performance
management, to charter operators and
authorized public chartering agencies.
However, Priority 2—Improving
Accountability is designed to address
accountability through authorized
public chartering agencies. The types of
activities suggested by the commenter
would fall within the scope of Priority
1—Improving Efficiency through
Economies of Scale.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
Priority 2—Improving Accountability be
a competitive preference priority
because the commenter’s State does not
address authorizer accountability.
Discussion: The intent of Priority 2—
Improving Accountability is to support
projects that are designed to improve
authorizer capacity. We think this
priority will encourage authorizers to
improve their practices, even if their
State does not clearly address authorizer
accountability. In addition, as stated
elsewhere in this notice, this action is
designed only to establish the priorities
that we may choose to use in the CSP
Grants for National Leadership
Activities competitions in 2015 and
future years. We do not designate
whether a priority will be absolute,
competitive, or invitational in this
notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we should broaden the scope of
Priority 2—Improving Accountability to
clarify that successful applicants may
work with non-authorizers that have
influence over, and play a role in,
improving authorizer quality.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Discussion: Applicants may propose
dissemination activities described in
paragraphs (3) and (4) of Priority 2 that
include organizations other than
authorized public chartering agencies,
such as SEAs or charter support
organizations, so long as authorized
public chartering agencies are the
primary focus of those activities. While
we understand the important role of
non-authorizers in authorizer
accountability, the intent of this priority
is to build authorizer capacity.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the phrase ‘‘within a variety of
communities’’ in Priority 2—Improving
Accountability be clarified or removed,
as it is unclear to the commenter
whether ‘‘communities’’ means
geographic communities or another type
of community.
Discussion: In this context, we intend
‘‘within a variety of communities’’ to
mean a variety of geographic
communities, specifically communities
at the regional level (as defined in this
notice), or at the national level (as
defined in this notice). Notably, we
added definitions of ‘‘national level’’
and ‘‘regional level,’’ and these
definitions include the ‘‘variety of
communities’’ phrasing that the
commenter referenced. Therefore, we
deleted the phrase from the language of
Priority 2 to avoid duplicative phrasing.
Changes: We changed the text of
Priority 2, paragraph (1) to ‘‘How the
proposed project will improve, at the
regional level (as defined in this notice)
or the national level (as defined in this
notice), authorized public chartering
agencies’ capacity to . . . ’’ We also
changed the text of Priority 2, paragraph
(2) to ‘‘The applicant’s prior success in
improving, at the regional level (as
defined in this notice) or the national
level (as defined in this notice),
authorized public chartering agencies’
capacity to . . .’’
Comment: One commenter suggested
that Priority 2—Improving
Accountability should clarify the goal of
improving authorizer capacity in
paragraphs (1)(i) and (2)(i) by focusing
on improving standards of approval, not
the capacity to approve charter schools.
Discussion: To clarify, the intent of
paragraphs (1)(i) and (2)(i) is improving
standards of approval by authorized
public chartering agencies. We think
that ambitious standards for approving
charter school applications and rigorous
application review processes will
ensure that authorizers approve only
charter school applications that
demonstrate the capacity to create and
sustain high-quality charter schools (as
defined in this notice). Furthermore, it
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
is not feasible to expect authorizers to
approve only high-quality charter
schools, as the definition includes a
requirement that the school show
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). We
recognize that new charter schools
would not be able to meet this
requirement as they would not yet have
evidence of strong academic results.
Changes: We replaced ‘‘Approve only
high-quality charter schools that meet
the standards of a rigorous application
process and review’’ in paragraphs (1)(i)
and (2)(i) of Priority 2—Improving
Accountability with ‘‘Approve only
applications that demonstrate capacity
to create and sustain high-quality
charter schools (as defined in this
notice) and meet the standards of a
rigorous application process and
review.’’
Comment: One commenter stated that
the language ’’maintain portfolios of
high-quality charter schools by
evaluating authorizer and portfolio
performance and disseminating
information on the performance of those
portfolios’’ in proposed Priority 2—
Improving Accountability was unclear
and recommended it be removed.
Discussion: Evaluating authorizer and
portfolio performance will result in
more high-quality charter schools being
approved; however, for the reasons
discussed elsewhere in this notice, we
understand that it is practically
infeasible to use the ‘‘high-quality
charter school’’ definition proposed in
the NPP for charter school applicants
that have not yet begun educating
students. As such, we agree with the
commenter that clarification is needed
and have edited the language of Priority
2—Improving Accountability to provide
that clarification.
In addition, while not in response to
public comment, upon further review of
Priority 2—Improving Authorizer
Accountability, we removed ‘‘and help
improve the ability of other authorized
public chartering agencies to produce
similar results’’ from paragraph (2)(iv).
Our intent in this section is for
applicants to include information about
their prior successes in evaluating
authorizer and portfolio performance
and disseminating information on that
performance. We did not intend for
applicants that are authorized public
chartering agencies to be required to
show how they have helped other
authorized public chartering agencies to
produce similar results, as the proposed
language implied.
Changes: We replaced ‘‘Maintain
portfolios of high-quality charter
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
schools by evaluating authorizer and
portfolio performance and
disseminating information on the
performance of those portfolios’’ in
Priority 2—Improving Accountability,
paragraphs (1)(iv) and (2)(iv) with
‘‘Evaluate authorizer and portfolio
performance and disseminate
information on that performance.’’ We
also removed ‘‘and help improve the
ability of other authorized public
chartering agencies to produce similar
results’’ from paragraph (2)(iv).
Comment: One commenter suggested
the Department encourage authorizers to
employ data effectively by ensuring the
data are available to and usable to
relevant stakeholders, including parents
and community members. The
commenter also suggested that Priority
2—Improving Accountability support
charter school authorizers that include
disaggregated student data and data on
student growth in their performance
management systems.
Discussion: We appreciate the
comments about the effective use of
data, including the use of disaggregated
student data to promote authorizer
accountability. We believe applicants
could use the dissemination activities
described in Priority 2—Improving
Accountability paragraphs (3) and (4) to
ensure that data are made available to
multiple stakeholders, including parents
and community members. As such, we
decline to edit that portion of the
priority language. However, we agree
that disaggregated data are important,
particularly in identifying achievement
gaps and discipline disparities, and
including student growth data in
performance management systems will
improve the ability of authorizers to
monitor and oversee charter schools as
well as to measure performance. As
such, we revised the priority language to
emphasize the use of performance data.
Changes: In the introductory
paragraph of Priority 2—Improving
Accountability, we revised ‘‘monitor
and oversee charter schools using data
and measurable performance goals’’ to
‘‘monitor and oversee charter schools
using multiple sources of data,
including disaggregated student data,
and measurable performance goals.’’ In
addition, in paragraphs (1)(ii) and (2)(ii),
we revised the language ‘‘Monitor and
oversee charter schools through the
regular collection of data, including
student performance and financial data,
and measurable performance goals’’ to
‘‘Monitor and oversee charter schools
through measurable performance goals
and multiple sources of regularly
collected academic and operational
performance data (using financial data,
disaggregated student discipline data,
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40653
and disaggregated student performance
data, including metrics to assess
educational equity for students with
disabilities, English learners, and other
students in need of specialized
services).’’ In addition, upon further
review, we revised the introductory
paragraph of Priority 2—Improving
Accountability by replacing
‘‘communicate the performance of that
portfolio’’ with ‘‘disseminate
information on the performance of
charter schools,’’ as we think this
language more closely corresponds to
paragraph (3) of Priority 2.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that Priority 2—Improving
Accountability could improve
accountability and authorizer practices
through: Collective voluntary
accountability, where a self-monitoring
network could exist within the public
charter school community;
experimentation with new approaches
such as parental influence on school
accountability; and building knowledge
bases, where authorized public
chartering agencies could provide
assistance to other authorizers in
implementing successful practices that
improve the quality of schools they
authorize.
Discussion: The intended focus of
Priority 2—Improving Accountability is
on improving authorizer capacity, as we
think effective authorizing and oversight
influence charter school quality. While
voluntary accountability, parental
influence on accountability, and
knowledge building and sharing could
be components of improving
accountability and authorizer practices,
we think improving authorizer capacity,
as described in Priority 2—Improving
Accountability, would have the largest
impact on improving accountability,
and would, in turn, increase quality in
the charter school sector.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that a research and evaluation
component be added to Priority 2—
Improving Accountability to enhance
national understanding of high-quality
authorizing and how policy can best
support it. The commenter noted that
the proposed priority should also
consider how local districts and
authorizers managing a diverse portfolio
of schools can improve their
accountability frameworks for both the
public charter and non-chartered public
sectors.
Discussion: In addition to meeting
other requirements, successful
applicants under this priority must
improve authorizer capacity to evaluate
authorizer and portfolio performance
and disseminate that information to
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40654
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
help improve the ability of other
authorized public chartering agencies to
produce similar results. While we think
research and evaluation could greatly
benefit authorizers, we decline to make
a change. Provided that they meet all
requirements under this priority,
applicants’ research and evaluation
activities would be allowable under this
program. In addition, the selection
criterion 34 CFR 75.210(h), Quality of
the Project Evaluation, provides
selection factors that encourage
applicants to conduct rigorous
evaluations of their projects, which
could be incorporated in the selection
criteria for a future competition under
this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the activities under Priority 3—
Students with Disabilities do not
address the need of public charter
schools to provide instruction for
students with disabilities in the least
restrictive environment (LRE), which is
a major component of the IDEA.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that LRE is critical to the
education of all children with
disabilities in charter schools. Because
under the IDEA, students with
disabilities and their parents retain all
rights under the IDEA, including the
right to be educated in the LRE, we do
not believe it is necessary for this
priority to focus on the IDEA’s LRE
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
studies have shown that the lack of
enrollment of students with disabilities
in public charter schools is the result of
policies and practices designed to
minimize the enrollment of these
students and not a capacity issue. The
commenter further stated that
‘‘strategies and tools’’ referenced in
Priority 3—Students with Disabilities are
not the same as the ‘‘practices’’ referred
to in the recommendations from a recent
report by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO).1
Discussion: While we agree with the
commenter that the enrollment of
students with disabilities in public
charter schools is an important issue,
we find that studies on this topic have
not identified a single reason for any
disparity in enrollment that may occur
in some schools and districts. The GAO
report recommended that ‘‘the Secretary
of Education take measures to help
charter schools recognize practices that
1 U.S. Government Accountability Office.
‘‘Charter Schools: Additional Federal Attention
Needed to Help Protect Access for Students with
Disabilities.’’ GAO–12–543: Published Jun 7, 2012.
Available at: www.gao.gov/assets/600/591435.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
may affect enrollment of students with
disabilities . . . ’’ We think that the
‘‘strategies and tools’’ that applicants
develop in response to this priority will
help them identify and improve
practices that may affect enrollment of
students with disabilities and increase
equitable access to students with
disabilities in public charter schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
‘‘promising practices,’’ as used in
Priority 3—Students with Disabilities,
are instructional approaches that
improve student achievement, not
approaches that only increase students
with disabilities’ access to schools to
which they already have a legal right to
attend. Furthermore, the commenter
stated that an abundance of knowledge
already exists on how to improve
student achievement, and improving the
achievement of students with
disabilities in public charter schools
does not differ significantly from
improving their achievement in nonchartered public schools.
Discussion: We disagree that
‘‘promising practices’’ only refers to
instructional approaches, and we
consider practices that increase
equitable access to public charter
schools for students with disabilities
and the schools’ capacity to enroll
students with disabilities, as well as
approaches that improve student
achievement, student growth, high
school graduation rates, and college
enrollment rates for students with
disabilities to be promising practices.
While existing resources for
improving the achievement of students
with disabilities can benefit public
charter schools and non-chartered
public schools, charter schools need to
be aware of, and have access to, such
resources.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that to better address any issues that
may exist around the enrollment of
students with disabilities in public
charter schools, the activities should be
more closely aligned with
recommendations made in the GAO
report on the enrollment of students
with disabilities in charter schools.2
Discussion: The GAO report
referenced above made the following
recommendations:
1. Update existing guidance to ensure
that public charter schools have better
information about their obligations
related to the enrollment of students
with disabilities; and
2. Conduct additional fact finding and
research to understand the factors
PO 00000
2 Id.
Frm 00036
affecting enrollment of students with
disabilities in public charter schools
and act upon that information, as
appropriate.
We are in the process of updating
existing guidance on the rights of
students with disabilities in charter
schools and are conducting additional
fact finding and research to understand
the factors affecting enrollment of
students with disabilities in public
charter schools. Our response to the
GAO report cited above includes
reviewing and documenting State
policies, guidance, and reports
regarding enrollment of, and services to,
students with disabilities in charter
schools and includes compiling a set of
case studies of charter schools with both
high and low enrollment of students
with disabilities; these activities are
continuing. In the meantime, the CSP
Grants for National Leadership
Activities competition includes Priority
3—Students with Disabilities to help
address enrollment, access, and
achievement of students with
disabilities in charter schools.
In addition, the Department’s
response to the second recommendation
in the GAO report stated that the CSP’s
grant competitions ‘‘are likely to
continue to include competitive and
invitational priorities for applications
that propose to improve achievement for
students with disabilities.’’ The
inclusion of Priority 3—Students with
Disabilities in this notice of final
priorities addresses that
recommendation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that Priority 3—Students with
Disabilities include a research
component that would provide national
leadership in discovering the nature of,
and systematically identifying the
solution to, the underrepresentation of
students with disabilities in certain
locations, as identified in the GAO
report on the enrollment of students
with disabilities in charter schools.3 The
commenter also suggested the
Department prioritize research on the
outcomes of students with disabilities
who attend charter schools.
Discussion: The Department
understands the importance of research
and evaluation of issues around the
enrollment of students with disabilities
in charter schools, which may advance
policies that support equitable access to
charter schools for students with
disabilities. While this priority does not
specifically mention research
components, applicants may propose
activities focused on research and
3 Id.
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
evaluation. While not the primary intent
of this program, those activities would
be permitted, so long as the applicant
meets all other requirements and
submits an application that meets all
parts of the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that Priority 3—Students with
Disabilities mention stand-alone strict
discipline academies. Specifically, the
commenter mentions that these
academies do not meet the open
enrollment requirement.
Discussion: To receive funding
through the CSP, a charter school must
meet all requirements outlined in the
definition of a charter school in section
5210 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA).
Therefore, to qualify as an eligible
applicant under the CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities
competition, a charter school must meet
all parts of the definition of a charter
school in section 5210 of the ESEA. This
includes section 5210(1)(G), which
requires that a charter school comply
with certain Federal civil rights laws,
including section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Part B
of the IDEA, and section 5210(1)(H),
which requires that it is a school to
which parents choose to send their
children, and that admits students on
the basis of a lottery, if more students
apply for admission than can be
accommodated. Further, although we
are not familiar with the requirements
for ‘‘strict discipline academies,’’
charter school discipline policies and
procedures must comply with the
requirements of section 504 and section
615(k) of the IDEA and their
implementing regulations.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested a third activity for Priority 3—
Students with Disabilities and Priority
4—English Learners. Specifically, the
commenters recommended developing
cooperation and collaboration between a
public charter school, a non-chartered
public school, special education
communities, and English learner
advocacy communities be added to the
priorities, as each sector would provide
insightful development and promote
dissemination of effective approaches to
serving these students.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for Priority 3—
Students with Disabilities and Priority
4—English Learners. We agree with the
commenters that promoting
collaborative activities between a
charter school, a non-chartered public
school, key special education
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
stakeholders, and key English learner
stakeholders is important. After
reviewing the comments, we also
consider the suggested additions to be
beneficial to both Priority 3—Students
with Disabilities and Priority 4—English
Learners.
Changes: We added the following
activity as paragraph (3) of Priority 3—
Students with Disabilities: ‘‘Promoting
collaborative activities between charter
schools, non-chartered public schools,
and key special education stakeholders
designed to improve student
achievement, including student growth,
and attainment (e.g., high school
graduation rates, college enrollment
rates) for students with disabilities.’’ We
also added the following corresponding
activity as paragraph (3) of Priority 4—
English Learners: ‘‘Promoting
collaborative activities between charter
schools, non-chartered public schools,
and key English learner stakeholders
designed to improve student
achievement, including student growth,
and attainment (e.g., high school
graduation rates, college enrollment
rates) for English learners.’’
Comment: One commenter suggested
changing the wording of the ‘‘activities’’
section of Priority 3—Students with
Disabilities to more appropriately reflect
the legal obligations of public charter
schools. The commenter suggested that
projects designed to ensure equitable
enrollment, recruitment, and
opportunities in charter schools for
students with disabilities would more
accurately reflect the responsibility
incumbent on public charter schools.
Another commenter suggested that
charter schools must be held
accountable for ensuring access to all
students and for providing meaningful
teaching and instruction designed to
improve educational outcomes for those
students. The commenter felt that the
language in the NPP did not include a
focus on recruitment and serving
students with disabilities.
Discussion: We agree that public
charter schools must provide equitable
access to students with disabilities. In
this context, we think equitable access
includes equitable enrollment
opportunities as well as capabilities of
public charter schools to meet the needs
of students with disabilities during
recruitment and once enrolled. In
addition, we place a similar emphasis in
Priority 4—English Learners.
Changes: We changed the language of
Priority 3—Students with Disabilities
and Priority 4—English Learners by
replacing ‘‘to increase access’’
throughout with ‘‘to increase equitable
access.’’ In Priority 3, we also changed
‘‘increase charter schools’ capacity to
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40655
enroll students with disabilities’’ in
paragraphs (1) and (2) to ‘‘increase
charter schools’ capacity to recruit,
enroll, and serve students with
disabilities.’’ Throughout Priority 4, we
made corresponding edits to maintain
consistency with Priority 3. Specifically,
we replaced ‘‘increase charter schools’
capacity to enroll English learners’’ with
‘‘increase charter schools’ capacity to
recruit, enroll, and serve English
learners . . .’’
Comment: None.
Discussion: After additional review,
we determined that Priority 3—Students
with Disabilities and Priority 4—English
Learners could be clarified by
consistently referring to schools as
‘‘charter schools,’’ where appropriate. In
addition, we determined that,
depending on the nature of the project,
it may not always be appropriate for
each project under Priority 3 to
‘‘improve student achievement, student
growth, high school graduation rates,
and college enrollment rates for
students with disabilities.’’ We edited
paragraph (1) of Priority 3 to ‘‘improve
student achievement, including student
growth, and attainment (e.g., high
school graduation rates, college
enrollment rates) for students with
disabilities’’ to allow more flexibility.
Similarly, for Priority 4, we edited
paragraph (1) to ‘‘improve student
achievement, including student growth
and English proficiency, and attainment
(e.g., high school graduation rates,
college enrollment rates) for English
learners.’’ We made corresponding
changes to paragraph (2) of both
priorities for the same reason. Finally,
we added ‘‘. . . of students with
disabilities’’ in the introductory
paragraph of Priority 3, to maintain a
consistent structure with Priority 4.
Changes: For both Priority 3—
Students with Disabilities and Priority
4—English Learners, we inserted the
word ‘‘charter’’ before schools in three
places. These changes do not alter the
intended meaning; rather, we are adding
the word ‘‘charter’’ to ensure clarity. In
addition, in paragraph (1) of both
priorities, we added the phrase ‘‘to
recruit, enroll, and serve.’’ We also
replaced ‘‘increase charter schools’
enrollment, as well as improve
achievement . . .’’ with ‘‘increase
charter schools’ enrollment of students
with disabilities, as well as improve
achievement . . .’’
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department follow the
recommendations in the GAO report on
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40656
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
English learners in charter schools 4 to
examine why charter schools are unable
to provide accurate enrollment numbers
of specific student populations,
especially English learner populations.
The commenter noted the importance of
educators gaining a better
understanding of the nature of the
problem at a national level, which will
better position researchers and
practitioners to address concerns of
limited access to charter schools for
English learners.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that a better understanding of charter
school non-reporting or underenrollment of English learners should be
addressed. In response to the GAO
report’s finding that they were unable to
compare English learners’ enrollment in
charter schools to English learners
enrollment in non-chartered public
schools due to incomplete data, the
Department continues to improve its
data collection and has been conducting
a systematic review and reconciliation
of directory data across data sources. In
addition, the CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities competition
includes Priority 3—Students with
Disabilities and Priority 4—English
Learners to help address the issues of
enrollment, access, and achievement of
students with disabilities and English
learners in charter schools. We do not
explicitly include data collection in
either priority because data collection
activities may be eligible project
activities under Priority 3 or Priority 4.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that Priority 5—Personalized,
Technology-Enabled Learning should
specifically exclude virtual schools from
eligibility.
Discussion: Virtual schools, provided
they meet the eligibility requirements
described in the Eligibility section, will
not automatically be deemed ineligible.
However, the intent of this priority is to
support projects that incorporate
learning models that blend traditional,
classroom-based teaching and learning
with virtual, online, or digital delivery
of personalized instructional content,
and which are national in scope.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department expand each
priority to ensure that students with
disabilities are specifically mentioned
as examples of the students who may
require personalized and technology4 U.S. Government Accountability Office.
’’Education: Education Needs to Further Examine
Data Collection on English Language Learners in
Charter Schools.’’ GAO–13–655R: Published Jul 17,
2013. Available at: www.gao.gov/assets/660/
655930.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
based supports and services. The
commenter noted that, in particular,
Priority 5—Personalized TechnologyEnabled Learning will be most effective
if it builds on previous work funded by
the Department that provided training to
charter school authorizers and operators
focused on serving students with
disabilities.
Discussion: Activities that focus on
students with disabilities may be
included under any priority, and
activities that include personalized and
technology-based services would be
eligible under Priority 5—Personalized
Technology-Enabled Learning. We agree
that students with disabilities can
benefit from personalized learning, and
Priority 5—Personalized TechnologyEnabled Learning provides that such
projects should be designed to support
high-need students (as defined in this
notice), which includes students with
disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
the Department clarify the types of
activities that it considers essential and
that would be supported under Priority
5—Personalized Technology-Enabled
Learning; specifically, the commenter
suggested highlighting blended learning
as a model supported under this
priority. Similarly, another commenter
provided specific examples of the types
of activities that should be supported
under this priority. A third commenter
suggested that the Department ensure
Priority 5—Personalized TechnologyEnabled Learning focus on the
development of education technology
and online platforms, collaborative
practices, and instructional models for
dissemination, in addition to research
into blended learning implementation.
Discussion: The CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities
competition is designed to encourage
innovative solutions to address a
number of public educational needs
across the Nation. In order to support
innovation in technology-enabled
instructional models, tools, and
supports, we do not want to restrict
applicants to specific types of activities
and have written this priority to allow
applicants flexibility in the projects they
propose. In addition, we note that
applicants proposing projects with a
focus on education technology and
online platforms, collaborative
practices, and instructional models for
dissemination may be eligible under
Priority 1—Increasing Efficiency
through Economies of Scale, in addition
to Priority 5.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Discussion: After additional review,
we determined that the language of
Priority 5—Personalized TechnologyEnabled Learning should remain
consistent with an ultimate goal of
increasing overall student learning,
rather than simply providing
instruction. The technology-enabled
instructional models, tools, and
supports referenced in this priority are
intended to personalize students’
learning. The phrase ‘‘personalize
instruction’’ that was included in the
proposed priority implies an emphasis
on the process, (i.e., instruction), rather
than on the outcome (i.e., learning).
Changes: We removed the phrase
‘‘personalize instruction’’ from Priority
5—Personalized Technology-Enabled
Learning and revised the priority
language to say ‘‘supports that
personalize learning.’’
Definitions
Comment: None.
Discussion: We added the definitions
for ‘‘national level’’ and ‘‘regional
level,’’ as these terms are now
referenced within other parts of this
notice. These definitions are used in
other Department grant competitions
and the definitions come from 34 CFR
77.1.
Changes: The definitions for ‘‘national
level’’ and ‘‘regional level’’ have been
added.
Comment: One commenter suggested
the Department revise the definition of
‘‘significant compliance issues’’ to
accommodate current practice by
rigorous authorizers that are unlikely to
revoke a charter for a single or limited
event. The commenter further explained
that the proposed definition reflected a
zero-tolerance approach that is
inappropriate, as it takes a pattern of
misbehavior, or individual failures that
are more egregious, to lead an
authorized public chartering agency to
revoke a school’s charter.
Discussion: The Department agrees
with the need for further clarification on
the issue of compliance with Federal
and State law, and authorizer policy.
Changes: We revised the definition of
‘‘significant compliance issue’’ to clarify
that these are issues that, if not
addressed or are representative of a
pattern of misconduct or noncompliance, could lead to the
revocation of a school’s charter.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
altering the definition of ‘‘charter school
national level.’’ One commenter
suggested changing the proposed
definition to clarify that any public or
private nonprofit organization with a
mission that explicitly includes
supporting charter schools is eligible for
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
this competition, including those that
are able to support a wide variety of
charter schools from both urban and
rural areas. Another commenter noted
that the definition places an undue
burden on an applicant to disseminate
urban-focused best practices to agencies,
organizations, or groups that must serve
rural agencies.
Discussion: The definition of ‘‘charter
school national level’’ is not designed to
limit eligible organizations, but rather to
define a level at which activities take
place. The Department believes that a
broad, national scope for project
activities and for dissemination is
necessary to meet the goals of the
program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters
requested that the definition of ‘‘highquality charter school’’ be revised. One
commenter suggested the Department
make the definition consistent with the
definition of ‘‘highly mobile students,’’
with particular attention given to how
highly mobile students and related data
will be counted in accountability
assessments across State lines. Two
other commenters noted that the
proposed definition for high-quality
charter school did not take into account
new schools with no achievement data
and would be applied comprehensively,
instead of considering additional factors
that make up high-quality schools. In
addition, one of those commenters
stated that the proposed definition did
not take into account the role of
authorizers and accountability systems
within applicable States.
Discussion: The definition of ‘‘highquality charter school’’ is designed to
emphasize the importance of a school’s
evidence of strong academic
performance for the past three years, or
over the life of the school, if the school
has been open for fewer than three
years, and we decline to make the
definition consistent with that of highly
mobile students, which is not used in
this notice. We agree that the proposed
definition of ‘‘high-quality charter
school’’ should be strengthened to take
into account the role of authorizers and
accountability systems and have added
paragraph (a)(4), which focuses on the
results of a performance framework
established by the State or authorized
public chartering agency. In addition,
we made a number of clarifying edits to
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3). These are
not intended to change the meaning of
the priority but only to clarify our
intent. As described elsewhere in this
document, we also edited parts of
Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale and Priority
2—Improving Accountability so
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
authorizers are not held accountable for
authorizing only high-quality charter
schools or only having high-quality
charter schools in their portfolios of
schools. In addition, the insertion of
‘‘and equitable and nondiscriminatory
treatment for students’’ in paragraph
(a)(5) of the high-quality charter school
definition is meant to ensure that
compliance extends to the civil rights of
students. Upon further review, we
edited paragraph (a)(1) of the same
definition to include high school
graduation rates and college and other
postsecondary enrollment rates.
Paragraph (a)(3) has been similarly
edited in that the list of achieved results
include student attendance, retention
rates, and postsecondary attendance and
persistence rates.
Changes: We added the clarifying
phrases ‘‘(including, if applicable, high
school graduation rates and college and
other postsecondary enrollment rates)’’
and ‘‘served by the charter school’’ in
paragraph (a)(1). In paragraph (a)(3), we
added ‘‘student attendance and
retention rates,’’ ‘‘postsecondary
attendance and persistence rates,’’ and
‘‘if applicable and available’’ in
paragraph (a)(3). We also removed the
word ‘‘achieved’’ before the word
‘‘results’’ in paragraph (a)(3), as it is
redundant. We added paragraph (a)(4):
‘‘Positive results on a performance
framework established by the State or
authorized public chartering agency for
purposes of evaluating charter school
quality’’ and renumbered proposed
paragraph (a)(4) to be paragraph (a)(5).
In the final paragraph (a)(5), we added
‘‘and equitable and nondiscriminatory
treatment for students’’ at the end of the
paragraph. We also added a new
paragraph (b) to the definition to clarify
that an applicant can use its State’s
definition of high-quality charter school,
provided that the State’s definition is at
least as rigorous as the definition
included in this notice.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of
the definition of ‘‘high-quality charter
school,’’ we determined that the third
paragraph of this definition, which has
been used in multiple Department
competitions and shows how achieved
results compare to results for similar
lolstudents in the State, was missing.
Therefore, we included language to
ensure the element is discussed.
Changes: In paragraph (a)(3) of the
definition for ‘‘high-quality charter
school,’’ we inserted ‘‘that are above the
average academic achievement results
for such students in the State.’’
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the definition of ‘‘student
achievement’’ include other universally
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40657
available measures of student learning
that are tied to teacher evaluations,
which currently are not addressed in the
definition.
Discussion: The definition for
‘‘student achievement’’ requires that any
measures used be comparable across
schools, which we think is a key
component of this definition. As noted
elsewhere in this notice, it is important
that the CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities competition use
definitions consistent with other
Department programs. Because of the
variation in measures that tie student
learning to teacher evaluations, and
because proposed projects will be
national in scope, we do not think that
applicants would be able to compare
increases in student achievement across
districts and States if teacher evaluation
measures were to be incorporated into
this definition.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
that the proposed definition of ‘‘highneed students’’ should be reviewed for
further clarification. One commenter
suggested adding ‘‘first generation
college-bound students’’ to the list of
high-need student indicators. Another
commenter noted that this definition
should be reviewed to ensure the focus
is on charter schools and not higher
education.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters that it is important to
ensure that each definition used in the
CSP Grants for National Leadership
Activities competition is appropriate to
the CSP’s mission. The definition for
high-need students does not specifically
mention charter schools or nonchartered public schools; however, any
student at risk of educational failure
would be included under the definition,
regardless of the school that student
attends.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department develop definitions
for ‘‘rural public charter schools’’ and
‘‘Rural State.’’
Discussion: Rural public charter
schools and rural State are not terms
that are used in these priorities, so it is
unclear how those definitions would be
used. Because the commenter did not
provide context for this suggestion, we
are unable to provide additional
clarification. Applicants that want to
demonstrate their commitment to
serving rural areas may use elements of
the definition of ‘‘rural local educational
agency,’’ which is defined by other
programs at the Department as an LEA
that is eligible under the Small Rural
School Achievement program or the
Rural and Low-Income School program
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
40658
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
authorized under Title VI, Part B of the
ESEA. See www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/
local/reap.html. The elements of the
definition can be used by applicants to
demonstrate their commitment to
serving rural areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
modifying the definition of ‘‘community
of practice’’ to include public and
private nonprofit organizations with a
mission that explicitly includes
supporting charter schools to better
promote a community of practice within
and across State lines.
Discussion: We currently include the
term ‘‘stakeholders’’ in the definition,
which provides a wider range of options
than the suggested change. Because we
do not want to unnecessarily limit
participation in the community of
practice (as defined in this notice), we
decline to revise the term used in the
definition in a manner that would limit
the types of stakeholders included in
the communities of practice.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the definition for ‘‘logic model’’ was
different than the definition currently
used in 34 CFR 77.1.
Discussion: As noted elsewhere in
this notice, we agree that it is important
the CSP Grants for National Leadership
Activities competition use definitions
consistent with other Department
programs. As such, we will use the same
definition for logic model as included in
34 CFR 77.1.
Changes: We replaced the term
‘‘charter school logic model’’ with
‘‘logic model’’ from 34 CFR 77.1.
Eligibility
Comment: One commenter suggested
the language in the Eligibility section be
reviewed. Specifically, the commenter
felt that there is no explicit language
permitting an applicant to apply as an
individual nonprofit organization,
although that may be implied. The
commenter suggested we change
‘‘Eligible applicants may apply as a
group or consortium’’ to ‘‘Eligible
applicants may apply as an individual
organization as defined above or as a
partnership or consortium.’’ A second
commenter asked whether an individual
charter school operator could be an
eligible applicant.
Discussion: Eligible applicants
include public and private nonprofit
organizations with a mission that
explicitly supports operating,
supporting, or managing charter
schools, which makes individual
organizations eligible. The intent of this
grant competition is to support projects
of national significance and scope;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
however, we agree that clarification is
needed on whether individual charter
schools are eligible. An individual
charter school that meets all eligibility
requirements could apply under this
competition. We also want to clarify
that eligible applicants may be
organizations whose missions involve
operating, supporting, and managing
charter schools—not just supporting
charter schools. Upon further review of
the Eligibility section, we determined
that additional clarity was needed to
reflect that CMOs are eligible entities. In
addition, upon further review, we added
a requirement that, to the extent that
eligible applicants that are partnerships
or consortia include charter schools, the
lead applicant, each charter school
operated or managed by the lead
applicant and all partnership or
consortium members, including, in the
case of a CMO applicant, all charter
schools managed by the CMO, must
meet the definition of high-quality
charter school (as defined in this
notice). We made this change to clarify
that CMO applicants are eligible and
that all charter schools in a partnership
or consortium must meet the definition
of high-quality charter school. We also
added a requirement that eligible
applicants that are charter schools may
not have any significant compliance
issues (as defined in this notice) to
ensure that these applicants do not have
any violations that did, will, or could
lead to the revocation of the school’s
charter.
Changes: We edited the Eligibility
section to include ‘‘public and private
nonprofit entities with a mission that
explicitly includes operating,
supporting, or managing charter
schools.’’ In addition, we added the
following language to the Eligibility
section: ‘‘Eligible applicants that are
charter schools may not have any
significant compliance issues (as
defined in this notice), including in the
areas of student safety, financial
management, civil rights, and statutory
or regulatory compliance. In addition, to
the extent that eligible applicants that
are partnerships or consortia include
charter schools, the lead applicant, each
charter school operated or managed by
the lead applicant, and all partnership
or consortium members, including, in
the case of a CMO applicant, all charter
schools managed by the CMO, must
meet the definition of high-quality
charter school (as defined in this
notice).’’
Comment: One commenter suggested
changing the regulations that require
eligible public and private nonprofit
organizations to have a mission that
explicitly includes supporting charter
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
schools so that all organizations and
communities affected by such policies
may apply whether or not their missions
provide explicit references to
supporting charter schools. The
commenter recommended that
community-based organizations and
national intermediaries that represent
the communities served by charter
schools be considered as eligible
entities.
Discussion: The Eligibility section
does not preclude community-based
organizations and national
intermediaries from applying, provided
they meet all eligibility requirements,
including that their organizational
missions explicitly include supporting
charter schools. Because funds for the
CSP Grants for National Leadership
Activities competition are appropriated
for charter schools, we seek to ensure
that organizations supported by these
funds are focused on supporting charter
schools.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for
Innovation and Improvement
establishes the following five priorities
for the CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities competition. We
may apply one or more of these
priorities in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Priority 1—Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale
This 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, supporting,
and sustaining high-quality charter
schools (as defined in this notice).
An applicant addressing this priority
must apply as part of an existing or
proposed partnership or consortium that
includes two or more high-quality
charter schools, as defined in this
notice, and must include detailed
descriptions (including supporting
documentation) of the following:
(1) The proposed project activities of
the partnership or consortium and how
and to what extent the activities will
achieve efficiencies in the use of time,
staff, money, services for special
populations, or other resources related
to operating charter schools;
(2) The members or proposed
members of the partnership or
consortium, how the composition of this
partnership or consortium contributes to
achieving efficiencies, and the specific
activities each member or proposed
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
member will implement. Applicants
must demonstrate that members of the
existing or proposed partnership or
consortium are not affiliated exclusively
with a common network (e.g., a charter
management organization);
(3) How the proposed project
activities will help create charter
schools that demonstrate the capacity to
become high-quality charter schools,
support new charter schools to become
high-quality charter schools, and sustain
charter schools that are high-quality;
(4) How information about the
proposed project activities will be
disseminated primarily to charter
schools as the chief stakeholder group,
and secondarily to other stakeholders,
such as charter school support
organizations, LEAs, 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 of the
proposed project.
Priority 2—Improving Accountability
This 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 multiple
sources of data, including disaggregated
student 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
disseminate information on the
performance of charter schools.
Applicants addressing this priority
must provide detailed descriptions
(including supporting documentation)
of the following:
(1) How the proposed project will
improve, at the regional level (as
defined in this notice) or the national
level (as defined in this notice),
authorized public chartering agencies’
capacity to:
i. Approve only applications that
demonstrate capacity to create and
sustain high-quality charter schools (as
defined in this notice) and meet the
standards of a rigorous application
process and review;
ii. Monitor and oversee charter
schools through measurable
performance goals and multiple sources
of regularly collected academic and
operational performance data (using
financial data, disaggregated student
discipline data, and disaggregated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
student performance data, including
metrics to assess educational equity for
students with disabilities, English
learners, and other students in need of
specialized services);
iii. Identify schools eligible for
renewal and those that should be
closed, through clear renewal and
revocation criteria; and
iv. Evaluate authorizer and portfolio
performance and disseminate
information on that performance;
(2) The applicant’s prior success in
improving, at the regional level (as
defined in this notice) or the national
level (as defined in this notice),
authorized public chartering agencies’
capacity to:
i. Approve only applications that
demonstrate the capacity to create and
sustain high-quality charter schools (as
defined in this notice) and meet the
standards of a rigorous application
process and review;
ii. Monitor and oversee charter
schools through measurable
performance goals and multiple sources
of regularly collected academic and
operational performance data (using
financial data, disaggregated student
discipline data, and disaggregated
student performance data, including
metrics to assess educational equity for
students with disabilities, English
learners, and other students in need of
specialized services);
iii. Identify schools eligible for
renewal and those that should be
closed, through clear renewal and
revocation criteria; and
iv. Evaluate authorizer and portfolio
performance and disseminate
information on that performance;
(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 (as defined in this
notice);
(4) How the dissemination strategy
will include assembling a community of
practice (as defined in this notice) for
the stakeholder group(s) served; and
(5) The national significance of the
proposed project.
Priority 3—Students With Disabilities
This priority is for projects of national
significance and scope that are designed
to increase equitable access to charter
schools for students with disabilities
and increase charter schools’ enrollment
of students with disabilities, as well as
improve achievement (including
student achievement and student
growth) and attainment (including high
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40659
school graduation rates and college
enrollment rates) for students with
disabilities in charter schools, through
one or more of the following activities:
(1) Developing strategies and tools to
increase equitable access to charter
schools for students with disabilities
and increase charter schools’ capacity to
recruit, enroll, and serve students with
disabilities, and improve student
achievement, including student growth,
and attainment (e.g., high school
graduation rates, college enrollment
rates) for students with disabilities.
(2) Disseminating promising practices
for increasing equitable access to charter
schools for students with disabilities;
increasing charter schools’ capacity to
recruit, enroll, and serve students with
disabilities; and improving student
achievement, including student growth,
and attainment (e.g., high school
graduation rates, college enrollment
rates) for students with disabilities.
(3) Promoting collaborative activities
between charter schools, non-chartered
public schools, and key special
education stakeholders designed to
improve student achievement, including
student growth, and attainment (e.g.,
high school graduation rates, college
enrollment rates) for students with
disabilities.
Priority 4—English Learners
This priority is for projects of national
significance and scope that are designed
to increase equitable access to charter
schools for English learners and
increase charter schools’ enrollment of
English learners, as well as improve
academic achievement (including
student achievement and student
growth) and attainment (including
English proficiency, high school
graduation rates, and college enrollment
rates) for English learners, through one
or more of the following activities:
(1) Developing strategies and tools to
increase equitable access to charter
schools for English learners; increase
charter schools’ capacity to recruit,
enroll, and serve English learners; and
improve student achievement, including
student growth and English proficiency,
and attainment (e.g., high school
graduation rates, college enrollment
rates) for English learners.
(2) Disseminating promising practices
for increasing equitable access to charter
schools for English learners; increasing
charter schools’ capacity to recruit,
enroll, and serve English learners; and
improving student achievement,
including student growth and English
proficiency, and attainment (e.g., high
school graduation rates, college
enrollment rates) for English learners.
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
40660
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Promoting collaborative activities
between charter schools, non-chartered
public schools, and key English learner
stakeholders designed to improve
student achievement, including student
growth and English proficiency, and
attainment (e.g., high school graduation
rates, college enrollment rates) for
English learners.
Priority 5—Personalized TechnologyEnabled Learning
This priority is for projects of national
significance and scope that are designed
to improve achievement and attainment
outcomes for high-need students (as
defined in this notice) through the
development and implementation in
charter schools of technology-enabled
instructional models, tools, and
supports that personalize learning.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, we consider only applications
that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Final Requirements
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for
Innovation and Improvement
establishes the following program
requirements for the CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities
competitions. 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 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
be successful with a CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities grant.
Application Requirements
(a) Logic Model: An applicant for a
CSP Grants for National Leadership
Activities grant must provide a logic
model (as defined in this notice)
supporting its project.
(b) 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 operating,
supporting, or managing 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 partnership or consortium
and, if so applying, must comply with
the requirements for group applications
set forth in 34 CFR 75.127–75.129.
Eligible applicants that are charter
schools may not have any significant
compliance issues (as defined in this
notice), including in the areas of student
safety, financial management, civil
rights, and statutory or regulatory
compliance. In addition, to the extent
that eligible applicants that are
partnerships or consortia include
charter schools, the lead applicant, each
charter school operated or managed by
the lead applicant, and all partnership
or consortium members, including, in
the case of a CMO applicant, all charter
schools managed by the CMO, must
meet the definition of high-quality
charter school (as defined in this
notice).
Final Definitions
In addition to the definitions
otherwise included in section 5210 of
the ESEA, which includes the definition
of ‘‘charter school,’’ and 34 CFR 77.1,
we are establishing the following
definitions for the CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities
competition. We may apply one or more
of these definitions in any year in which
this program is in effect.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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) 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 (including,
if applicable, high school graduation
rates and college and other
postsecondary enrollment rates) 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
(20 U.S.C. 6311) 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 (20 U.S.C.
6311) at the charter school and
significant gains in student academic
achievement for all populations of
students served by the charter school;
(3) Results (including, if applicable
and available, performance on statewide
tests, annual student attendance and
retention rates, high school graduation
rates, college and other postsecondary
attendance rates, and college and other
postsecondary persistence rates) for
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
low-income and other educationally
disadvantaged students served by the
charter school that are above the average
academic achievement results for such
students in the State;
(4) Positive results on a performance
framework established by the State or
authorized public chartering agency for
purposes of evaluating charter school
quality; and
(5) No significant compliance issues
(as defined in this notice), particularly
in the areas of student safety, financial
management, and equitable and
nondiscriminatory treatment for
students; or
(b) A high-quality charter school as
defined by the State, provided that the
State’s definition is at least as rigorous
as paragraph (a).
Logic model (also referred to as theory
of action), as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c),
means a well-specified conceptual
framework that identifies key
components of the proposed process,
product, strategy, or practice (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.
National level, as defined in 34 CFR
77.1(c), describes the level of scope or
effectiveness of a process, product,
strategy, or practice that is able to be
effective in a wide variety of
communities, including rural and urban
areas, as well as with different groups
(e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial
and ethnic groups, migrant populations,
individuals with disabilities, English
learners, and individuals of each
gender).
Regional level, as defined in 34 CFR
77.1(c), describes the level of scope or
effectiveness of a process, product,
strategy, or practice that is able to serve
a variety of communities within a State
or multiple States, including rural and
urban areas, as well as with different
groups (e.g., economically
disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups,
migrant populations, individuals with
disabilities, English learners, and
individuals of each gender). For an LEAbased project to be considered a
regional-level project, a process,
product, strategy, or practice must serve
students in more than one LEA, unless
the process, product, strategy, or
practice is implemented in a State in
which the State educational agency is
the sole educational agency for all
schools.
Relevant outcome, as defined in 34
CFR 77.1(c), means the student
outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if
not related to students) the proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
process, product, strategy, or practice is
designed to improve; consistent with
the specific goals of a program.
Significant compliance issue means a
violation that did, will, or could (if not
addressed or if it represents a pattern of
repeated misconduct or material noncompliance) 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,
(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
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40661
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.’’
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40662
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
We are issuing these final 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.
Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory
action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:56 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 9, 2014.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2014–16462 Filed 7–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0715, FRL–9913–28–
Region–10]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Infrastructure Requirements for the
1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter
and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires that each state, after a new or
revised National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) is promulgated,
review their State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to ensure that it meets the
infrastructure requirements necessary to
implement the new or revised standard.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) finds that the Idaho SIP meets the
infrastructure requirements of the CAA
for the NAAQS promulgated for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 18,
1997 and October 17, 2006, and for
ozone on March 12, 2008. The EPA also
finds that the Idaho SIP meets the
interstate transport requirements of the
CAA related to prevention of significant
deterioration and visibility for the 2006
PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
August 13, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR–
2011–0715. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information
may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or
other information the disclosure of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
which is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in
hard copy form. Publicly available
docket materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste,
and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The
EPA requests that you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Hall at: (206) 553–6357,
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA,
Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Response to Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On September 15, 2008, June 28,
2010, and August 10, 2011, Idaho made
submissions to the EPA demonstrating
that the Idaho SIP meets the
infrastructure requirements of the CAA
for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008
ozone NAAQS. On March 26, 2014, we
proposed action on these submissions
(79 FR 16711). On April 15, 2014, we
made a correction to our proposal
because we supplied an incorrect docket
number in our proposed action (79 FR
21179). However, any commenter
wishing to submit comments did not
need to resubmit them, because we
routed the comments to the correct
docket.
An explanation of the CAA
requirements and implementing
regulations that are met by these SIP
submissions, a detailed explanation of
the submissions, and the EPA’s reasons
for the proposed action were provided
in the notice of proposed rulemaking on
March 26, 2014, and will not be restated
here (79 FR 16711). The public
comment period for our proposed action
ended on April 25, 2014, and we
received one comment.
II. Response to Comment
Comment: We received the following
anonymous comment through the
www.regulations.gov Web site: ‘‘When
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40647-40662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16462]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[CFDA Number: 84.282N]
Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions--Charter Schools
Program (CSP) Grants for National Leadership Activities
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
announces final priorities, requirements, and definitions under the CSP
Grants for National Leadership Activities. The Assistant Deputy
Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, and
definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years.
DATES: Effective Date: These final priorities, requirements, and
definitions are effective August 13, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Martin, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W224, Washington, DC 20202-
5970. 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:
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 academic achievement, staff, and parents;
(3) Expanding the number of high-quality charter schools (as
defined in the notice) 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 non-chartered public
schools.
The purpose of the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities
(CFDA 84.282N) 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
The CSP is authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221-7221i; CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities are authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221d.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) published a notice of
proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions (NPP) for the CSP
Grants for National Leadership Activities in the Federal Register on
December 3, 2013 (78 FR 72600). The NPP contained background
information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities,
requirements, and definitions.
The Analysis of Comments and Changes section in this notice
describes the differences between the priorities, requirements, and
definitions we proposed in the NPP and these final priorities,
requirements, and definitions. The two most significant changes are as
follows:
We revised the language in Priority 2--Improving Accountability to
clarify how applicants can describe how their projects will improve
authorized public chartering agencies' capacity to approve new charter
schools. We made this change because the proposed priority referred to
authorized public chartering agencies' capacity to approve only high-
quality charter schools, which, as defined in this notice, requires
that the school show 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). While authorized public chartering
agencies, or authorizers, should approve only high-quality charter
petitions, it is not feasible for authorizers to approve only high-
quality charter schools as defined in this notice, as the definition
would not allow an authorizer to approve a new charter school with no
academic achievement data.
We revised Priority 3--Students with Disabilities and Priority 4--
English Learners to allow applicants to address the priorities by
promoting collaborative activities between charter schools, non-
chartered public schools, and as applicable, key special education
stakeholders or key English learner stakeholders, which are designed to
improve academic achievement and attainment outcomes for these student
subgroups.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 38
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements,
and definitions.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address comments that raise concerns not directly
related to the proposed priorities, requirements, or definitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
any changes in the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions
since publication of the NPP follows.
Priorities
Comment: Multiple commenters made suggestions regarding how each of
the priorities should be designated (i.e.,
[[Page 40648]]
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational). Specifically, one
commenter suggested that we use Priority 1--Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale as an invitational priority because,
according to the commenter, the objectives of the priority are already
in place through cooperative agreements with school districts and
private organizations. Another commenter suggested that due to the
overall growth of English learners, Priority 4--English Learners should
be a competitive preference priority. A third commenter suggested that
Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning should be an
absolute priority, as positive impact can be seen across all student
subgroups.
Discussion: This notice is designed only to establish the
priorities that we may choose to use in the CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities competitions in 2015 and future years. We do not
designate whether a priority will be absolute, competitive, or
invitational in this notice; we retain the flexibility to determine how
best to designate the priorities to ensure that funded projects address
the most pressing areas of need for competitions in 2015 or in future
years. When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
of these priorities, we will designate the type of each priority
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that each of the priorities should
place more of an emphasis on communication and dissemination activities
in order to ensure that each project's effectiveness can be reviewed
and evaluated by other organizations.
Discussion: We appreciate the suggestion and agree that the
evaluation of a project and the communication and dissemination of
information about a project's effectiveness are important. Because
entities receiving the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities
are required to demonstrate how they will disseminate information at
the charter school national level (as defined in this notice), an
emphasis on communication and dissemination already exists in this
notice. Although we agree project evaluation and dissemination of the
results of the evaluation are critical to the CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities, we do not think it is necessary to develop a
program-specific requirement regarding evaluation because evaluation
design can be addressed through selection criteria. Specifically, the
Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) include
a selection criterion under 34 CFR 75.210(h), Quality of the Project
Evaluation, that provides selection factors that encourage applicants
to conduct rigorous evaluations of their projects and disseminate
relevant findings, which could be incorporated in the selection
criteria for a future competition under this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested creating a priority designed to
increase the development and refinement of charter school leaders. One
of the commenters stated that creating a leadership pipeline was
important, particularly in the current context of major reforms,
including the implementation of Common Core State Standards and new
teacher evaluation systems. Both commenters stated that high-quality
leaders are of critical national importance as States launch new
assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards.
Discussion: We agree that improving human capital development for
the charter school sector is of national significance. However, we do
not think a separate priority is needed to address this issue. We note
that applicants already have flexibility to incorporate activities
involving human capital development as part of projects addressing
Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of Scale.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed that the Department add an
additional priority, ``Promoting Racial and Economic Diversity.''
Another commenter proposed we add a similar priority with a focus on
diversity and cultural competency. Both commenters noted that the
absence of a school diversity priority is especially troubling in light
of Department publications that emphasize the importance of, and offer
guidance with respect to, issues regarding diversity in public
education.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns and agree that
increasing diversity is important; however, we do not think a separate
priority is needed. We note that efforts to increase diversity and
cultural competency can be included as allowable activities under the
priorities selected for CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities
competitions. In addition, the eligible applicants under other CSP
competitions, such as those under the CSP State Educational Agency
(SEA) competition, whose grantees provide start-up and dissemination
grants directly to individual charter schools, are likely better suited
to increase diversity in charter schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we create an additional
priority that rewards applicants that demonstrate their schools have an
expulsion and suspension rate similar to, or lower than, the schools in
their surrounding communities or school districts. In addition, the
commenter recommended preference be given to grant applicants under
this program that have a record of serving students with disabilities
and English learners at the same or better rates than their surrounding
communities or school districts.
Discussion: Although we appreciate the commenter's concerns, the
CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities competition is designed
to support projects of national significance for charter schools and is
not meant to award points based on the specific characteristics of a
given school.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested we add a priority addressing the
following topics: curriculum, instruction and assessment, data-driven
decision-making and analysis, performance management, and professional
learning communities.
Discussion: We agree that each of the topics above, especially for
the purpose of improving student achievement and teacher effectiveness,
is an area of national significance. However, we do not think a
separate priority is needed to address these topics as applicants
already have flexibility to incorporate these topics as part of
projects addressing Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies
of Scale.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that many charter school
incubators and other investing organizations play a major role in
opening and closing charter schools; therefore, the Department should
consider assisting such organizations in increasing the quality of
their investment processes and the sharing of their best practices
under this program.
Discussion: We think investing organizations, such as charter
school incubators, play an important role in the charter school sector.
We note that applicants already have flexibility to incorporate these
concepts as part of projects addressing Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended removing the national scope
requirement from Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of
Scale and Priority 2--Improving Accountability. The commenter stated
that, for Priority 1, the costs of
[[Page 40649]]
providing services for English learners and students with disabilities,
and educators, in addition to the costs associated with bringing
schools in different geographic locations together, far outweigh the
costs saved by developing systems of scale. The commenter stated that
Priority 2's requirement for projects of national significance and
scope would exclude authorized public chartering agencies that limit
their charters to only one State.
Discussion: As the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities
competition is dedicated to national activities, it is important that
we award grants for projects with a national relevance. We disagree
that the cost of implementing a project that is national in its scope
outweighs the benefits of developing shared systems of collaboration
and information. In Priority 1, the Department encourages organizations
affiliated with the charter school sector to implement innovative ideas
for achieving economies of scale and aggregating demand in the charter
sector. Applicants addressing these priorities must describe how the
project will have national significance and scope. However, the
priorities do not dictate how an individual applicant should
incorporate national significance or scope into its proposed project.
We think that if an applicant proposed a project that would occur
within only one State, but still demonstrated that the proposed project
is of national significance and scope and meets all requirements, the
proposed project could be eligible under Priority 1 or Priority 2.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested eliminating Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale. One commenter felt that the
priority does not warrant enough importance for this competition. A
second commenter stated that the idea behind the priority was
appealing, but that, in practice, transaction costs often outweigh any
sustainable economies of scale.
Discussion: We think Priority 1 is important for this competition,
as it will encourage more collaboration and improve efficiencies in the
charter sector. This priority is intended to address the barriers that
charter schools experience when trying to achieve economies of scale,
and to promote shared systems for acquiring and developing resources
supporting the charter school sector. By promoting projects of national
significance that can encourage such shared systems and that support
the dissemination and replication of successful practices nationally,
including the assembly of communities of practice, we think eligible
applicants will address the concerns and transaction costs that can
potentially discourage such partnerships and collaborations. In
addition, we think that the creation of partnerships and collaborations
will foster the development of innovative practices in scaling
operational services that may benefit schools. This priority is not
only for charter school collaborations that are achieving economies of
scale but could also be for organizations bringing charter schools
together to develop economies of scale and thus reduce the costs and
burden placed on the schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that Priority 1--Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale appears to indicate that urban centers may
receive preferential treatment over rural areas. The commenter
suggested that a competition of truly national scope must include a
goal of creating and supporting both a single site and a network of
vibrant rural sites, as well as serving large urban areas.
Discussion: The priorities are designed to encourage charter school
projects with a national scope and significance. The definition of
``charter school national level'' used in Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale and Priority 2--Improving
Accountability states that the applicant's dissemination strategy at
the charter school national level will consist of working across
multiple States across the country, including rural and urban areas.
Other priorities only require that projects are of national
significance and scope, which does not give preference to urban centers
over rural areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged that a series of in-depth cost studies
be undertaken to provide a detailed overview of the types of costs
associated with Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of
Scale.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern regarding the
types of costs associated with Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through
Economies of Scale. Applicants that apply under this priority would
need to describe how, and the extent to which, the activities proposed
in their applications will achieve efficiencies. These narrative
descriptions in the applications, along with the other measures in
paragraphs (2) through (5) of Priority 1 will allow peer reviewers to
evaluate whether, and to what extent, applicants will achieve
efficiencies in the use of time, staff, money, services for special
populations, or other resources. Provided an applicant meets all
requirements under this priority, the applicant could propose to use
these funds to conduct a cost study as part of its proposed project
activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked if Priority 1--Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale supports economies of scale that can arise
from teacher-based cooperative arrangements or human capital management
solutions. The commenter also asked how the priority would apply to
individual schools, or whether a critical evaluation of office products
or services, group licensing of licensed services, or a comparison with
various sources of teachers and leaders from the cost efficiency
perspective would be sufficient to meeting the requirements of the
priority. In addition, the commenter asked if Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale would apply to efficiencies
across providers within a sector.
Discussion: Individual charter schools, provided they meet all
requirements under this priority, would be eligible to apply as part of
an existing or proposed partnership or consortium. An individual
charter school would not be eligible to apply under this priority
independent of an existing or proposed partnership or consortium. As
stated in Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of Scale,
applicants should seek innovative solutions to achieve efficiencies in
the use of time, staff, money, services for special populations, or
other resources for the purpose of creating, supporting, and sustaining
high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice). If teacher-
based cooperative agreements, human capital management solutions,
critical evaluations of office products or services, group licensing of
licensed services, a comparison with various sources of teachers and
leaders from the cost efficiency perspective, or other proposed
activities would achieve these efficiencies, an applicant could include
these activities to address Priority 1. Similarly, if proposed
activities to increase the efficiencies across providers within a
sector meet all requirements under this priority, an applicant could
include those activities to address Priority 1.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that under Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale, we consider how applicants can
demonstrate that their policies, processes, and communications will
achieve efficiencies in assisting special
[[Page 40650]]
populations, or any activities related to running a high-quality
charter school.
Discussion: Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of
Scale is not limited to specific economies of scale, such as assisting
special populations, or the specific activities of operating a high-
quality charter school (as defined in this notice). We want all
applicants to consider, based on their experience, the areas of
greatest need for the charter school sector to determine how to address
the priority. As such, applicants have the flexibility and discretion
to propose projects that achieve efficiencies in any of the areas
included in the priority language.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale include the possibility for
organizations that have collaborations already in place to apply for
funding.
Discussion: Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of
Scale is intended to encourage the development of consortia of charter
schools that will share systems for acquiring goods or services. We
edited the second introductory paragraph of Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale to clarify that existing
partnerships or consortia could apply under this priority. We agree
that this change is appropriate to further the purpose of the program
and Priority 1.
Changes: We changed the second introductory paragraph of Priority 1
to ``An applicant addressing this priority must apply as part of an
existing or proposed partnership or consortium that includes two or
more high-quality charter schools, as defined in this notice . . .''
Comment: One commenter suggested that the goal of Priority 1--
Improving Efficiency through Economies of Scale is undermined by not
including charter management organizations (CMOs) seeking to promote
shared services and systems. The commenter noted that CMOs are often at
the forefront of efforts to share services and systems, and that
successful CMOs can serve as national models and leaders for district
and charter schools in developing these shared systems and economies of
scale. Conversely, another commenter suggested that Priority 1--
Improving Efficiency through Economies of Scale clarify whether
eligible applicants must be CMOs.
Discussion: To clarify, CMOs are eligible applicants under Priority
1. Eligible applicants include public and private nonprofit
organizations with a mission that explicitly includes operating,
supporting, or managing charter schools; this eligibility includes CMOs
and many other types of organizations. In addition, upon further
review, we determined that the language of the proposed priority would
have allowed a single CMO to develop a partnership or consortium
comprised solely of schools within its network, which was not the
intent. We revised paragraph (2) of Priority 1--Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale to clarify that the applicant must describe
how activities will include members or proposed members that are not
affiliated exclusively with a common network (e.g., a charter
management organization). As such, a CMO applicant's project must
include other entities beyond its current network. This requirement
does not exclude CMOs from applying, but it does require project
applications from CMOs to identify members of the proposed partnership
or consortium beyond their network.
Change: We revised paragraph (2) of Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale to ``The members or proposed
members of the partnership or consortium, how the composition of this
partnership or consortium contributes to achieving efficiencies, and
the specific activities each member or proposed member will implement.
Applicants must demonstrate that members of the existing or proposed
partnership or consortium are not affiliated exclusively with a common
network (e.g., a charter management organization).''
Comment: Two commenters made suggestions regarding consortia in
Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of Scale. One
commenter suggested that charter schools that are not yet high-quality
charter schools be allowed to participate in consortia and receive
services through consortia. The commenter noted that the current
language could be interpreted to only allow consortia to serve schools
that already meet the definition of high-quality charter schools, thus
reducing the effectiveness and viability of consortia. In addition, one
commenter suggested that the priority should not be limited to
developing consortia of charter schools but rather encourage the
development of any innovative system that achieves economies of scale
in the charter sector.
Discussion: The Department would like to clarify that Priority 1--
Improving Efficiency through Economies of Scale does not limit
consortia to serving only schools that meet the definition of high-
quality charter schools; however, all charter schools that apply as
part of a partnership or consortium, or apply under a group
application, must meet that definition. The purpose of this priority is
to establish a connected group that will create an opportunity for
charter schools to develop strategies and practices to assist the
charter schools in becoming high-quality charter schools (as defined in
this notice). This priority creates an opportunity for charter schools
to develop strategies and practices that will assist them in becoming
high-quality charter schools, as defined by standards in this notice or
by State and authorizer standards, whichever are more rigorous.
Consortia members are not limited to charter schools; they may be
comprised of any organizations that meet the eligibility requirements
under the Eligibility section of this notice. As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, we clarified this point by editing the second introductory
paragraph of Priority 1. In addition, upon further review of the
priority language, we changed the first introductory paragraph of
Priority 1 and paragraph (3) of Priority 1. Creating and sustaining
high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice) is a
fundamental component of high-quality authorizing; however, while
authorized public chartering agencies should only approve petitions
from applicants that demonstrate the capacity to create high-quality
charter schools, we recognize that it is not possible for newly created
charter schools to meet the definition of a high-quality charter school
because the definition includes a requirement that the school show
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). As discussed elsewhere in this notice, new charter
schools would not be able to meet the requirements of this definition.
In addition to language that would help in creating charter schools
that demonstrate the capacity to become high-quality and in sustaining
those that are high-quality, we added language to support new charter
schools in becoming high-quality.
Changes: We revised the first introductory paragraph of Priority
1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of Scale by replacing
``creating and sustaining high-quality charter schools'' with
``creating, supporting, and sustaining high-quality charter schools (as
defined in this notice).'' In addition, in paragraph (3) of Priority 1,
we replaced ``How proposed project activities will help create and
sustain high-quality charter schools'' with ``How the proposed project
activities will help create charter schools that demonstrate the
capacity to become
[[Page 40651]]
high-quality charter schools, support new charter schools to become
high-quality charter schools, and sustain charter schools that are
high-quality.''
Comment: One commenter suggested that under Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale, we broaden the scope of
allowable activities to encourage information sharing and efforts, such
as developing common systems of open enrollment.
Discussion: As stated in Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through
Economies of Scale, applicants should seek innovative solutions to
achieve efficiencies in the use of time, staff, money, services for
special populations, or other resources for the purpose of creating,
supporting, and sustaining high-quality charter schools (as defined in
this notice). As written, the priority language provides applicants the
flexibility and discretion to propose projects that achieve
efficiencies in any of the areas included in the priority language. As
such, an applicant is not prohibited from proposing activities to
encourage information sharing and efforts such as developing common
systems of open enrollment so long as that applicant meets the
requirements of this priority and all eligibility requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we add language to paragraphs
(1) and (2) under Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of
Scale that requires applicants to document the involvement of parents
and other members from the community where the charter school will be
located. The commenter also suggested that applicants should be
required to communicate guidance, rules, policy changes, and
expectations to approved charter schools and the school's student
applicants in an effective and timely manner.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for family and
community engagement and effective communication with charter schools
and their applicants and think because of the wide range of projects
that could be considered under this priority, it is not appropriate to
require a family and community engagement component of all applicants.
In addition, a requirement to communicate guidance, rules, policy
changes, and expectations to approved charter schools and the school's
student applicants in an effective and timely manner would be included
in a grant application and not in this final priority. Such
requirements, if any, will be detailed in the notice inviting
applications or application package for any future competition under
this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that paragraph (1)
of proposed Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of
Scale, which supports projects that improve efficiency in the ``use of
time, staff, money, services for special populations, or other areas,''
should be revised. We think that the word ``areas'' is too broad, and
that ``resources'' suggests achieving economic efficiencies in a way
that ``areas'' does not.
Changes: In paragraph (1) of Priority 1--Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale, we replaced ``areas'' with ``resources.''
This change also maintains consistency in the language with the first
sentence of the priority.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review, we realized that in the
introductory paragraph of Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through
Economies of Scale, we refer to ``partnership or consortium'' but we
also refer to ``consortium or consortia'' in the priority. We want to
maintain consistent language in these references.
Changes: We replaced ``consortium or consortia'' in the second
introductory paragraph and paragraph (1) with ``partnership or
consortium.''
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that we could avoid
using both ``primarily'' and ``primary'' in the same sentence in
paragraph (4) of Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of
Scale without changing the intended meaning. Accordingly, we have
replaced ``primary'' with ``chief.'' In addition, in that same
paragraph, we added LEAs as an example of a stakeholder group to whom
the project activities could be disseminated secondarily.
Changes: We replaced the phrase ``primarily to charter schools as
the primary stakeholder group'' with ``primarily to charter schools as
the chief stakeholder group.'' We also included the term ``LEAs'' to
read ``. . . such as charter school support organizations, LEAs, and
authorized public chartering agencies, as appropriate, at the charter
school national level (as defined in this notice).''
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of Priority 1--Improving Efficiency
through Economies of Scale, we determined that the dissemination
strategy required under paragraph (4) includes dissemination at the
charter school national level (as defined in this notice) and this
creates confusion with the ``national significance and scope''
described in paragraph (6). To clarify our intent, we have edited
``national significance and scope'' to ``national significance'' in
paragraph (6).
Changes: We replaced ``national significance and scope'' with
``national significance'' in paragraph (6) of Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale.
Comment: One commenter suggested that a statement in the background
section to Proposed Priority 2--Improving Accountability in the NPP be
retracted. The sentence in the NPP said, ``Once schools are open,
accountability practices for charter schools need to be strengthened
within States.'' In addition, the commenter noted that use of the term
``more consistently'' in this same section of the background in the NPP
has no backing to substantiate the claim that authorizers need to
review their accountability practices.
Discussion: In the background section for this priority in the NPP,
we provided an explanation of the development of the priority. Because
charter schools across the country are not authorized by a single
entity and 43 distinct sets of State laws govern charter schools, the
potential for inconsistency exists in how charter schools are held
accountable for their academic, financial, and operational performance
results. In addition, we think that accountability practices for
charter schools need to be strengthened within States. Priority 2--
Improving Accountability is designed to support improvements in the
accountability of authorizers. Specifically, this priority aims to
support the dissemination of effective authorizing practices to all
authorizers so they adopt practices that will strengthen oversight.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that the language in paragraph (2) of
Priority 2--Improving Accountability precludes applicants that serve
charter schools in one State, or one city, from the opportunity to
apply for funds and to extend their reach nationally. The commenter
noted that the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities
competition would exclude the best of local authorized public
chartering agencies that authorize charter schools in only one State or
city.
Discussion: The purpose of Priority 2--Improving Accountability is
to ensure that applicants build authorizer capacity and disseminate
successful practices within multiple regions of the United States.
While this requirement
[[Page 40652]]
would limit local authorized public chartering agencies from applying
individually, eligible applicants may apply as a partnership or
consortium, allowing them to pool their experiences, skills, and
resources. An authorized public chartering agency that authorizes
charter schools in only one State could propose a project to improve
authorized public chartering agencies' capacity at the regional level
or national level.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we add language to Priority
2--Improving Accountability that would require authorizers to develop
and implement policies on how they will monitor charter applicants
providing services to students with disabilities.
Discussion: To the extent that the commenter is referring to
authorizer monitoring of the academic performance of charter schools,
we agree that it is important for authorizers to focus in particular on
students with disabilities. In addition, upon further review, we think
it is also important for authorizers to focus similarly on English
learners and other students in need of specialized services.
Accordingly, we revised Priority 2--Improving Accountability by adding
language that requires CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities
applicants to include metrics to assess educational equity for students
with disabilities, English learners, and other students in need of
specialized services in their descriptions of the types of data
authorizers should use to monitor and oversee charter schools. In
addition, it is important to note that under section 612(a)(11) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and 34 CFR
300.149(a)(2)(ii), the State educational agency, in carrying out its
general supervisory responsibility, is required to ensure that all
educational programs for students with disabilities administered in the
State, including any other State agency or local agency, meet the
educational standards of the State educational agency, including the
requirements in the IDEA. Thus, under IDEA, the SEA has an overarching
responsibility to ensure that all program requirements in the IDEA are
met and to monitor implementation of those requirements by eligible
entities, including charter schools that operate as LEAs that have
established their eligibility under section 613 of the IDEA for Part B
of the IDEA funds, and charter schools that are public schools of LEAs
that receive Part B funds.
Changes: We revised paragraphs (1)(ii) and (2)(ii) of Priority 2--
Improving Accountability to ``Monitor and oversee charter schools
through measureable performance goals and multiple sources of regularly
collected academic and operational performance data (using financial
data, disaggregated student discipline data, and disaggregated student
performance data, including metrics to assess educational equity for
students with disabilities, English learners, and other students in
need of specialized services).''
Comment: One commenter suggested we expand Priority 2--Improving
Accountability to ensure the eligibility of projects proposed by
charter support organizations that are designed to improve the capacity
to develop and track measurable performance goals. The commenter stated
that responsibility for the success of a charter school rests on the
school and its governing organization, and that any priority for
improved accountability must also include activities that focus on
school-level accountability.
Discussion: We recognize the importance of factors, such as
governance and performance management, to charter operators and
authorized public chartering agencies. However, Priority 2--Improving
Accountability is designed to address accountability through authorized
public chartering agencies. The types of activities suggested by the
commenter would fall within the scope of Priority 1--Improving
Efficiency through Economies of Scale.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested Priority 2--Improving
Accountability be a competitive preference priority because the
commenter's State does not address authorizer accountability.
Discussion: The intent of Priority 2--Improving Accountability is
to support projects that are designed to improve authorizer capacity.
We think this priority will encourage authorizers to improve their
practices, even if their State does not clearly address authorizer
accountability. In addition, as stated elsewhere in this notice, this
action is designed only to establish the priorities that we may choose
to use in the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities
competitions in 2015 and future years. We do not designate whether a
priority will be absolute, competitive, or invitational in this notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we should broaden the scope
of Priority 2--Improving Accountability to clarify that successful
applicants may work with non-authorizers that have influence over, and
play a role in, improving authorizer quality.
Discussion: Applicants may propose dissemination activities
described in paragraphs (3) and (4) of Priority 2 that include
organizations other than authorized public chartering agencies, such as
SEAs or charter support organizations, so long as authorized public
chartering agencies are the primary focus of those activities. While we
understand the important role of non-authorizers in authorizer
accountability, the intent of this priority is to build authorizer
capacity.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the phrase ``within a variety
of communities'' in Priority 2--Improving Accountability be clarified
or removed, as it is unclear to the commenter whether ``communities''
means geographic communities or another type of community.
Discussion: In this context, we intend ``within a variety of
communities'' to mean a variety of geographic communities, specifically
communities at the regional level (as defined in this notice), or at
the national level (as defined in this notice). Notably, we added
definitions of ``national level'' and ``regional level,'' and these
definitions include the ``variety of communities'' phrasing that the
commenter referenced. Therefore, we deleted the phrase from the
language of Priority 2 to avoid duplicative phrasing.
Changes: We changed the text of Priority 2, paragraph (1) to ``How
the proposed project will improve, at the regional level (as defined in
this notice) or the national level (as defined in this notice),
authorized public chartering agencies' capacity to . . . '' We also
changed the text of Priority 2, paragraph (2) to ``The applicant's
prior success in improving, at the regional level (as defined in this
notice) or the national level (as defined in this notice), authorized
public chartering agencies' capacity to . . .''
Comment: One commenter suggested that Priority 2--Improving
Accountability should clarify the goal of improving authorizer capacity
in paragraphs (1)(i) and (2)(i) by focusing on improving standards of
approval, not the capacity to approve charter schools.
Discussion: To clarify, the intent of paragraphs (1)(i) and (2)(i)
is improving standards of approval by authorized public chartering
agencies. We think that ambitious standards for approving charter
school applications and rigorous application review processes will
ensure that authorizers approve only charter school applications that
demonstrate the capacity to create and sustain high-quality charter
schools (as defined in this notice). Furthermore, it
[[Page 40653]]
is not feasible to expect authorizers to approve only high-quality
charter schools, as the definition includes a requirement that the
school show 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). We recognize that new charter schools would
not be able to meet this requirement as they would not yet have
evidence of strong academic results.
Changes: We replaced ``Approve only high-quality charter schools
that meet the standards of a rigorous application process and review''
in paragraphs (1)(i) and (2)(i) of Priority 2--Improving Accountability
with ``Approve only applications that demonstrate capacity to create
and sustain high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice)
and meet the standards of a rigorous application process and review.''
Comment: One commenter stated that the language ''maintain
portfolios of high-quality charter schools by evaluating authorizer and
portfolio performance and disseminating information on the performance
of those portfolios'' in proposed Priority 2--Improving Accountability
was unclear and recommended it be removed.
Discussion: Evaluating authorizer and portfolio performance will
result in more high-quality charter schools being approved; however,
for the reasons discussed elsewhere in this notice, we understand that
it is practically infeasible to use the ``high-quality charter school''
definition proposed in the NPP for charter school applicants that have
not yet begun educating students. As such, we agree with the commenter
that clarification is needed and have edited the language of Priority
2--Improving Accountability to provide that clarification.
In addition, while not in response to public comment, upon further
review of Priority 2--Improving Authorizer Accountability, we removed
``and help improve the ability of other authorized public chartering
agencies to produce similar results'' from paragraph (2)(iv). Our
intent in this section is for applicants to include information about
their prior successes in evaluating authorizer and portfolio
performance and disseminating information on that performance. We did
not intend for applicants that are authorized public chartering
agencies to be required to show how they have helped other authorized
public chartering agencies to produce similar results, as the proposed
language implied.
Changes: We replaced ``Maintain portfolios of high-quality charter
schools by evaluating authorizer and portfolio performance and
disseminating information on the performance of those portfolios'' in
Priority 2--Improving Accountability, paragraphs (1)(iv) and (2)(iv)
with ``Evaluate authorizer and portfolio performance and disseminate
information on that performance.'' We also removed ``and help improve
the ability of other authorized public chartering agencies to produce
similar results'' from paragraph (2)(iv).
Comment: One commenter suggested the Department encourage
authorizers to employ data effectively by ensuring the data are
available to and usable to relevant stakeholders, including parents and
community members. The commenter also suggested that Priority 2--
Improving Accountability support charter school authorizers that
include disaggregated student data and data on student growth in their
performance management systems.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments about the effective use of
data, including the use of disaggregated student data to promote
authorizer accountability. We believe applicants could use the
dissemination activities described in Priority 2--Improving
Accountability paragraphs (3) and (4) to ensure that data are made
available to multiple stakeholders, including parents and community
members. As such, we decline to edit that portion of the priority
language. However, we agree that disaggregated data are important,
particularly in identifying achievement gaps and discipline
disparities, and including student growth data in performance
management systems will improve the ability of authorizers to monitor
and oversee charter schools as well as to measure performance. As such,
we revised the priority language to emphasize the use of performance
data.
Changes: In the introductory paragraph of Priority 2--Improving
Accountability, we revised ``monitor and oversee charter schools using
data and measurable performance goals'' to ``monitor and oversee
charter schools using multiple sources of data, including disaggregated
student data, and measurable performance goals.'' In addition, in
paragraphs (1)(ii) and (2)(ii), we revised the language ``Monitor and
oversee charter schools through the regular collection of data,
including student performance and financial data, and measurable
performance goals'' to ``Monitor and oversee charter schools through
measurable performance goals and multiple sources of regularly
collected academic and operational performance data (using financial
data, disaggregated student discipline data, and disaggregated student
performance data, including metrics to assess educational equity for
students with disabilities, English learners, and other students in
need of specialized services).'' In addition, upon further review, we
revised the introductory paragraph of Priority 2--Improving
Accountability by replacing ``communicate the performance of that
portfolio'' with ``disseminate information on the performance of
charter schools,'' as we think this language more closely corresponds
to paragraph (3) of Priority 2.
Comment: One commenter suggested that Priority 2--Improving
Accountability could improve accountability and authorizer practices
through: Collective voluntary accountability, where a self-monitoring
network could exist within the public charter school community;
experimentation with new approaches such as parental influence on
school accountability; and building knowledge bases, where authorized
public chartering agencies could provide assistance to other
authorizers in implementing successful practices that improve the
quality of schools they authorize.
Discussion: The intended focus of Priority 2--Improving
Accountability is on improving authorizer capacity, as we think
effective authorizing and oversight influence charter school quality.
While voluntary accountability, parental influence on accountability,
and knowledge building and sharing could be components of improving
accountability and authorizer practices, we think improving authorizer
capacity, as described in Priority 2--Improving Accountability, would
have the largest impact on improving accountability, and would, in
turn, increase quality in the charter school sector.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that a research and evaluation
component be added to Priority 2--Improving Accountability to enhance
national understanding of high-quality authorizing and how policy can
best support it. The commenter noted that the proposed priority should
also consider how local districts and authorizers managing a diverse
portfolio of schools can improve their accountability frameworks for
both the public charter and non-chartered public sectors.
Discussion: In addition to meeting other requirements, successful
applicants under this priority must improve authorizer capacity to
evaluate authorizer and portfolio performance and disseminate that
information to
[[Page 40654]]
help improve the ability of other authorized public chartering agencies
to produce similar results. While we think research and evaluation
could greatly benefit authorizers, we decline to make a change.
Provided that they meet all requirements under this priority,
applicants' research and evaluation activities would be allowable under
this program. In addition, the selection criterion 34 CFR 75.210(h),
Quality of the Project Evaluation, provides selection factors that
encourage applicants to conduct rigorous evaluations of their projects,
which could be incorporated in the selection criteria for a future
competition under this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the activities under Priority
3--Students with Disabilities do not address the need of public charter
schools to provide instruction for students with disabilities in the
least restrictive environment (LRE), which is a major component of the
IDEA.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that LRE is critical to the
education of all children with disabilities in charter schools. Because
under the IDEA, students with disabilities and their parents retain all
rights under the IDEA, including the right to be educated in the LRE,
we do not believe it is necessary for this priority to focus on the
IDEA's LRE requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that studies have shown that the lack
of enrollment of students with disabilities in public charter schools
is the result of policies and practices designed to minimize the
enrollment of these students and not a capacity issue. The commenter
further stated that ``strategies and tools'' referenced in Priority 3--
Students with Disabilities are not the same as the ``practices''
referred to in the recommendations from a recent report by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. ``Charter Schools:
Additional Federal Attention Needed to Help Protect Access for
Students with Disabilities.'' GAO-12-543: Published Jun 7, 2012.
Available at: www.gao.gov/assets/600/591435.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: While we agree with the commenter that the enrollment
of students with disabilities in public charter schools is an important
issue, we find that studies on this topic have not identified a single
reason for any disparity in enrollment that may occur in some schools
and districts. The GAO report recommended that ``the Secretary of
Education take measures to help charter schools recognize practices
that may affect enrollment of students with disabilities . . . '' We
think that the ``strategies and tools'' that applicants develop in
response to this priority will help them identify and improve practices
that may affect enrollment of students with disabilities and increase
equitable access to students with disabilities in public charter
schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that ``promising practices,'' as used
in Priority 3--Students with Disabilities, are instructional approaches
that improve student achievement, not approaches that only increase
students with disabilities' access to schools to which they already
have a legal right to attend. Furthermore, the commenter stated that an
abundance of knowledge already exists on how to improve student
achievement, and improving the achievement of students with
disabilities in public charter schools does not differ significantly
from improving their achievement in non-chartered public schools.
Discussion: We disagree that ``promising practices'' only refers to
instructional approaches, and we consider practices that increase
equitable access to public charter schools for students with
disabilities and the schools' capacity to enroll students with
disabilities, as well as approaches that improve student achievement,
student growth, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment
rates for students with disabilities to be promising practices.
While existing resources for improving the achievement of students
with disabilities can benefit public charter schools and non-chartered
public schools, charter schools need to be aware of, and have access
to, such resources.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that to better address any issues
that may exist around the enrollment of students with disabilities in
public charter schools, the activities should be more closely aligned
with recommendations made in the GAO report on the enrollment of
students with disabilities in charter schools.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The GAO report referenced above made the following
recommendations:
1. Update existing guidance to ensure that public charter schools
have better information about their obligations related to the
enrollment of students with disabilities; and
2. Conduct additional fact finding and research to understand the
factors affecting enrollment of students with disabilities in public
charter schools and act upon that information, as appropriate.
We are in the process of updating existing guidance on the rights
of students with disabilities in charter schools and are conducting
additional fact finding and research to understand the factors
affecting enrollment of students with disabilities in public charter
schools. Our response to the GAO report cited above includes reviewing
and documenting State policies, guidance, and reports regarding
enrollment of, and services to, students with disabilities in charter
schools and includes compiling a set of case studies of charter schools
with both high and low enrollment of students with disabilities; these
activities are continuing. In the meantime, the CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities competition includes Priority 3--Students with
Disabilities to help address enrollment, access, and achievement of
students with disabilities in charter schools.
In addition, the Department's response to the second recommendation
in the GAO report stated that the CSP's grant competitions ``are likely
to continue to include competitive and invitational priorities for
applications that propose to improve achievement for students with
disabilities.'' The inclusion of Priority 3--Students with Disabilities
in this notice of final priorities addresses that recommendation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that Priority 3--Students with
Disabilities include a research component that would provide national
leadership in discovering the nature of, and systematically identifying
the solution to, the underrepresentation of students with disabilities
in certain locations, as identified in the GAO report on the enrollment
of students with disabilities in charter schools.\3\ The commenter also
suggested the Department prioritize research on the outcomes of
students with disabilities who attend charter schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Department understands the importance of research
and evaluation of issues around the enrollment of students with
disabilities in charter schools, which may advance policies that
support equitable access to charter schools for students with
disabilities. While this priority does not specifically mention
research components, applicants may propose activities focused on
research and
[[Page 40655]]
evaluation. While not the primary intent of this program, those
activities would be permitted, so long as the applicant meets all other
requirements and submits an application that meets all parts of the
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that Priority 3--Students with
Disabilities mention stand-alone strict discipline academies.
Specifically, the commenter mentions that these academies do not meet
the open enrollment requirement.
Discussion: To receive funding through the CSP, a charter school
must meet all requirements outlined in the definition of a charter
school in section 5210 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, as amended (ESEA).
Therefore, to qualify as an eligible applicant under the CSP Grants
for National Leadership Activities competition, a charter school must
meet all parts of the definition of a charter school in section 5210 of
the ESEA. This includes section 5210(1)(G), which requires that a
charter school comply with certain Federal civil rights laws, including
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Part B of the IDEA,
and section 5210(1)(H), which requires that it is a school to which
parents choose to send their children, and that admits students on the
basis of a lottery, if more students apply for admission than can be
accommodated. Further, although we are not familiar with the
requirements for ``strict discipline academies,'' charter school
discipline policies and procedures must comply with the requirements of
section 504 and section 615(k) of the IDEA and their implementing
regulations.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested a third activity for Priority
3--Students with Disabilities and Priority 4--English Learners.
Specifically, the commenters recommended developing cooperation and
collaboration between a public charter school, a non-chartered public
school, special education communities, and English learner advocacy
communities be added to the priorities, as each sector would provide
insightful development and promote dissemination of effective
approaches to serving these students.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 3--
Students with Disabilities and Priority 4--English Learners. We agree
with the commenters that promoting collaborative activities between a
charter school, a non-chartered public school, key special education
stakeholders, and key English learner stakeholders is important. After
reviewing the comments, we also consider the suggested additions to be
beneficial to both Priority 3--Students with Disabilities and Priority
4--English Learners.
Changes: We added the following activity as paragraph (3) of
Priority 3--Students with Disabilities: ``Promoting collaborative
activities between charter schools, non-chartered public schools, and
key special education stakeholders designed to improve student
achievement, including student growth, and attainment (e.g., high
school graduation rates, college enrollment rates) for students with
disabilities.'' We also added the following corresponding activity as
paragraph (3) of Priority 4--English Learners: ``Promoting
collaborative activities between charter schools, non-chartered public
schools, and key English learner stakeholders designed to improve
student achievement, including student growth, and attainment (e.g.,
high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates) for English
learners.''
Comment: One commenter suggested changing the wording of the
``activities'' section of Priority 3--Students with Disabilities to
more appropriately reflect the legal obligations of public charter
schools. The commenter suggested that projects designed to ensure
equitable enrollment, recruitment, and opportunities in charter schools
for students with disabilities would more accurately reflect the
responsibility incumbent on public charter schools. Another commenter
suggested that charter schools must be held accountable for ensuring
access to all students and for providing meaningful teaching and
instruction designed to improve educational outcomes for those
students. The commenter felt that the language in the NPP did not
include a focus on recruitment and serving students with disabilities.
Discussion: We agree that public charter schools must provide
equitable access to students with disabilities. In this context, we
think equitable access includes equitable enrollment opportunities as
well as capabilities of public charter schools to meet the needs of
students with disabilities during recruitment and once enrolled. In
addition, we place a similar emphasis in Priority 4--English Learners.
Changes: We changed the language of Priority 3--Students with
Disabilities and Priority 4--English Learners by replacing ``to
increase access'' throughout with ``to increase equitable access.'' In
Priority 3, we also changed ``increase charter schools' capacity to
enroll students with disabilities'' in paragraphs (1) and (2) to
``increase charter schools' capacity to recruit, enroll, and serve
students with disabilities.'' Throughout Priority 4, we made
corresponding edits to maintain consistency with Priority 3.
Specifically, we replaced ``increase charter schools' capacity to
enroll English learners'' with ``increase charter schools' capacity to
recruit, enroll, and serve English learners . . .''
Comment: None.
Discussion: After additional review, we determined that Priority
3--Students with Disabilities and Priority 4--English Learners could be
clarified by consistently referring to schools as ``charter schools,''
where appropriate. In addition, we determined that, depending on the
nature of the project, it may not always be appropriate for each
project under Priority 3 to ``improve student achievement, student
growth, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment rates for
students with disabilities.'' We edited paragraph (1) of Priority 3 to
``improve student achievement, including student growth, and attainment
(e.g., high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates) for
students with disabilities'' to allow more flexibility. Similarly, for
Priority 4, we edited paragraph (1) to ``improve student achievement,
including student growth and English proficiency, and attainment (e.g.,
high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates) for English
learners.'' We made corresponding changes to paragraph (2) of both
priorities for the same reason. Finally, we added ``. . . of students
with disabilities'' in the introductory paragraph of Priority 3, to
maintain a consistent structure with Priority 4.
Changes: For both Priority 3--Students with Disabilities and
Priority 4--English Learners, we inserted the word ``charter'' before
schools in three places. These changes do not alter the intended
meaning; rather, we are adding the word ``charter'' to ensure clarity.
In addition, in paragraph (1) of both priorities, we added the phrase
``to recruit, enroll, and serve.'' We also replaced ``increase charter
schools' enrollment, as well as improve achievement . . .'' with
``increase charter schools' enrollment of students with disabilities,
as well as improve achievement . . .''
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department follow the
recommendations in the GAO report on
[[Page 40656]]
English learners in charter schools \4\ to examine why charter schools
are unable to provide accurate enrollment numbers of specific student
populations, especially English learner populations. The commenter
noted the importance of educators gaining a better understanding of the
nature of the problem at a national level, which will better position
researchers and practitioners to address concerns of limited access to
charter schools for English learners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. ''Education:
Education Needs to Further Examine Data Collection on English
Language Learners in Charter Schools.'' GAO-13-655R: Published Jul
17, 2013. Available at: www.gao.gov/assets/660/655930.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Department agrees that a better understanding of
charter school non-reporting or under-enrollment of English learners
should be addressed. In response to the GAO report's finding that they
were unable to compare English learners' enrollment in charter schools
to English learners enrollment in non-chartered public schools due to
incomplete data, the Department continues to improve its data
collection and has been conducting a systematic review and
reconciliation of directory data across data sources. In addition, the
CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities competition includes
Priority 3--Students with Disabilities and Priority 4--English Learners
to help address the issues of enrollment, access, and achievement of
students with disabilities and English learners in charter schools. We
do not explicitly include data collection in either priority because
data collection activities may be eligible project activities under
Priority 3 or Priority 4.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that Priority 5--Personalized,
Technology-Enabled Learning should specifically exclude virtual schools
from eligibility.
Discussion: Virtual schools, provided they meet the eligibility
requirements described in the Eligibility section, will not
automatically be deemed ineligible. However, the intent of this
priority is to support projects that incorporate learning models that
blend traditional, classroom-based teaching and learning with virtual,
online, or digital delivery of personalized instructional content, and
which are national in scope.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department expand each
priority to ensure that students with disabilities are specifically
mentioned as examples of the students who may require personalized and
technology-based supports and services. The commenter noted that, in
particular, Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning will
be most effective if it builds on previous work funded by the
Department that provided training to charter school authorizers and
operators focused on serving students with disabilities.
Discussion: Activities that focus on students with disabilities may
be included under any priority, and activities that include
personalized and technology-based services would be eligible under
Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning. We agree that
students with disabilities can benefit from personalized learning, and
Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning provides that such
projects should be designed to support high-need students (as defined
in this notice), which includes students with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested the Department clarify the types
of activities that it considers essential and that would be supported
under Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning;
specifically, the commenter suggested highlighting blended learning as
a model supported under this priority. Similarly, another commenter
provided specific examples of the types of activities that should be
supported under this priority. A third commenter suggested that the
Department ensure Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning
focus on the development of education technology and online platforms,
collaborative practices, and instructional models for dissemination, in
addition to research into blended learning implementation.
Discussion: The CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities
competition is designed to encourage innovative solutions to address a
number of public educational needs across the Nation. In order to
support innovation in technology-enabled instructional models, tools,
and supports, we do not want to restrict applicants to specific types
of activities and have written this priority to allow applicants
flexibility in the projects they propose. In addition, we note that
applicants proposing projects with a focus on education technology and
online platforms, collaborative practices, and instructional models for
dissemination may be eligible under Priority 1--Increasing Efficiency
through Economies of Scale, in addition to Priority 5.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: After additional review, we determined that the
language of Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning should
remain consistent with an ultimate goal of increasing overall student
learning, rather than simply providing instruction. The technology-
enabled instructional models, tools, and supports referenced in this
priority are intended to personalize students' learning. The phrase
``personalize instruction'' that was included in the proposed priority
implies an emphasis on the process, (i.e., instruction), rather than on
the outcome (i.e., learning).
Changes: We removed the phrase ``personalize instruction'' from
Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning and revised the
priority language to say ``supports that personalize learning.''
Definitions
Comment: None.
Discussion: We added the definitions for ``national level'' and
``regional level,'' as these terms are now referenced within other
parts of this notice. These definitions are used in other Department
grant competitions and the definitions come from 34 CFR 77.1.
Changes: The definitions for ``national level'' and ``regional
level'' have been added.
Comment: One commenter suggested the Department revise the
definition of ``significant compliance issues'' to accommodate current
practice by rigorous authorizers that are unlikely to revoke a charter
for a single or limited event. The commenter further explained that the
proposed definition reflected a zero-tolerance approach that is
inappropriate, as it takes a pattern of misbehavior, or individual
failures that are more egregious, to lead an authorized public
chartering agency to revoke a school's charter.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the need for further
clarification on the issue of compliance with Federal and State law,
and authorizer policy.
Changes: We revised the definition of ``significant compliance
issue'' to clarify that these are issues that, if not addressed or are
representative of a pattern of misconduct or non-compliance, could lead
to the revocation of a school's charter.
Comment: Two commenters suggested altering the definition of
``charter school national level.'' One commenter suggested changing the
proposed definition to clarify that any public or private nonprofit
organization with a mission that explicitly includes supporting charter
schools is eligible for
[[Page 40657]]
this competition, including those that are able to support a wide
variety of charter schools from both urban and rural areas. Another
commenter noted that the definition places an undue burden on an
applicant to disseminate urban-focused best practices to agencies,
organizations, or groups that must serve rural agencies.
Discussion: The definition of ``charter school national level'' is
not designed to limit eligible organizations, but rather to define a
level at which activities take place. The Department believes that a
broad, national scope for project activities and for dissemination is
necessary to meet the goals of the program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters requested that the definition of
``high-quality charter school'' be revised. One commenter suggested the
Department make the definition consistent with the definition of
``highly mobile students,'' with particular attention given to how
highly mobile students and related data will be counted in
accountability assessments across State lines. Two other commenters
noted that the proposed definition for high-quality charter school did
not take into account new schools with no achievement data and would be
applied comprehensively, instead of considering additional factors that
make up high-quality schools. In addition, one of those commenters
stated that the proposed definition did not take into account the role
of authorizers and accountability systems within applicable States.
Discussion: The definition of ``high-quality charter school'' is
designed to emphasize the importance of a school's evidence of strong
academic performance for the past three years, or over the life of the
school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years, and we
decline to make the definition consistent with that of highly mobile
students, which is not used in this notice. We agree that the proposed
definition of ``high-quality charter school'' should be strengthened to
take into account the role of authorizers and accountability systems
and have added paragraph (a)(4), which focuses on the results of a
performance framework established by the State or authorized public
chartering agency. In addition, we made a number of clarifying edits to
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3). These are not intended to change the
meaning of the priority but only to clarify our intent. As described
elsewhere in this document, we also edited parts of Priority 1--
Improving Efficiency through Economies of Scale and Priority 2--
Improving Accountability so authorizers are not held accountable for
authorizing only high-quality charter schools or only having high-
quality charter schools in their portfolios of schools. In addition,
the insertion of ``and equitable and nondiscriminatory treatment for
students'' in paragraph (a)(5) of the high-quality charter school
definition is meant to ensure that compliance extends to the civil
rights of students. Upon further review, we edited paragraph (a)(1) of
the same definition to include high school graduation rates and college
and other postsecondary enrollment rates. Paragraph (a)(3) has been
similarly edited in that the list of achieved results include student
attendance, retention rates, and postsecondary attendance and
persistence rates.
Changes: We added the clarifying phrases ``(including, if
applicable, high school graduation rates and college and other
postsecondary enrollment rates)'' and ``served by the charter school''
in paragraph (a)(1). In paragraph (a)(3), we added ``student attendance
and retention rates,'' ``postsecondary attendance and persistence
rates,'' and ``if applicable and available'' in paragraph (a)(3). We
also removed the word ``achieved'' before the word ``results'' in
paragraph (a)(3), as it is redundant. We added paragraph (a)(4):
``Positive results on a performance framework established by the State
or authorized public chartering agency for purposes of evaluating
charter school quality'' and renumbered proposed paragraph (a)(4) to be
paragraph (a)(5). In the final paragraph (a)(5), we added ``and
equitable and nondiscriminatory treatment for students'' at the end of
the paragraph. We also added a new paragraph (b) to the definition to
clarify that an applicant can use its State's definition of high-
quality charter school, provided that the State's definition is at
least as rigorous as the definition included in this notice.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of the definition of ``high-quality
charter school,'' we determined that the third paragraph of this
definition, which has been used in multiple Department competitions and
shows how achieved results compare to results for similar lolstudents
in the State, was missing. Therefore, we included language to ensure
the element is discussed.
Changes: In paragraph (a)(3) of the definition for ``high-quality
charter school,'' we inserted ``that are above the average academic
achievement results for such students in the State.''
Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``student
achievement'' include other universally available measures of student
learning that are tied to teacher evaluations, which currently are not
addressed in the definition.
Discussion: The definition for ``student achievement'' requires
that any measures used be comparable across schools, which we think is
a key component of this definition. As noted elsewhere in this notice,
it is important that the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities
competition use definitions consistent with other Department programs.
Because of the variation in measures that tie student learning to
teacher evaluations, and because proposed projects will be national in
scope, we do not think that applicants would be able to compare
increases in student achievement across districts and States if teacher
evaluation measures were to be incorporated into this definition.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the proposed definition of
``high-need students'' should be reviewed for further clarification.
One commenter suggested adding ``first generation college-bound
students'' to the list of high-need student indicators. Another
commenter noted that this definition should be reviewed to ensure the
focus is on charter schools and not higher education.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that it is important to
ensure that each definition used in the CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities competition is appropriate to the CSP's mission.
The definition for high-need students does not specifically mention
charter schools or non-chartered public schools; however, any student
at risk of educational failure would be included under the definition,
regardless of the school that student attends.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department develop
definitions for ``rural public charter schools'' and ``Rural State.''
Discussion: Rural public charter schools and rural State are not
terms that are used in these priorities, so it is unclear how those
definitions would be used. Because the commenter did not provide
context for this suggestion, we are unable to provide additional
clarification. Applicants that want to demonstrate their commitment to
serving rural areas may use elements of the definition of ``rural local
educational agency,'' which is defined by other programs at the
Department as an LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural School
Achievement program or the Rural and Low-Income School program
[[Page 40658]]
authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. See www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html. The elements of the definition can be used by
applicants to demonstrate their commitment to serving rural areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested modifying the definition of
``community of practice'' to include public and private nonprofit
organizations with a mission that explicitly includes supporting
charter schools to better promote a community of practice within and
across State lines.
Discussion: We currently include the term ``stakeholders'' in the
definition, which provides a wider range of options than the suggested
change. Because we do not want to unnecessarily limit participation in
the community of practice (as defined in this notice), we decline to
revise the term used in the definition in a manner that would limit the
types of stakeholders included in the communities of practice.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that the definition for ``logic
model'' was different than the definition currently used in 34 CFR
77.1.
Discussion: As noted elsewhere in this notice, we agree that it is
important the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities competition
use definitions consistent with other Department programs. As such, we
will use the same definition for logic model as included in 34 CFR
77.1.
Changes: We replaced the term ``charter school logic model'' with
``logic model'' from 34 CFR 77.1.
Eligibility
Comment: One commenter suggested the language in the Eligibility
section be reviewed. Specifically, the commenter felt that there is no
explicit language permitting an applicant to apply as an individual
nonprofit organization, although that may be implied. The commenter
suggested we change ``Eligible applicants may apply as a group or
consortium'' to ``Eligible applicants may apply as an individual
organization as defined above or as a partnership or consortium.'' A
second commenter asked whether an individual charter school operator
could be an eligible applicant.
Discussion: Eligible applicants include public and private
nonprofit organizations with a mission that explicitly supports
operating, supporting, or managing charter schools, which makes
individual organizations eligible. The intent of this grant competition
is to support projects of national significance and scope; however, we
agree that clarification is needed on whether individual charter
schools are eligible. An individual charter school that meets all
eligibility requirements could apply under this competition. We also
want to clarify that eligible applicants may be organizations whose
missions involve operating, supporting, and managing charter schools--
not just supporting charter schools. Upon further review of the
Eligibility section, we determined that additional clarity was needed
to reflect that CMOs are eligible entities. In addition, upon further
review, we added a requirement that, to the extent that eligible
applicants that are partnerships or consortia include charter schools,
the lead applicant, each charter school operated or managed by the lead
applicant and all partnership or consortium members, including, in the
case of a CMO applicant, all charter schools managed by the CMO, must
meet the definition of high-quality charter school (as defined in this
notice). We made this change to clarify that CMO applicants are
eligible and that all charter schools in a partnership or consortium
must meet the definition of high-quality charter school. We also added
a requirement that eligible applicants that are charter schools may not
have any significant compliance issues (as defined in this notice) to
ensure that these applicants do not have any violations that did, will,
or could lead to the revocation of the school's charter.
Changes: We edited the Eligibility section to include ``public and
private nonprofit entities with a mission that explicitly includes
operating, supporting, or managing charter schools.'' In addition, we
added the following language to the Eligibility section: ``Eligible
applicants that are charter schools may not have any significant
compliance issues (as defined in this notice), including in the areas
of student safety, financial management, civil rights, and statutory or
regulatory compliance. In addition, to the extent that eligible
applicants that are partnerships or consortia include charter schools,
the lead applicant, each charter school operated or managed by the lead
applicant, and all partnership or consortium members, including, in the
case of a CMO applicant, all charter schools managed by the CMO, must
meet the definition of high-quality charter school (as defined in this
notice).''
Comment: One commenter suggested changing the regulations that
require eligible public and private nonprofit organizations to have a
mission that explicitly includes supporting charter schools so that all
organizations and communities affected by such policies may apply
whether or not their missions provide explicit references to supporting
charter schools. The commenter recommended that community-based
organizations and national intermediaries that represent the
communities served by charter schools be considered as eligible
entities.
Discussion: The Eligibility section does not preclude community-
based organizations and national intermediaries from applying, provided
they meet all eligibility requirements, including that their
organizational missions explicitly include supporting charter schools.
Because funds for the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities
competition are appropriated for charter schools, we seek to ensure
that organizations supported by these funds are focused on supporting
charter schools.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
establishes the following five priorities for the CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities competition. We may apply one or more of
these priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.
Priority 1--Improving Efficiency through Economies of Scale
This 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,
supporting, and sustaining high-quality charter schools (as defined in
this notice).
An applicant addressing this priority must apply as part of an
existing or proposed partnership or consortium that includes two or
more high-quality charter schools, as defined in this notice, and must
include detailed descriptions (including supporting documentation) of
the following:
(1) The proposed project activities of the partnership or
consortium and how and to what extent the activities will achieve
efficiencies in the use of time, staff, money, services for special
populations, or other resources related to operating charter schools;
(2) The members or proposed members of the partnership or
consortium, how the composition of this partnership or consortium
contributes to achieving efficiencies, and the specific activities each
member or proposed
[[Page 40659]]
member will implement. Applicants must demonstrate that members of the
existing or proposed partnership or consortium are not affiliated
exclusively with a common network (e.g., a charter management
organization);
(3) How the proposed project activities will help create charter
schools that demonstrate the capacity to become high-quality charter
schools, support new charter schools to become high-quality charter
schools, and sustain charter schools that are high-quality;
(4) How information about the proposed project activities will be
disseminated primarily to charter schools as the chief stakeholder
group, and secondarily to other stakeholders, such as charter school
support organizations, LEAs, 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 of the proposed project.
Priority 2--Improving Accountability
This 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 multiple sources of data, including disaggregated
student 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 disseminate
information on the performance of charter schools.
Applicants addressing this priority must provide detailed
descriptions (including supporting documentation) of the following:
(1) How the proposed project will improve, at the regional level
(as defined in this notice) or the national level (as defined in this
notice), authorized public chartering agencies' capacity to:
i. Approve only applications that demonstrate capacity to create
and sustain high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice)
and meet the standards of a rigorous application process and review;
ii. Monitor and oversee charter schools through measurable
performance goals and multiple sources of regularly collected academic
and operational performance data (using financial data, disaggregated
student discipline data, and disaggregated student performance data,
including metrics to assess educational equity for students with
disabilities, English learners, and other students in need of
specialized services);
iii. Identify schools eligible for renewal and those that should be
closed, through clear renewal and revocation criteria; and
iv. Evaluate authorizer and portfolio performance and disseminate
information on that performance;
(2) The applicant's prior success in improving, at the regional
level (as defined in this notice) or the national level (as defined in
this notice), authorized public chartering agencies' capacity to:
i. Approve only applications that demonstrate the capacity to
create and sustain high-quality charter schools (as defined in this
notice) and meet the standards of a rigorous application process and
review;
ii. Monitor and oversee charter schools through measurable
performance goals and multiple sources of regularly collected academic
and operational performance data (using financial data, disaggregated
student discipline data, and disaggregated student performance data,
including metrics to assess educational equity for students with
disabilities, English learners, and other students in need of
specialized services);
iii. Identify schools eligible for renewal and those that should be
closed, through clear renewal and revocation criteria; and
iv. Evaluate authorizer and portfolio performance and disseminate
information on that performance;
(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
(as defined in this notice);
(4) How the dissemination strategy will include assembling a
community of practice (as defined in this notice) for the stakeholder
group(s) served; and
(5) The national significance of the proposed project.
Priority 3--Students With Disabilities
This priority is for projects of national significance and scope
that are designed to increase equitable access to charter schools for
students with disabilities and increase charter schools' enrollment of
students with disabilities, 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 more of the following
activities:
(1) Developing strategies and tools to increase equitable access to
charter schools for students with disabilities and increase charter
schools' capacity to recruit, enroll, and serve students with
disabilities, and improve student achievement, including student
growth, and attainment (e.g., high school graduation rates, college
enrollment rates) for students with disabilities.
(2) Disseminating promising practices for increasing equitable
access to charter schools for students with disabilities; increasing
charter schools' capacity to recruit, enroll, and serve students with
disabilities; and improving student achievement, including student
growth, and attainment (e.g., high school graduation rates, college
enrollment rates) for students with disabilities.
(3) Promoting collaborative activities between charter schools,
non-chartered public schools, and key special education stakeholders
designed to improve student achievement, including student growth, and
attainment (e.g., high school graduation rates, college enrollment
rates) for students with disabilities.
Priority 4--English Learners
This priority is for projects of national significance and scope
that are designed to increase equitable access to charter schools for
English learners and increase charter schools' enrollment of English
learners, as well as improve academic achievement (including student
achievement and student growth) and attainment (including English
proficiency, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment
rates) for English learners, through one or more of the following
activities:
(1) Developing strategies and tools to increase equitable access to
charter schools for English learners; increase charter schools'
capacity to recruit, enroll, and serve English learners; and improve
student achievement, including student growth and English proficiency,
and attainment (e.g., high school graduation rates, college enrollment
rates) for English learners.
(2) Disseminating promising practices for increasing equitable
access to charter schools for English learners; increasing charter
schools' capacity to recruit, enroll, and serve English learners; and
improving student achievement, including student growth and English
proficiency, and attainment (e.g., high school graduation rates,
college enrollment rates) for English learners.
[[Page 40660]]
(3) Promoting collaborative activities between charter schools,
non-chartered public schools, and key English learner stakeholders
designed to improve student achievement, including student growth and
English proficiency, and attainment (e.g., high school graduation
rates, college enrollment rates) for English learners.
Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning
This priority is for projects of national significance and scope
that are designed to improve achievement and attainment outcomes for
high-need students (as defined in this notice) through the development
and implementation in charter schools of technology-enabled
instructional models, tools, and supports that personalize learning.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
establishes the following program requirements for the CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities competitions. 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 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 Grants for National
Leadership Activities grant.
Application Requirements
(a) Logic Model: An applicant for a CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities grant must provide a logic model (as defined in
this notice) supporting its project.
(b) 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 operating, supporting, or managing 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
partnership or consortium and, if so applying, must comply with the
requirements for group applications set forth in 34 CFR 75.127-75.129.
Eligible applicants that are charter schools may not have any
significant compliance issues (as defined in this notice), including in
the areas of student safety, financial management, civil rights, and
statutory or regulatory compliance. In addition, to the extent that
eligible applicants that are partnerships or consortia include charter
schools, the lead applicant, each charter school operated or managed by
the lead applicant, and all partnership or consortium members,
including, in the case of a CMO applicant, all charter schools managed
by the CMO, must meet the definition of high-quality charter school (as
defined in this notice).
Final Definitions
In addition to the definitions otherwise included in section 5210
of the ESEA, which includes the definition of ``charter school,'' and
34 CFR 77.1, we are establishing the following definitions for the CSP
Grants for National Leadership Activities competition. We may apply one
or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in
effect.
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) 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
(including, if applicable, high school graduation rates and college and
other postsecondary enrollment rates) 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 (20 U.S.C. 6311) 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 (20
U.S.C. 6311) at the charter school and significant gains in student
academic achievement for all populations of students served by the
charter school;
(3) Results (including, if applicable and available, performance on
statewide tests, annual student attendance and retention rates, high
school graduation rates, college and other postsecondary attendance
rates, and college and other postsecondary persistence rates) for
[[Page 40661]]
low-income and other educationally disadvantaged students served by the
charter school that are above the average academic achievement results
for such students in the State;
(4) Positive results on a performance framework established by the
State or authorized public chartering agency for purposes of evaluating
charter school quality; and
(5) No significant compliance issues (as defined in this notice),
particularly in the areas of student safety, financial management, and
equitable and nondiscriminatory treatment for students; or
(b) A high-quality charter school as defined by the State, provided
that the State's definition is at least as rigorous as paragraph (a).
Logic model (also referred to as theory of action), as defined in
34 CFR 77.1(c), means a well-specified conceptual framework that
identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy,
or practice (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.
National level, as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c), describes the level
of scope or effectiveness of a process, product, strategy, or practice
that is able to be effective in a wide variety of communities,
including rural and urban areas, as well as with different groups
(e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, migrant
populations, individuals with disabilities, English learners, and
individuals of each gender).
Regional level, as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c), describes the level
of scope or effectiveness of a process, product, strategy, or practice
that is able to serve a variety of communities within a State or
multiple States, including rural and urban areas, as well as with
different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic
groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities, English
learners, and individuals of each gender). For an LEA-based project to
be considered a regional-level project, a process, product, strategy,
or practice must serve students in more than one LEA, unless the
process, product, strategy, or practice is implemented in a State in
which the State educational agency is the sole educational agency for
all schools.
Relevant outcome, as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c), means the student
outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to
improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.
Significant compliance issue means a violation that did, will, or
could (if not addressed or if it represents a pattern of repeated
misconduct or material non-compliance) 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,
(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
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, 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 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.''
[[Page 40662]]
We are issuing these final 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.
Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
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 9, 2014.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2014-16462 Filed 7-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P