Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Charter Schools Program Grants to State Educational Agencies, 68812-68821 [2014-27264]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
68812
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
will be posted to the docket at https://
www.regulations.gov.
IV. Electronic Access
Persons with access to the Internet
may obtain the document at either
https://www.fda.gov/Regulatory
Information/Guidances/default.htm or
https://www.regulations.gov. Always
access an FDA guidance document by
using FDA’s Web site listed in the
previous sentence to find the most
current version of the guidance.
Dated: November 13, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014–27290 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2014–OII–0019; CFDA
Number: 84.282A]
Proposed Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria—
Charter Schools Program Grants to
State Educational Agencies
Office of Innovation and
Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
AGENCY:
The Assistant Deputy
Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria under the Charter Schools
Program (CSP) Grants to State
educational agencies (SEAs). The
Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one
or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for competitions in fiscal year
(FY) 2015 and later years. We take this
action in order to support the
development of high-quality charter
schools throughout the Nation by
strengthening several components of
this program, including grantee
accountability; accountability and
oversight for authorized public
chartering agencies; and support to
educationally disadvantaged students.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before January 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
comments submitted by fax or by email
or those submitted after the comment
period. To ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies, please submit your
comments only once. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov to submit your
comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket, is available on the
site under ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver
your comments, address them to Stefan
Huh, U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W230,
Washington, DC 20202–5970. Privacy
Note: The Department’s policy is to
make all comments received from
members of the public available for
public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only
information that they wish to make
publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan Bettis, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 4W242, Washington, DC 20202–
5970. Telephone: (202) 453–6533 or by
email: charter.schools@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:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action:
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for
Innovation and Improvement proposes
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for CSP Grants to
SEAs. The Assistant Deputy Secretary
may use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for competitions in FY 2015 and
later years. We take this action in order
to support the development of highquality charter schools throughout the
Nation by strengthening several
components of the program, including
grantee accountability, accountability
and oversight for authorized public
chartering agencies, and support to
educationally disadvantaged students.
Summary of the Major Provisions of
This Regulatory Action: As noted above,
the Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes
this regulatory action to achieve three
main goals.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The first goal is greater accountability
for SEAs’ use of CSP funds; the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would
increase the likelihood that CSP funds
are directed toward the creation of highquality charter schools. Specifically, in
order to address the proposed selection
criteria, the SEA would be asked to
explain how charter schools fit into the
State’s broader education reform
strategy. In addition, these proposed
selection criteria would clarify how the
SEA should manage and report on
project performance. Proposed selection
criteria (a) (‘‘State-Level Strategy’’) and
(b) (‘‘Policy Context for Charter
Schools’’) would address the SEA’s
strategy for incorporating charter
schools into the State’s broader effort to
improve student outcomes and how the
policy context supports this goal.
Proposed selection criterion (c) (‘‘Past
Performance’’) would assess the
performance of charter schools in the
applicant’s State over the past five
years. Proposed selection criterion (e)
(‘‘Vision for Growth and
Accountability’’) would address the
SEA’s vision for measuring and
reporting on charter school
performance, cultivating the growth of
new high-quality charter schools, and
promoting rigorous accountability for
charter school performance. Proposed
selection criterion (f) (‘‘Dissemination of
Information and Best Practices’’) would
help ensure that the SEA has a plan for
disseminating information about charter
schools and best practices in successful
charter schools. Proposed selection
criterion (h) (‘‘Management Plan and
Theory of Action’’) and the proposed
logic model application requirement
would require the SEA to provide a
logic model that describes how its CSP
funds would be linked to the
achievement of specific measurable
outcomes and performance measures
that allow the SEA to track and evaluate
its project’s performance. Proposed
selection criterion (i) (‘‘Project Design’’)
would solicit information on the
mechanics of the charter school
subgrant program the SEA plans to
implement with CSP funds. In addition
to the selection criteria discussed above,
proposed priority 4 (‘‘SEAs That Have
Never Received A CSP Grant’’) would
promote the first goal of greater
accountability by supporting the growth
of high-quality charter school sectors in
States that have not received CSP
funding in the past, thereby creating
new systems of supports and increasing
the funding available for high-quality
charter schools in new regions.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
The second goal of this proposed
regulatory action is to strengthen public
accountability and oversight for
authorized public chartering agencies.
The proposed regulations would help
ensure that SEAs implement program
requirements, as well as State policies
and supports, in a manner that enables
authorized public chartering agencies to
be keenly focused on school quality
through rigorous and transparent charter
school authorization processes.
Furthermore, it would increase the
likelihood that CSP funds are directed
toward the creation of high-quality
charter schools and help improve the
quality of all charter schools throughout
the State.
The following proposed priorities and
selection criteria support this second
goal. Proposed priorities 1 (‘‘Periodic
Review and Evaluation’’) and 2
(‘‘Charter School Oversight’’) would
clarify existing statutory priorities in
these areas. Proposed priority 3 (‘‘HighQuality Authorizing and Monitoring
Processes’’) would encourage authorized
public chartering agencies in States
applying for this grant to adopt key
authorizing and monitoring processes
that are identified as best practices in
the field. Proposed selection criterion
(g) (‘‘Oversight of Authorized Public
Chartering Agencies’’) would request
that SEAs explain, in detail, their State’s
plan for holding authorized public
chartering agencies accountable for the
quality of the charter schools they
approve.
The third goal of this proposed
regulatory action is to encourage a
stronger focus on supporting and
improving academic outcomes for
educationally disadvantaged students.
While this goal has been a theme in
previous competitions under this
program, the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria would raise its profile. The
continued growth of charter schools,
and ongoing questions about
educationally disadvantaged students’
access to and performance in charter
schools, compels the Assistant Deputy
Secretary to encourage a continued
focus on students at the greatest risk of
academic failure. A critical component
of serving all students, including
educationally disadvantaged students,
is consideration of student body
diversity, including racial, ethnic, and
socioeconomic diversity. This proposed
regulatory action encourages broad
consideration of student body
composition, consistent with applicable
law, as charter schools are authorized
and funded and as best practices are
disseminated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
The following proposed priorities and
selection criteria support this third goal.
Proposed selection criterion (d)
(‘‘Quality of Plan to Support
Educationally Disadvantaged Students’’)
would allow SEAs to highlight specific
actions they would take to support
educationally disadvantaged students
through charter schools, while proposed
selection criteria (f) (‘‘Dissemination of
Best Practices’’) and (g) (‘‘Oversight of
Authorized Public Chartering
Agencies’’) would encourage the
meaningful incorporation of diversity
into charter school models and charter
school practices.
In addition to the three goals outlined
above, the Assistant Deputy Secretary
proposes these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in
order to clarify certain statutory
requirements and to streamline the CSP
application process, thereby decreasing
the burden on the applicant.
Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that the
benefits of this regulatory action
outweigh any associated costs, which
we believe would be minimal. This
action would not impose cost-bearing
requirements on participating SEAs
apart from those related to preparing an
application for a CSP grant and would
strengthen accountability for the use of
Federal funds by helping to ensure that
the Department awards CSP grants to
SEAs that are most capable of
expanding the number of high-quality
charter schools available to our Nation’s
students. Please refer to the Regulatory
Impact Analysis in this notice for a
more detailed discussion of costs and
benefits.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we
urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement,
definition, or selection criteria that each
comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 and their overall requirement
of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria. Please let us know of
any further ways we could reduce
potential costs or increase potential
benefits while preserving the effective
and efficient administration of the
program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68813
about this notice in 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., Room 4W259 Washington,
DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time,
Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the CSP is to increase national
understanding of the charter school
model by:
(1) Providing financial assistance for
the planning, program design, and
initial implementation of charter
schools;
(2) Evaluating the effects of charter
schools, including the effects on
students, student achievement, student
growth, staff, and parents;
(3) Expanding the number of highquality charter schools available to
students across the Nation; and
(4) Encouraging the States to provide
support to charter schools for facilities
financing in an amount more nearly
commensurate to the amount the States
have typically provided for traditional
public schools.
The purpose of the CSP Grants to
SEAs is to enable SEAs to provide
financial assistance, through subgrants
to eligible applicants, for the planning,
program design, and initial
implementation of charter schools and
for the dissemination of information
about successful charter schools,
including practices that existing charter
schools have demonstrated are
successful.
Program Authority: Title V, Part B,
Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)
(20 U.S.C. 7221–7221j); and the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–76).
Proposed Priorities: This notice
contains four proposed priorities.
Proposed Priority 1—Periodic Review
and Evaluation
Background: Under the CSP
authorizing statute, the Department
must give priority to applications from
SEAs in States that provide for periodic
review and evaluation by the authorized
public chartering agency of each charter
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68814
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
school.1 These reviews must be
conducted at least once every five years
for each charter school (unless required
more frequently by State law) to
determine whether the charter school is
meeting the terms of the school’s charter
and meeting or exceeding the student
academic achievement requirements
and goals for charter schools as set forth
under State law or the school’s charter
(20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)(2)). While this
periodic review and evaluation by an
authorized public chartering agency
would not necessarily have to occur
only as part of the charter renewal
process, in order to meet the priority,
the periodic review and evaluation
would have to provide an opportunity
for the authorized public chartering
agency to impose meaningful
consequences on a charter school that is
not meeting the terms of its charter or
is not meeting or exceeding applicable
student academic achievement
requirements and goals.
The language in this proposed priority
is identical to the language in the
statute, except that this proposed
priority would clarify that periodic
review and evaluation should provide
an opportunity for the authorized public
chartering agency to take appropriate
action or impose meaningful
consequences on the charter school, if
necessary. The proposed priority would
also clarify that the student academic
achievement requirements and goals
may be established in a State regulation
or State policy that meets or exceeds
such requirements in the State law or
regulation.
Proposed Priority: To meet this
priority, the applicant must demonstrate
that the State provides for periodic
review and evaluation by the authorized
public chartering agency of each charter
school at least once every five years,
unless required more frequently by State
law, to determine whether the charter
school is meeting the terms of the
school’s charter and meeting or
exceeding the student academic
achievement requirements and goals for
charter schools as set forth in the
school’s charter or under State law, a
State regulation, or a State policy,
provided that the student academic
achievement requirements and goals for
charter schools established by that
policy meet or exceed those set forth
under applicable State law or State
regulation. Periodic review and
evaluation provides an opportunity for
the authorized public chartering agency
1 Under section 5202(e)(1) of the ESEA, an SEA
must meet this criterion and one or more of the
three criteria described in section 5202(e)(3) in
order to receive priority (20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
to take appropriate action or impose
meaningful consequences on the charter
school, if necessary.
Proposed Priority 2—Charter School
Oversight
Background: Since FY 2010, each
appropriations act applicable to the
Department has required SEAs receiving
CSP grants to provide two assurances.2
First, each SEA applicant must provide
an assurance that State law, regulations,
or other policies require that each
authorized charter school in the State (a)
operate under a legally binding charter
or performance contract between itself
and the school’s authorized public
chartering agency that describes the
rights and responsibilities of the school
and the public chartering agency; (b)
conduct annual, timely, and
independent audits of the school’s
financial statements that are filed with
the school’s authorized public
chartering agency; and (c) demonstrate
improved student academic
achievement. Second, each SEA
applicant must provide an assurance
that authorized public chartering
agencies in the State use increases in
student academic achievement for all
groups of students described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA 3 as the
most important factor when determining
whether to renew or revoke a school’s
charter.4
In the past, these two requirements
were incorporated into an assurance
document that SEA grantees signed to
affirm compliance. These requirements
are important characteristics of highquality authorizing practices and are
essential to holding charter schools
accountable. Incorporating the language
for these requirements into a priority
would strengthen the Department’s
ability to hold SEAs accountable for
meeting these requirements at the time
the award is made and throughout the
grant period.5
2 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
(Pub. L. 111–117); the Department of Defense and
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
(Pub. L. 112–10); the Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112–36); the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub.
L. 113–6); and the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014 (Pub.L. 113–76).
3 The groups of students described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA include public
elementary and secondary school students,
economically disadvantaged students, students
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with
disabilities, and students with limited English
proficiency.
4 This priority would not preclude an authorized
public chartering agency from revoking or electing
not to renew a school’s charter based on other nonacademic factors, such as financial mismanagement.
5 In years in which the appropriations act requires
the elements of this proposed priority, it will be a
requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Proposed Priority: To meet this
priority, an application must
demonstrate that State law, regulations,
or other policies in the State where the
applicant is located require the
following:
(a) That each charter school in the
State—
(1) Operates under a legally binding
charter or performance contract between
itself and the school’s authorized public
chartering agency that describes the
rights and responsibilities of the school
and the public chartering agency;
(2) Conducts annual, timely, and
independent audits of the school’s
financial statements that are filed with
the school’s authorized public
chartering agency; and
(3) Demonstrates improved student
academic achievement; and
(b) That all authorized public
chartering agencies in the State use
increases in student academic
achievement for all groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of
the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)) as the
most important factor when determining
whether to renew or revoke a school’s
charter.
Proposed Priority 3—High-Quality
Authorizing and Monitoring Processes
Background: The quality of a charter
school is influenced by the quality of
the charter approval process and the
quality of its authorized public
chartering agency’s oversight and
monitoring processes. This proposed
priority would promote the use of
charter approval, monitoring, and
oversight practices that have been
identified by stakeholders as likely to
contribute to the creation and operation
of high-quality charter schools.6
High-quality authorizing processes
can influence the quality of charter
schools through the authorization
process and beyond. Expedited charter
approval for operators with exemplary
track records helps increase the number
of high-quality charter schools, while a
multi-tiered approval process can keep
potentially poor-performing charter
schools from ever operating. Clear
charter approval processes and
frameworks for evaluating charter
schools and authorized public
chartering agencies would strengthen
accountability and improve
transparency.
Strong performance monitoring
mechanisms can increase the speed of
6 See e.g., National Association of Charter School
Authorizers’ Index of Essential Practices 2012.
Available at: www.pageturnpro.com/NationalAssociation-of-Charter-School-Authorizers/50450The-Index-of-Essential-Practices-2012/#/
1.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
decision-making by authorized public
chartering agencies, allowing highquality charter schools to open, expand,
and disseminate information about best
practices. These systems can also
accelerate the identification of charter
schools that are performing poorly or
demonstrate significant operational
risks and, when necessary, expedite
their closure.
Proposed Priority: To meet this
priority, an applicant must demonstrate
that all authorized public chartering
agencies in the State operate using one
or more of the following:
(a) Frameworks and processes to
evaluate the performance of charter
schools on a regular basis that include—
(1) Rigorous academic and operational
performance expectations (including
performance expectations related to
financial management and equitable
treatment of all students and
applicants);
(2) School-specific performance
objectives aligned to those expectations;
(3) Clear criteria for renewing the
charter of a school based on an objective
body of evidence, including the
performance objectives outlined in the
charter contract, demonstration of
organizational and fiscal viability, and
demonstration of fidelity to the terms of
the charter contract and applicable law;
(4) Clear criteria for revoking the
charter of a school if there is violation
of law or public trust regarding student
safety or public funds, or evidence of
poor student academic achievement;
and
(5) Annual reporting by authorized
public chartering agencies to each of
their authorized charter schools that
summarizes the individual school’s
performance and compliance, based on
this framework, and identifies any areas
needing improvement.
(b) Standardized systems that measure
and benchmark the performance of the
authorized public chartering agency,
including the performance of its
portfolio of charter schools, and provide
for the annual dissemination of
information on such performance;
(c) Authorizing processes that
establish clear criteria for evaluation of
charter applications and include a
multi-tiered clearance or review of a
charter school, including a final review
immediately before the school opens for
its first operational year; or
(d) Authorizing processes that include
differentiated review of charter petitions
based on whether, and the extent to
which, the charter school developer has
been successful (as determined by the
authorized public chartering agency) in
establishing and operating one or more
high-quality charter schools.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
Proposed Priority 4—SEAs That Have
Never Received a CSP Grant
Background: This proposed priority
would assist SEAs that have never
received a CSP grant and it would
address a major purpose of the CSP by
expanding the number of high-quality
charter schools across the Nation. A
CSP grant can help an SEA support the
growth of a high-quality charter school
sector in its State beyond the startup of
additional charter schools. The required
elements for conducting a CSP subgrant
program and the opportunity to share
effective practices with other SEA
grantees contribute to the development
of a solid infrastructure to support
charter schools. These required
elements include investing in quality
authorizing practices, developing a
subgrant competition process, and
disseminating information about charter
schools and best practices in charter
schools. Therefore, this proposed
priority would help create and
strengthen a community of charter
school practitioners and supports for the
charter school sector in the State.
Proposed Priority: To meet this
priority, an applicant must be an
eligible SEA applicant that has never
received a CSP grant.
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)).
Proposed Requirements
Background: We propose four
application requirements to use in
conjunction with the statutory
application requirements. The purpose
of the first application requirement is to
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68815
collect important information on charter
school admissions lotteries, including
any proposed student enrollment
preferences or exemptions from the
lottery.7 The purposes of the remaining
three application requirements are to
strengthen the Department’s ability to
monitor CSP grants and ensure that
grantees adhere to the terms of their
approved applications, specifically
through the development of
comprehensive logic models and their
definitions of a high-quality charter
school and an academically poorperforming charter school, during their
projects.
Proposed Requirements: The
Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the
following requirements for this program.
We may apply one or more of these
requirements in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Lottery and Enrollment Preferences:
Describe (1) how lotteries for admission
to charter schools will be conducted in
your State, including any student
enrollment preferences or exemptions
from the lottery that charter schools are
required or expressly permitted by the
State to employ, and (2) any
mechanisms that exist for the SEA or
authorized public chartering agency to
review, monitor, or approve such
lotteries or student enrollment
preferences or exemptions from the
lottery. In addition, the SEA must
provide an assurance that it will require
each applicant for a CSP subgrant to
include in its application descriptions
of its recruitment and admissions
policies and practices, including a
description of the proposed lottery and
any enrollment preferences or
exemptions from the lottery the charter
school employs or plans to employ, and
how those enrollment preferences or
exemptions are consistent with State
law, the CSP authorizing statute, and
CSP guidance (for information related to
admissions and lotteries under the CSP,
please see Section E of the CSP
guidance at https://www2.ed.gov/
programs/charter/nonregulatoryguidance.html).
7 The Department is requesting this information
in response to specific recommendations made by
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its
February 2013 report entitled, ‘‘Charter Schools:
Guidance Needed for Military Base Schools on
Startup and Operational Issues’’ (GAO–13–67). In
its response to the report, the Department agreed,
among other things, to require SEAs (and other
eligible applicants under the CSP), as appropriate,
(a) to describe any enrollment preferences that
charter schools are required or permitted to employ
under State law; and (b) to require applicants for
CSP subgrants to include descriptions of their
recruitment and admissions policies and practices,
including any enrollment preferences they plan to
employ, in their subgrant applications.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
68816
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Logic model: Provide a complete logic
model for the project, as defined in 34
CFR 77.1.8 The logic model must
address the role of the grant in
promoting the State-level strategy,
articulated in selection criterion (a), for
expanding the number of high-quality
charter schools through startup
subgrants, optional dissemination
subgrants, optional revolving loan
funds, and other strategies.
High-quality charter school: Provide—
(a) Written certification that, for the
purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses
the term high-quality charter schools as
defined in this notice; or
(b) If the State proposes to use an
alternative definition of high-quality
charter school in accordance with
paragraph (b) of the definition of the
term in this notice, (1) the specific
definition the State proposes to use; and
(2) a written explanation of why the
proposed definition is at least as
rigorous as the definition of high-quality
charter school set forth in the
Definitions section of this notice.
Academically poor-performing
charter school: Provide—
(a) Written verification that, for
purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses
the term academically poor-performing
charter schools as defined in this notice;
or
(b) If the State proposes to use an
alternative definition of academically
poor-performing charter school in
accordance with paragraph (b) of the
definition of the term in this notice, (1)
the specific definition the State
proposes to use; and (2) a written
explanation of why the proposed
definition is at least as rigorous as the
definition of academically poorperforming charter school set forth in
the Definitions section of this notice.
Proposed Definitions
Background: We propose to define
four important terms associated with
this program that are not defined in
section 5210 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C.
7221i) or 34 CFR 77.1.
Proposed Definitions: The Assistant
Deputy Secretary proposes the following
definitions for this program. We may
apply one or more of these definitions
in any year in which this program is in
effect.
The proposed definitions of highquality charter school, and significant
8 Under 34 CFR 77.1, logic model (also referred
to as theory of action) 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
compliance issue are substantively
similar to the definitions of the terms in
the notice of final priorities,
requirements, and definitions for the
CSP Replication and Expansion grant
program, published in the Federal
Register on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40898).
While the definition of ‘‘educationally
disadvantaged students’’ is similar to
the definition of the term in the July 12,
2011, notice of final priorities,
requirements, and definitions for the
CSP Replication and Expansion grant
program, the definition of educationally
disadvantaged students in this notice is
based primarily on section 1115(b)(2) of
the ESEA.
Although we propose minor revisions
to these definitions to capture the
meaning of these terms from a State
perspective, the substance of the
definitions remains unchanged.
Academically poor-performing
charter school means—
(a) A charter school that has been in
operation for at least three years and
that—
(1) Has been identified as being in the
lowest-performing five percent of all
schools in the State and has failed to
improve school performance (based on
the SEA’s accountability system under
the ESEA) over the past three years; and
(2) Has failed to demonstrate student
academic growth (at least an average of
one grade level of growth for each
cohort of students) in each of the past
three years, as demonstrated by
statewide or other assessments
approved by the authorized public
chartering agency; or
(b) An SEA may use an alternative
definition for academically poorperforming charter school, provided that
the SEA complies with the requirements
for proposing to use an alternative
definition for the term as set forth in
paragraph (b) of ‘‘Academically poorperforming charter school’’ in the
Proposed Requirements section of this
notice.
Educationally disadvantaged students
means economically disadvantaged
students, students with disabilities,
migrant students, limited English
proficient students, neglected or
delinquent students, or homeless
students.
High-quality charter school means—
(a) A charter 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
postsecondary education 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 subgroups
of students described in section 1111 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 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
education attendance rates, and college
and other postsecondary education
persistence rates) for 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) 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,
particularly in the areas of student
safety, financial management, and
equitable treatment of students; or
(b) An SEA may use an alternative
definition for high-quality charter
school, provided that the SEA complies
with the requirements for proposing to
use an alternative definition for the term
as set forth in paragraph (b) of ‘‘Highquality charter school’’ in the Proposed
Requirements section of this notice.
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.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background: The proposed selection
criteria would strengthen several
components of this program, which
include grantee accountability;
accountability and oversight for
authorized public chartering agencies;
and equitable access to charter schools
and support for educationally
disadvantaged students. The proposed
selection criteria also would improve
efficacy in data collection and reporting
by clarifying application requirements
and streamlining the selection criteria.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Specifically, factors (1), (2), and (3)
under proposed selection criterion (b)
(‘‘Policy Context for Charter Schools’’)
are based upon elements of the CSP
authorizing statute.
Proposed selection criteria (a) (‘‘StateLevel Strategy’’), (b) (‘‘Policy Context for
Charter Schools’’), and (c) (‘‘Past
Performance’’) would request that the
SEA describe its vision and the policy
context for charter schools in the State
and provide evidence of the past
performance of charter schools in the
State. These criteria are intended to
encourage an SEA to consider charter
schools as a key part of its overall efforts
to improve public education and allow
reviewers to evaluate the context in
which a grant might be awarded.
Proposed selection criteria (d)
(‘‘Quality of Plan to Support
Educationally Disadvantaged
Students’’), (e) (‘‘Vision for Growth and
Accountability’’), (f) (‘‘Dissemination of
Information and Best Practices’’), and (g)
(‘‘Oversight of Authorized Public
Chartering Agencies’’) would allow an
SEA to focus on specific areas of
importance for charter schools in its
State. As noted in the Executive
Summary, a major focus of the
competition would be on the quality of
the plan to support educationally
disadvantaged students. Specifically,
proposed selection criterion (d)
(‘‘Quality of Plan to Support
Educationally Disadvantaged Students’’)
would ask an SEA to describe how it
plans to support educationally
disadvantaged students equitably and
meaningfully.
Proposed selection criterion (e)
(‘‘Vision for Growth and
Accountability’’) would ask an SEA to
describe its vision for cultivating highperforming charter schools generally,
while proposed selection criteria (f)
(‘‘Dissemination of Information and Best
Practices’’) and (g) (‘‘Oversight of
Authorized Public Chartering
Agencies’’) would ask an SEA to
describe how it plans to disseminate
best or promising practices of charter
schools to each local educational agency
(LEA) in the State. In addition, these
criteria would ask an SEA to describe its
efforts to strengthen authorized public
chartering agencies’ oversight and
approval processes for charter schools
(including any efforts by the SEA to
encourage authorized public chartering
agencies to create a robust portfolio of
charter schools, including charter
schools with a focus on increasing
student body diversity). By
disseminating information on successful
school models that incorporate student
body diversity, and by encouraging
authorized public chartering agencies to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
work with charter school developers to
address student body diversity during
the charter approval, monitoring, and
renewal processes, these selection
criteria would encourage the meaningful
inclusion of student body diversity in
charter school models, in accordance
with applicable law, as they are being
developed and implemented.
Proposed selection criteria (h)
(‘‘Management Plan and Theory of
Action’’) and (i) (‘‘Project Design’’)
would require an SEA to describe, in
detail, the key elements of its proposed
project in the form of a logic model that
includes relevant program and projectspecific performance measures and the
mechanics of the SEA’s planned
subgrant competitions, including how
such competitions would create a
portfolio of subgrantees that focus on
areas of need within the State.
Proposed Selection Criteria: The
Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the
following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under this
program. We may apply one or more of
these criteria in any year in which this
program is in effect. In the notice
inviting applications or the application
package, or both, we will announce the
maximum possible points assigned to
each criterion.
(a) State-Level Strategy. The Secretary
considers the quality of the State-level
strategy for using charter schools to
improve educational outcomes for
students throughout the State. In
determining the quality of the Statelevel strategy, the Secretary considers
one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the SEA’s CSP
activities, including the subgrant
program, are integrated into the State’s
overall strategy for improving student
academic achievement and attainment
(including high school graduation rates
and college and other postsecondary
education enrollment rates), and closing
achievement and attainment gaps, and
complement or leverage other statewide
education reform efforts (e.g., as
described in the State’s Race to the Top
application or ESEA Flexibility request);
(2) The extent to which funding
equity for charter schools (including
equitable funding for charter school
facilities) is incorporated into the SEA’s
State-level strategy; and
(3) The extent to which the State
encourages local strategies for
improving student academic
achievement and attainment that
involve charter schools, including but
not limited to the following:
(i) Collaboration, including the
sharing of data and promising
instructional and other practices,
between charter schools and other
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68817
public schools or providers of early
learning and development programs or
alternative education programs; and
(ii) The creation of charter schools
that would serve as viable options for
students who currently attend, or would
otherwise attend, the State’s lowestperforming schools.
(b) Policy Context for Charter Schools.
The Secretary considers the policy
context for charter schools under the
proposed project. In determining the
policy context for charter schools under
the proposed project, the Secretary
considers one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The degree of flexibility afforded
to charter schools under the State’s
charter school law, including:
(i) The extent to which charter
schools in the State are exempt from
State or local rules that inhibit the
flexible operation and management of
public schools; and
(ii) The extent to which charter
schools in the State have a high degree
of autonomy, including autonomy over
the charter school’s budget,
expenditures, staffing, procurement, and
curriculum;
(2) The quality of the SEA’s process
for:
(i) Annually informing each charter
school in the State about Federal funds
the charter school is eligible to receive
and about Federal programs in which
the charter school may participate; and
(ii) Annually ensuring that each
charter school in the State receives, in
a timely fashion, the school’s
commensurate share of Federal funds
that are allocated by formula each year,
particularly during the first year of
operation of the school and during a
year in which the school’s enrollment
expands significantly; and
(3) The quality of the SEA’s plan to
ensure that charter schools that are
considered to be LEAs under State law
and that LEAs in which charter schools
are located will comply with sections
613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.
6101 et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.),
title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).
(c) Past Performance. The Secretary
considers the past performance of
charter schools in a State that enacted
a charter school law for the first time
five or more years before submission of
its application. In determining the past
performance of charter schools in a
State that enacted a charter school law
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68818
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
for the first time five or more years
before submission of the SEA’s
application, the Secretary considers one
or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which there has been
a demonstrated increase, for each of the
past five years, in the number and
percentage of high-quality charter
schools (as defined in this notice) in the
State;
(2) The extent to which there has been
a demonstrated reduction, for each of
the past five years, in the number and
percentage of academically poorperforming charter schools (as defined
in this notice) in the State; and
(3) Whether, and the extent to which,
the academic achievement and
academic attainment (including high
school graduation rates and college and
other postsecondary education
enrollment rates) of charter school
students equal or exceed the academic
achievement and academic attainment
of similar students in other public
schools in the State over the past five
years.
(d) Quality of Plan to Support
Educationally Disadvantaged Students.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the SEA’s plan to support educationally
disadvantaged students. In determining
the quality of the plan to support
educationally disadvantaged students,
the Secretary considers one or more of
the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the SEA’s
charter school subgrant program
would—
(i) Assist students, particularly
educationally disadvantaged students,
in meeting and exceeding State
academic content standards and State
student achievement standards; and
(ii) Reduce or eliminate achievement
gaps for educationally disadvantaged
students;
(2) The quality of the SEA’s plan to
ensure that charter schools attract,
recruit, admit, enroll, serve, and retain
educationally disadvantaged students
equitably, meaningfully, and, with
regard to educationally disadvantaged
students who are students with
disabilities or English learners, in a
manner consistent with, as appropriate,
the IDEA (regarding students with
disabilities) and civil rights laws, in
particular, section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964;
(3) The extent to which the SEA will
encourage innovations in charter
schools, such as models, policies,
supports, or structures, that are
designed to improve the academic
achievement of educationally
disadvantaged students; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
(4) The quality of the SEA’s plan for
monitoring all charter schools to ensure
compliance with Federal and State laws,
particularly laws related to educational
equity, nondiscrimination, and access to
public schools for educationally
disadvantaged students.
(e) Vision for Growth and
Accountability. The Secretary
determines the quality of the SEA’s
vision for charter school growth and
accountability. In determining the
quality of the SEA’s vision, the
Secretary considers one or more of the
following factors:
(1) The quality of the SEA’s systems
for collecting, analyzing, and publicly
reporting data on charter school
performance, including data on student
academic achievement, attainment
(including high school graduation rates
and college and other postsecondary
education enrollment rates), retention,
and discipline for all students and
disaggregated by student subgroup;
(2) The ambition, vision, and
feasibility of the SEA’s plan (including
key actions) to support the creation of
high-quality charter schools during the
project period, including a reasonable
estimate of the number of high-quality
charter schools to be created in the State
during the project period; and
(3) The ambition, vision, and
feasibility of the SEA’s plan (including
key actions) to support the closure of
academically poor-performing charter
schools in the State (i.e., through
revocation, non-renewal, or voluntary
termination of a charter) during the
project period.
(f) Dissemination of Information and
Best Practices. The Secretary considers
the quality of the SEA’s plan to
disseminate information about charter
schools and best or promising practices
of successful charter schools to each
LEA in the State as well as to charter
schools, other public schools, and
charter school developers (20 U.S.C.
7221(b)(2); 20 U.S.C. 7221(c)(f)(6)). If an
SEA proposes to use a portion of its
grant funds for dissemination subgrants
under section 5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA
(20 U.S.C. 7221c), the SEA should
incorporate these subgrants into the
overall plan for dissemination. In
determining the quality of the SEA’s
plan to disseminate information about
charter schools and best or promising
practices of successful charter schools,
the Secretary considers one or more of
the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the SEA will
serve as a leader in the State for
identifying and disseminating
information (which may include, but is
not limited to, providing technical
assistance) about best or promising
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
practices in successful charter schools,
including how the SEA will use
measures of efficacy and data in
identifying such practices and assessing
the impact of its dissemination
activities;
(2) The quality of the SEA’s plan for
disseminating information and research
on best or promising practices used and
benefits of charter schools that
effectively incorporate student body
diversity, including racial and ethnic
diversity and diversity with respect to
educationally disadvantaged students,
consistent with applicable law;
(3) The quality of the SEA’s plan for
disseminating information and research
on best or promising practices in charter
schools related to student discipline and
school climate; and
(4) For an SEA that proposes to use a
portion of its grant funds to award
dissemination subgrants under section
5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C.
7221a), the quality of the subgrant
award process and the likelihood that
such dissemination activities will
increase the number of high-quality
charter schools in the State and
contribute to improved student
academic achievement.
(g) Oversight of Authorized Public
Chartering Agencies. The Secretary
considers the quality of the SEA’s plan
(including any use of grant
administrative or other funds) to
monitor, evaluate, assist, and hold
accountable authorized public
chartering agencies. In determining the
quality of the SEA’s plan to provide
oversight to authorized public
chartering agencies, the Secretary
considers how well the SEA’s plan will
ensure that authorized public chartering
agencies are—
(1) Seeking and approving charter
school petitions from developers with
the capacity to create high-quality
charter schools;
(2) Approving charter school petitions
with design elements that incorporate
evidence-based school models and
practices, including, but not limited to,
school models and practices that focus
on racial and ethnic diversity in student
bodies and diversity in student bodies
with respect to educationally
disadvantaged students, consistent with
applicable law;
(3) Establishing measureable
academic and operational performance
expectations for all charter schools
(including alternative charter schools,
virtual charter schools, and charter
schools that include pre-kindergarten, if
such schools exist in the State) that
include, but are not limited to, the
elements of high-quality charter schools
as defined in this notice;
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(4) Monitoring their charter schools
on at least an annual basis, including
conducting an in-depth review of each
charter school at least once every five
years, to ensure that charter schools are
meeting the terms of their charters and
complying with applicable State and
Federal laws;
(5) Using increases in student
academic achievement as the most
important factor in renewal decisions;
basing renewal decisions on a
comprehensive set of criteria, which are
set forth in the charter contract; and
revoking, not renewing, or encouraging
the voluntary termination of charters
held by academically poor-performing
charter schools;
(6) Providing, on an annual basis,
public reports on the performance of
their portfolios of charter schools,
including the performance of each
individual charter school with respect
to meeting the terms of, and
expectations set forth in, the school’s
charter contract.
(7) Supporting charter school
autonomy while holding charter schools
accountable for results and meeting the
terms of their charters and performance
agreements; and
(8) Ensuring the continued
accountability of charter schools during
any transition to new State assessments
or accountability systems, including
those based on college- and career-ready
standards.
(h) Management Plan and Theory of
Action. The Secretary considers the
quality of the management plan and the
project’s theory of action. In
determining the quality of the
management plan and the project’s
theory of action, the Secretary considers
one or more of the following factors:
(1) The quality, cohesion, and
reasoning of the logic model (as defined
in 34 CFR 77.1 (c)), including the extent
to which it addresses the role of the
grant in promoting the State-level
strategy for using charter schools to
improve educational outcomes for
students through CSP subgrants for
planning, program design, and initial
implementation; optional dissemination
subgrants; optional revolving loan
funds; and other strategies;
(2) The extent to which the SEA’s
project-specific performance measures,
including any measures required by the
Department, support the logic model;
and
(3) The adequacy of the management
plan to—
(i) Achieve the objectives of the
proposed project on time and within
budget, including the existence of
clearly defined responsibilities,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
timelines, and milestones for
accomplishing project tasks; and
(ii) Address any compliance issues or
findings related to the CSP that are
identified in an audit or other
monitoring review.
(i) Project Design. The Secretary
considers the quality of the design of the
SEA’s charter school subgrant program,
including the extent to which the
project design furthers the SEA’s overall
strategy for increasing the number of
high-quality charter schools in the State
and improving student academic
achievement. In determining the quality
of the project design, the Secretary
considers one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The quality of the SEA’s charter
school subgrant awards process, and the
dissemination subgrant awards process,
if applicable, including:
(i) The subgrant application and peer
review process, timelines for these
processes, and how the SEA intends to
ensure that subgrants will be awarded to
applicants demonstrating the capacity to
create high-quality charter schools; and
(ii) A reasonable year-by-year
estimate, with supporting evidence, of
the number of subgrants the SEA
expects to award during the project
period and the average size of those
subgrants, including an explanation of
any assumptions upon which the
estimates are based, and if the SEA has
previously received a CSP grant, the
percentage of eligible applicants that
were awarded subgrants and how this
percentage related to the overall quality
of the applicant pool;
(2) The process for monitoring CSP
subgrantees;
(3) How the SEA will create a
portfolio of subgrantees that focuses on
areas of need within the State, such as
increasing student body diversity, and
how this prioritization aligns with the
State-level strategy;
(4) The steps the SEA will take to
inform teachers, parents, and
communities of the SEA’s charter school
subgrant program; and
(5) A description of any requested
waivers of statutory or regulatory
provisions over which the Secretary
exercises administrative authority and
the extent to which those waivers will,
if granted, further the objectives of the
project.
Final Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria: We
will announce the final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering
responses to this notice and other
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68819
information available to the Department.
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action
would have an annual effect on the
economy of more than $100 million
because we anticipate awarding more
than $100 million in grants to SEAs in
FY 2015. Therefore, this proposed
action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and
subject to review by OMB under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.
Notwithstanding this determination, we
have assessed the potential costs and
benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this proposed regulatory
action and have determined that the
benefits would justify the costs.
We have also reviewed this proposed
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68820
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits would
justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that would
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
proposed regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and
tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis we
discuss the potential costs and benefits
of this action as well as regulatory
alternatives we considered.
Discussion of Potential Costs and
Benefits
The Department believes that this
regulatory action would not impose
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
significant costs on eligible SEAs,
whose participation in this program is
voluntary. This action would not
impose requirements on participating
SEAs apart from those related to
preparing an application for a CSP
grant. The costs associated with meeting
these requirements are, in the
Department’s estimation, minimal.
This regulatory action would
strengthen accountability for the use of
Federal funds by helping to ensure that
the Department selects for CSP grants
the SEAs that are most capable of
expanding the number of high-quality
charter schools available to our Nation’s
students, consistent with the purpose of
the program as described in section
5201 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221).
Similarly, this action would benefit
participating SEAs by supporting their
efforts to encourage the development
and operation of high-quality charter
schools. The Department believes that
these benefits to the Federal government
and to SEAs outweigh the costs
associated with this action.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table we
have prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the
provisions of this regulatory action. This
table provides our best estimate of the
changes in annual monetized transfers
as a result of this regulatory action.
Expenditures are classified as transfers
from the Federal Government to SEAs.
ACCOUNTING STATEMENT
CLASSIFICATION OF
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
[in millions]
Category
Annualized Monetized
Transfers.
From Whom to
Whom?
Transfers
$100.
From the Federal
Government to
SEAs.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department believes that the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria proposed in this notice
are needed to administer the program
effectively. As an alternative to
promulgating the proposed selection
criteria, the Department could choose
from among the selection factors
authorized for CSP grants to SEAs in
section 5204(a) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C.
7221c) and the general selection criteria
in 34 CFR 75.210. We do not believe
that these factors and criteria provide a
sufficient basis on which to evaluate the
quality of applications. In particular, the
factors and criteria would not
sufficiently enable the Department to
assess an applicant’s past performance
with respect to the operation of highquality charter schools or the closure of
academically poor-performing charter
schools (as would be examined under
proposed selection criterion (c) ‘‘Past
Performance’’) or its plan to hold
authorized public chartering agencies
accountable for the performance of
charter schools that they approve (as
under criterion (g) ‘‘Oversight of
Authorized Public Chartering
Agencies’’), considerations which are
critically important in determining
applicant quality.
We note that several of the priorities,
requirements, and selection criteria
proposed in this notice are based on
priorities, requirements, selection
criteria, and other provisions in the
authorizing statute for this program.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: November 13, 2014.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2014–27264 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817; FRL–9918–60–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AQ93
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Industry and Standards of
Performance for Portland Cement
Plants: Amendments
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
On February 12, 2013, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
finalized amendments to the national
emission standards for the control of
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)
from the new and existing Portland
cement manufacturing industry at major
sources of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP). Subsequently, the EPA has
become aware of certain minor technical
errors in those amendments, and is,
accordingly, proposing amendments
and technical corrections to the final
rule. In addition, the EPA plans to
remove rule provisions establishing an
affirmative defense in the final technical
correction rule.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before January 20, 2015,
or 30 days after date of public hearing,
if later.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by November 24, 2014, we will
hold a public hearing on December 4,
2014 on the EPA campus at 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov: Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
• Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov.
Include Attention Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2011–0817 in the subject line
of the message.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–
0817.
• Mail: Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460. In addition, please mail a
copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket
Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West
Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20004, Attention
Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2011–0817. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to
Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2011–0817. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should not include
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68821
special characters or any form of
encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about the EPA’s public docket, visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at: https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
Docket. The EPA has established a
docket for this rulemaking under Docket
ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure 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. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
EPA WJC West Building, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the
EPA requesting a public hearing by
November 24, 2014, the public hearing
will be held on December 4, 2014 at the
EPA’s campus at 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. The hearing will begin at 1:00
p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) and
conclude at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard
Time). Please contact Ms. Pamela
Garrett at (919) 541–7966 or to register
to speak at the hearing, or to inquire
about whether a hearing will be held.
The last day to pre-register in advance
to speak at the hearings will be
December 1, 2014. Additionally,
requests to speak will be taken the day
of the hearing at the hearing registration
desk, although preferences on speaking
times may not be able to be fulfilled. If
you require the service of a translator or
special accommodations such as audio
description, please let us know at the
time of registration. If you require an
accommodation, we ask that you preregister for the hearing, as we may not
be able to arrange such accommodations
without advance notice.
The hearing will provide interested
parties the opportunity to present data,
views or arguments concerning the
proposed action. The EPA will make
every effort to accommodate all speakers
who arrive and register. Because this
hearing is being held at a U.S.
government facility, individuals
planning to attend the hearing should be
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68812-68821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27264]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2014-OII-0019; CFDA Number: 84.282A]
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Charter Schools Program Grants to State Educational Agencies
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
under the Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State educational
agencies (SEAs). The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of
these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We take this
action in order to support the development of high-quality charter
schools throughout the Nation by strengthening several components of
this program, including grantee accountability; accountability and
oversight for authorized public chartering agencies; and support to
educationally disadvantaged students.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``Are you new to the site?''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments, address them to Stefan Huh, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W230,
Washington, DC 20202-5970. Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to
make all comments received from members of the public available for
public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly
available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Bettis, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W242, Washington, DC 20202-
5970. Telephone: (202) 453-6533 or by email: charter.schools@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:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Assistant Deputy Secretary
for Innovation and Improvement proposes priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for CSP Grants to SEAs. The
Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in
FY 2015 and later years. We take this action in order to support the
development of high-quality charter schools throughout the Nation by
strengthening several components of the program, including grantee
accountability, accountability and oversight for authorized public
chartering agencies, and support to educationally disadvantaged
students.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: As noted
above, the Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes this regulatory action
to achieve three main goals.
The first goal is greater accountability for SEAs' use of CSP
funds; the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would increase the likelihood that CSP funds are
directed toward the creation of high-quality charter schools.
Specifically, in order to address the proposed selection criteria, the
SEA would be asked to explain how charter schools fit into the State's
broader education reform strategy. In addition, these proposed
selection criteria would clarify how the SEA should manage and report
on project performance. Proposed selection criteria (a) (``State-Level
Strategy'') and (b) (``Policy Context for Charter Schools'') would
address the SEA's strategy for incorporating charter schools into the
State's broader effort to improve student outcomes and how the policy
context supports this goal. Proposed selection criterion (c) (``Past
Performance'') would assess the performance of charter schools in the
applicant's State over the past five years. Proposed selection
criterion (e) (``Vision for Growth and Accountability'') would address
the SEA's vision for measuring and reporting on charter school
performance, cultivating the growth of new high-quality charter
schools, and promoting rigorous accountability for charter school
performance. Proposed selection criterion (f) (``Dissemination of
Information and Best Practices'') would help ensure that the SEA has a
plan for disseminating information about charter schools and best
practices in successful charter schools. Proposed selection criterion
(h) (``Management Plan and Theory of Action'') and the proposed logic
model application requirement would require the SEA to provide a logic
model that describes how its CSP funds would be linked to the
achievement of specific measurable outcomes and performance measures
that allow the SEA to track and evaluate its project's performance.
Proposed selection criterion (i) (``Project Design'') would solicit
information on the mechanics of the charter school subgrant program the
SEA plans to implement with CSP funds. In addition to the selection
criteria discussed above, proposed priority 4 (``SEAs That Have Never
Received A CSP Grant'') would promote the first goal of greater
accountability by supporting the growth of high-quality charter school
sectors in States that have not received CSP funding in the past,
thereby creating new systems of supports and increasing the funding
available for high-quality charter schools in new regions.
[[Page 68813]]
The second goal of this proposed regulatory action is to strengthen
public accountability and oversight for authorized public chartering
agencies. The proposed regulations would help ensure that SEAs
implement program requirements, as well as State policies and supports,
in a manner that enables authorized public chartering agencies to be
keenly focused on school quality through rigorous and transparent
charter school authorization processes. Furthermore, it would increase
the likelihood that CSP funds are directed toward the creation of high-
quality charter schools and help improve the quality of all charter
schools throughout the State.
The following proposed priorities and selection criteria support
this second goal. Proposed priorities 1 (``Periodic Review and
Evaluation'') and 2 (``Charter School Oversight'') would clarify
existing statutory priorities in these areas. Proposed priority 3
(``High-Quality Authorizing and Monitoring Processes'') would encourage
authorized public chartering agencies in States applying for this grant
to adopt key authorizing and monitoring processes that are identified
as best practices in the field. Proposed selection criterion (g)
(``Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies'') would request
that SEAs explain, in detail, their State's plan for holding authorized
public chartering agencies accountable for the quality of the charter
schools they approve.
The third goal of this proposed regulatory action is to encourage a
stronger focus on supporting and improving academic outcomes for
educationally disadvantaged students. While this goal has been a theme
in previous competitions under this program, the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would raise its
profile. The continued growth of charter schools, and ongoing questions
about educationally disadvantaged students' access to and performance
in charter schools, compels the Assistant Deputy Secretary to encourage
a continued focus on students at the greatest risk of academic failure.
A critical component of serving all students, including educationally
disadvantaged students, is consideration of student body diversity,
including racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity. This proposed
regulatory action encourages broad consideration of student body
composition, consistent with applicable law, as charter schools are
authorized and funded and as best practices are disseminated.
The following proposed priorities and selection criteria support
this third goal. Proposed selection criterion (d) (``Quality of Plan to
Support Educationally Disadvantaged Students'') would allow SEAs to
highlight specific actions they would take to support educationally
disadvantaged students through charter schools, while proposed
selection criteria (f) (``Dissemination of Best Practices'') and (g)
(``Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies'') would
encourage the meaningful incorporation of diversity into charter school
models and charter school practices.
In addition to the three goals outlined above, the Assistant Deputy
Secretary proposes these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria in order to clarify certain statutory requirements
and to streamline the CSP application process, thereby decreasing the
burden on the applicant.
Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that the benefits of this regulatory action
outweigh any associated costs, which we believe would be minimal. This
action would not impose cost-bearing requirements on participating SEAs
apart from those related to preparing an application for a CSP grant
and would strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds by
helping to ensure that the Department awards CSP grants to SEAs that
are most capable of expanding the number of high-quality charter
schools available to our Nation's students. Please refer to the
Regulatory Impact Analysis in this notice for a more detailed
discussion of costs and benefits.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criteria that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs
or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W259
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the CSP is to increase national
understanding of the charter school model by:
(1) Providing financial assistance for the planning, program
design, and initial implementation of charter schools;
(2) Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the
effects on students, student achievement, student growth, staff, and
parents;
(3) Expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available
to students across the Nation; and
(4) Encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools
for facilities financing in an amount more nearly commensurate to the
amount the States have typically provided for traditional public
schools.
The purpose of the CSP Grants to SEAs is to enable SEAs to provide
financial assistance, through subgrants to eligible applicants, for the
planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools
and for the dissemination of information about successful charter
schools, including practices that existing charter schools have
demonstrated are successful.
Program Authority: Title V, Part B, Subpart 1 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C.
7221-7221j); and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L.
113-76).
Proposed Priorities: This notice contains four proposed priorities.
Proposed Priority 1--Periodic Review and Evaluation
Background: Under the CSP authorizing statute, the Department must
give priority to applications from SEAs in States that provide for
periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering
agency of each charter
[[Page 68814]]
school.\1\ These reviews must be conducted at least once every five
years for each charter school (unless required more frequently by State
law) to determine whether the charter school is meeting the terms of
the school's charter and meeting or exceeding the student academic
achievement requirements and goals for charter schools as set forth
under State law or the school's charter (20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)(2)). While
this periodic review and evaluation by an authorized public chartering
agency would not necessarily have to occur only as part of the charter
renewal process, in order to meet the priority, the periodic review and
evaluation would have to provide an opportunity for the authorized
public chartering agency to impose meaningful consequences on a charter
school that is not meeting the terms of its charter or is not meeting
or exceeding applicable student academic achievement requirements and
goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under section 5202(e)(1) of the ESEA, an SEA must meet this
criterion and one or more of the three criteria described in section
5202(e)(3) in order to receive priority (20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The language in this proposed priority is identical to the language
in the statute, except that this proposed priority would clarify that
periodic review and evaluation should provide an opportunity for the
authorized public chartering agency to take appropriate action or
impose meaningful consequences on the charter school, if necessary. The
proposed priority would also clarify that the student academic
achievement requirements and goals may be established in a State
regulation or State policy that meets or exceeds such requirements in
the State law or regulation.
Proposed Priority: To meet this priority, the applicant must
demonstrate that the State provides for periodic review and evaluation
by the authorized public chartering agency of each charter school at
least once every five years, unless required more frequently by State
law, to determine whether the charter school is meeting the terms of
the school's charter and meeting or exceeding the student academic
achievement requirements and goals for charter schools as set forth in
the school's charter or under State law, a State regulation, or a State
policy, provided that the student academic achievement requirements and
goals for charter schools established by that policy meet or exceed
those set forth under applicable State law or State regulation.
Periodic review and evaluation provides an opportunity for the
authorized public chartering agency to take appropriate action or
impose meaningful consequences on the charter school, if necessary.
Proposed Priority 2--Charter School Oversight
Background: Since FY 2010, each appropriations act applicable to
the Department has required SEAs receiving CSP grants to provide two
assurances.\2\ First, each SEA applicant must provide an assurance that
State law, regulations, or other policies require that each authorized
charter school in the State (a) operate under a legally binding charter
or performance contract between itself and the school's authorized
public chartering agency that describes the rights and responsibilities
of the school and the public chartering agency; (b) conduct annual,
timely, and independent audits of the school's financial statements
that are filed with the school's authorized public chartering agency;
and (c) demonstrate improved student academic achievement. Second, each
SEA applicant must provide an assurance that authorized public
chartering agencies in the State use increases in student academic
achievement for all groups of students described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA \3\ as the most important factor when
determining whether to renew or revoke a school's charter.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117);
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-10); the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012
(Pub. L. 112-36); the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113-6); and the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub.L. 113-76).
\3\ The groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)
of the ESEA include public elementary and secondary school students,
economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited
English proficiency.
\4\ This priority would not preclude an authorized public
chartering agency from revoking or electing not to renew a school's
charter based on other non-academic factors, such as financial
mismanagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past, these two requirements were incorporated into an
assurance document that SEA grantees signed to affirm compliance. These
requirements are important characteristics of high-quality authorizing
practices and are essential to holding charter schools accountable.
Incorporating the language for these requirements into a priority would
strengthen the Department's ability to hold SEAs accountable for
meeting these requirements at the time the award is made and throughout
the grant period.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In years in which the appropriations act requires the
elements of this proposed priority, it will be a requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priority: To meet this priority, an application must
demonstrate that State law, regulations, or other policies in the State
where the applicant is located require the following:
(a) That each charter school in the State--
(1) Operates under a legally binding charter or performance
contract between itself and the school's authorized public chartering
agency that describes the rights and responsibilities of the school and
the public chartering agency;
(2) Conducts annual, timely, and independent audits of the school's
financial statements that are filed with the school's authorized public
chartering agency; and
(3) Demonstrates improved student academic achievement; and
(b) That all authorized public chartering agencies in the State use
increases in student academic achievement for all groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(2)) as the most important factor when determining whether to
renew or revoke a school's charter.
Proposed Priority 3--High-Quality Authorizing and Monitoring Processes
Background: The quality of a charter school is influenced by the
quality of the charter approval process and the quality of its
authorized public chartering agency's oversight and monitoring
processes. This proposed priority would promote the use of charter
approval, monitoring, and oversight practices that have been identified
by stakeholders as likely to contribute to the creation and operation
of high-quality charter schools.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See e.g., National Association of Charter School
Authorizers' Index of Essential Practices 2012. Available at:
www.pageturnpro.com/National-Association-of-Charter-School-Authorizers/50450-The-Index-of-Essential-Practices-2012/#/1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-quality authorizing processes can influence the quality of
charter schools through the authorization process and beyond. Expedited
charter approval for operators with exemplary track records helps
increase the number of high-quality charter schools, while a multi-
tiered approval process can keep potentially poor-performing charter
schools from ever operating. Clear charter approval processes and
frameworks for evaluating charter schools and authorized public
chartering agencies would strengthen accountability and improve
transparency.
Strong performance monitoring mechanisms can increase the speed of
[[Page 68815]]
decision-making by authorized public chartering agencies, allowing
high-quality charter schools to open, expand, and disseminate
information about best practices. These systems can also accelerate the
identification of charter schools that are performing poorly or
demonstrate significant operational risks and, when necessary, expedite
their closure.
Proposed Priority: To meet this priority, an applicant must
demonstrate that all authorized public chartering agencies in the State
operate using one or more of the following:
(a) Frameworks and processes to evaluate the performance of charter
schools on a regular basis that include--
(1) Rigorous academic and operational performance expectations
(including performance expectations related to financial management and
equitable treatment of all students and applicants);
(2) School-specific performance objectives aligned to those
expectations;
(3) Clear criteria for renewing the charter of a school based on an
objective body of evidence, including the performance objectives
outlined in the charter contract, demonstration of organizational and
fiscal viability, and demonstration of fidelity to the terms of the
charter contract and applicable law;
(4) Clear criteria for revoking the charter of a school if there is
violation of law or public trust regarding student safety or public
funds, or evidence of poor student academic achievement; and
(5) Annual reporting by authorized public chartering agencies to
each of their authorized charter schools that summarizes the individual
school's performance and compliance, based on this framework, and
identifies any areas needing improvement.
(b) Standardized systems that measure and benchmark the performance
of the authorized public chartering agency, including the performance
of its portfolio of charter schools, and provide for the annual
dissemination of information on such performance;
(c) Authorizing processes that establish clear criteria for
evaluation of charter applications and include a multi-tiered clearance
or review of a charter school, including a final review immediately
before the school opens for its first operational year; or
(d) Authorizing processes that include differentiated review of
charter petitions based on whether, and the extent to which, the
charter school developer has been successful (as determined by the
authorized public chartering agency) in establishing and operating one
or more high-quality charter schools.
Proposed Priority 4--SEAs That Have Never Received a CSP Grant
Background: This proposed priority would assist SEAs that have
never received a CSP grant and it would address a major purpose of the
CSP by expanding the number of high-quality charter schools across the
Nation. A CSP grant can help an SEA support the growth of a high-
quality charter school sector in its State beyond the startup of
additional charter schools. The required elements for conducting a CSP
subgrant program and the opportunity to share effective practices with
other SEA grantees contribute to the development of a solid
infrastructure to support charter schools. These required elements
include investing in quality authorizing practices, developing a
subgrant competition process, and disseminating information about
charter schools and best practices in charter schools. Therefore, this
proposed priority would help create and strengthen a community of
charter school practitioners and supports for the charter school sector
in the State.
Proposed Priority: To meet this priority, an applicant must be an
eligible SEA applicant that has never received a CSP grant.
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)).
Proposed Requirements
Background: We propose four application requirements to use in
conjunction with the statutory application requirements. The purpose of
the first application requirement is to collect important information
on charter school admissions lotteries, including any proposed student
enrollment preferences or exemptions from the lottery.\7\ The purposes
of the remaining three application requirements are to strengthen the
Department's ability to monitor CSP grants and ensure that grantees
adhere to the terms of their approved applications, specifically
through the development of comprehensive logic models and their
definitions of a high-quality charter school and an academically poor-
performing charter school, during their projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Department is requesting this information in response to
specific recommendations made by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) in its February 2013 report entitled, ``Charter
Schools: Guidance Needed for Military Base Schools on Startup and
Operational Issues'' (GAO-13-67). In its response to the report, the
Department agreed, among other things, to require SEAs (and other
eligible applicants under the CSP), as appropriate, (a) to describe
any enrollment preferences that charter schools are required or
permitted to employ under State law; and (b) to require applicants
for CSP subgrants to include descriptions of their recruitment and
admissions policies and practices, including any enrollment
preferences they plan to employ, in their subgrant applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Requirements: The Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the
following requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of
these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
Lottery and Enrollment Preferences: Describe (1) how lotteries for
admission to charter schools will be conducted in your State, including
any student enrollment preferences or exemptions from the lottery that
charter schools are required or expressly permitted by the State to
employ, and (2) any mechanisms that exist for the SEA or authorized
public chartering agency to review, monitor, or approve such lotteries
or student enrollment preferences or exemptions from the lottery. In
addition, the SEA must provide an assurance that it will require each
applicant for a CSP subgrant to include in its application descriptions
of its recruitment and admissions policies and practices, including a
description of the proposed lottery and any enrollment preferences or
exemptions from the lottery the charter school employs or plans to
employ, and how those enrollment preferences or exemptions are
consistent with State law, the CSP authorizing statute, and CSP
guidance (for information related to admissions and lotteries under the
CSP, please see Section E of the CSP guidance at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/nonregulatory-guidance.html).
[[Page 68816]]
Logic model: Provide a complete logic model for the project, as
defined in 34 CFR 77.1.\8\ The logic model must address the role of the
grant in promoting the State-level strategy, articulated in selection
criterion (a), for expanding the number of high-quality charter schools
through startup subgrants, optional dissemination subgrants, optional
revolving loan funds, and other strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Under 34 CFR 77.1, logic model (also referred to as theory
of action) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-quality charter school: Provide--
(a) Written certification that, for the purposes of the CSP grant,
the SEA uses the term high-quality charter schools as defined in this
notice; or
(b) If the State proposes to use an alternative definition of high-
quality charter school in accordance with paragraph (b) of the
definition of the term in this notice, (1) the specific definition the
State proposes to use; and (2) a written explanation of why the
proposed definition is at least as rigorous as the definition of high-
quality charter school set forth in the Definitions section of this
notice.
Academically poor-performing charter school: Provide--
(a) Written verification that, for purposes of the CSP grant, the
SEA uses the term academically poor-performing charter schools as
defined in this notice; or
(b) If the State proposes to use an alternative definition of
academically poor-performing charter school in accordance with
paragraph (b) of the definition of the term in this notice, (1) the
specific definition the State proposes to use; and (2) a written
explanation of why the proposed definition is at least as rigorous as
the definition of academically poor-performing charter school set forth
in the Definitions section of this notice.
Proposed Definitions
Background: We propose to define four important terms associated
with this program that are not defined in section 5210 of the ESEA (20
U.S.C. 7221i) or 34 CFR 77.1.
Proposed Definitions: The Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the
following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of
these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
The proposed definitions of high-quality charter school, and
significant compliance issue are substantively similar to the
definitions of the terms in the notice of final priorities,
requirements, and definitions for the CSP Replication and Expansion
grant program, published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2011 (76
FR 40898). While the definition of ``educationally disadvantaged
students'' is similar to the definition of the term in the July 12,
2011, notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions for the
CSP Replication and Expansion grant program, the definition of
educationally disadvantaged students in this notice is based primarily
on section 1115(b)(2) of the ESEA.
Although we propose minor revisions to these definitions to capture
the meaning of these terms from a State perspective, the substance of
the definitions remains unchanged.
Academically poor-performing charter school means--
(a) A charter school that has been in operation for at least three
years and that--
(1) Has been identified as being in the lowest-performing five
percent of all schools in the State and has failed to improve school
performance (based on the SEA's accountability system under the ESEA)
over the past three years; and
(2) Has failed to demonstrate student academic growth (at least an
average of one grade level of growth for each cohort of students) in
each of the past three years, as demonstrated by statewide or other
assessments approved by the authorized public chartering agency; or
(b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for academically poor-
performing charter school, provided that the SEA complies with the
requirements for proposing to use an alternative definition for the
term as set forth in paragraph (b) of ``Academically poor-performing
charter school'' in the Proposed Requirements section of this notice.
Educationally disadvantaged students means economically
disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, migrant students,
limited English proficient students, neglected or delinquent students,
or homeless students.
High-quality charter school means--
(a) A charter 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 education 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
subgroups of students described in section 1111 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 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 education
attendance rates, and college and other postsecondary education
persistence rates) for 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) 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, particularly in the areas of
student safety, financial management, and equitable treatment of
students; or
(b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for high-quality
charter school, provided that the SEA complies with the requirements
for proposing to use an alternative definition for the term as set
forth in paragraph (b) of ``High-quality charter school'' in the
Proposed Requirements section of this notice.
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.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background: The proposed selection criteria would strengthen
several components of this program, which include grantee
accountability; accountability and oversight for authorized public
chartering agencies; and equitable access to charter schools and
support for educationally disadvantaged students. The proposed
selection criteria also would improve efficacy in data collection and
reporting by clarifying application requirements and streamlining the
selection criteria.
[[Page 68817]]
Specifically, factors (1), (2), and (3) under proposed selection
criterion (b) (``Policy Context for Charter Schools'') are based upon
elements of the CSP authorizing statute.
Proposed selection criteria (a) (``State-Level Strategy''), (b)
(``Policy Context for Charter Schools''), and (c) (``Past
Performance'') would request that the SEA describe its vision and the
policy context for charter schools in the State and provide evidence of
the past performance of charter schools in the State. These criteria
are intended to encourage an SEA to consider charter schools as a key
part of its overall efforts to improve public education and allow
reviewers to evaluate the context in which a grant might be awarded.
Proposed selection criteria (d) (``Quality of Plan to Support
Educationally Disadvantaged Students''), (e) (``Vision for Growth and
Accountability''), (f) (``Dissemination of Information and Best
Practices''), and (g) (``Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering
Agencies'') would allow an SEA to focus on specific areas of importance
for charter schools in its State. As noted in the Executive Summary, a
major focus of the competition would be on the quality of the plan to
support educationally disadvantaged students. Specifically, proposed
selection criterion (d) (``Quality of Plan to Support Educationally
Disadvantaged Students'') would ask an SEA to describe how it plans to
support educationally disadvantaged students equitably and
meaningfully.
Proposed selection criterion (e) (``Vision for Growth and
Accountability'') would ask an SEA to describe its vision for
cultivating high-performing charter schools generally, while proposed
selection criteria (f) (``Dissemination of Information and Best
Practices'') and (g) (``Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering
Agencies'') would ask an SEA to describe how it plans to disseminate
best or promising practices of charter schools to each local
educational agency (LEA) in the State. In addition, these criteria
would ask an SEA to describe its efforts to strengthen authorized
public chartering agencies' oversight and approval processes for
charter schools (including any efforts by the SEA to encourage
authorized public chartering agencies to create a robust portfolio of
charter schools, including charter schools with a focus on increasing
student body diversity). By disseminating information on successful
school models that incorporate student body diversity, and by
encouraging authorized public chartering agencies to work with charter
school developers to address student body diversity during the charter
approval, monitoring, and renewal processes, these selection criteria
would encourage the meaningful inclusion of student body diversity in
charter school models, in accordance with applicable law, as they are
being developed and implemented.
Proposed selection criteria (h) (``Management Plan and Theory of
Action'') and (i) (``Project Design'') would require an SEA to
describe, in detail, the key elements of its proposed project in the
form of a logic model that includes relevant program and project-
specific performance measures and the mechanics of the SEA's planned
subgrant competitions, including how such competitions would create a
portfolio of subgrantees that focus on areas of need within the State.
Proposed Selection Criteria: The Assistant Deputy Secretary
proposes the following selection criteria for evaluating an application
under this program. We may apply one or more of these criteria in any
year in which this program is in effect. In the notice inviting
applications or the application package, or both, we will announce the
maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.
(a) State-Level Strategy. The Secretary considers the quality of
the State-level strategy for using charter schools to improve
educational outcomes for students throughout the State. In determining
the quality of the State-level strategy, the Secretary considers one or
more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the SEA's CSP activities, including the
subgrant program, are integrated into the State's overall strategy for
improving student academic achievement and attainment (including high
school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education
enrollment rates), and closing achievement and attainment gaps, and
complement or leverage other statewide education reform efforts (e.g.,
as described in the State's Race to the Top application or ESEA
Flexibility request);
(2) The extent to which funding equity for charter schools
(including equitable funding for charter school facilities) is
incorporated into the SEA's State-level strategy; and
(3) The extent to which the State encourages local strategies for
improving student academic achievement and attainment that involve
charter schools, including but not limited to the following:
(i) Collaboration, including the sharing of data and promising
instructional and other practices, between charter schools and other
public schools or providers of early learning and development programs
or alternative education programs; and
(ii) The creation of charter schools that would serve as viable
options for students who currently attend, or would otherwise attend,
the State's lowest-performing schools.
(b) Policy Context for Charter Schools. The Secretary considers the
policy context for charter schools under the proposed project. In
determining the policy context for charter schools under the proposed
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(1) The degree of flexibility afforded to charter schools under the
State's charter school law, including:
(i) The extent to which charter schools in the State are exempt
from State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and
management of public schools; and
(ii) The extent to which charter schools in the State have a high
degree of autonomy, including autonomy over the charter school's
budget, expenditures, staffing, procurement, and curriculum;
(2) The quality of the SEA's process for:
(i) Annually informing each charter school in the State about
Federal funds the charter school is eligible to receive and about
Federal programs in which the charter school may participate; and
(ii) Annually ensuring that each charter school in the State
receives, in a timely fashion, the school's commensurate share of
Federal funds that are allocated by formula each year, particularly
during the first year of operation of the school and during a year in
which the school's enrollment expands significantly; and
(3) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools
that are considered to be LEAs under State law and that LEAs in which
charter schools are located will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and
613(e)(1)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.
6101 et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000d et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C.
1681 et seq.), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 794).
(c) Past Performance. The Secretary considers the past performance
of charter schools in a State that enacted a charter school law for the
first time five or more years before submission of its application. In
determining the past performance of charter schools in a State that
enacted a charter school law
[[Page 68818]]
for the first time five or more years before submission of the SEA's
application, the Secretary considers one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated increase, for
each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of high-
quality charter schools (as defined in this notice) in the State;
(2) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated reduction,
for each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of
academically poor-performing charter schools (as defined in this
notice) in the State; and
(3) Whether, and the extent to which, the academic achievement and
academic attainment (including high school graduation rates and college
and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) of charter school
students equal or exceed the academic achievement and academic
attainment of similar students in other public schools in the State
over the past five years.
(d) Quality of Plan to Support Educationally Disadvantaged
Students. The Secretary considers the quality of the SEA's plan to
support educationally disadvantaged students. In determining the
quality of the plan to support educationally disadvantaged students,
the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the SEA's charter school subgrant program
would--
(i) Assist students, particularly educationally disadvantaged
students, in meeting and exceeding State academic content standards and
State student achievement standards; and
(ii) Reduce or eliminate achievement gaps for educationally
disadvantaged students;
(2) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools
attract, recruit, admit, enroll, serve, and retain educationally
disadvantaged students equitably, meaningfully, and, with regard to
educationally disadvantaged students who are students with disabilities
or English learners, in a manner consistent with, as appropriate, the
IDEA (regarding students with disabilities) and civil rights laws, in
particular, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
(3) The extent to which the SEA will encourage innovations in
charter schools, such as models, policies, supports, or structures,
that are designed to improve the academic achievement of educationally
disadvantaged students; and
(4) The quality of the SEA's plan for monitoring all charter
schools to ensure compliance with Federal and State laws, particularly
laws related to educational equity, nondiscrimination, and access to
public schools for educationally disadvantaged students.
(e) Vision for Growth and Accountability. The Secretary determines
the quality of the SEA's vision for charter school growth and
accountability. In determining the quality of the SEA's vision, the
Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(1) The quality of the SEA's systems for collecting, analyzing, and
publicly reporting data on charter school performance, including data
on student academic achievement, attainment (including high school
graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education
enrollment rates), retention, and discipline for all students and
disaggregated by student subgroup;
(2) The ambition, vision, and feasibility of the SEA's plan
(including key actions) to support the creation of high-quality charter
schools during the project period, including a reasonable estimate of
the number of high-quality charter schools to be created in the State
during the project period; and
(3) The ambition, vision, and feasibility of the SEA's plan
(including key actions) to support the closure of academically poor-
performing charter schools in the State (i.e., through revocation, non-
renewal, or voluntary termination of a charter) during the project
period.
(f) Dissemination of Information and Best Practices. The Secretary
considers the quality of the SEA's plan to disseminate information
about charter schools and best or promising practices of successful
charter schools to each LEA in the State as well as to charter schools,
other public schools, and charter school developers (20 U.S.C.
7221(b)(2); 20 U.S.C. 7221(c)(f)(6)). If an SEA proposes to use a
portion of its grant funds for dissemination subgrants under section
5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c), the SEA should incorporate
these subgrants into the overall plan for dissemination. In determining
the quality of the SEA's plan to disseminate information about charter
schools and best or promising practices of successful charter schools,
the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the SEA will serve as a leader in the State
for identifying and disseminating information (which may include, but
is not limited to, providing technical assistance) about best or
promising practices in successful charter schools, including how the
SEA will use measures of efficacy and data in identifying such
practices and assessing the impact of its dissemination activities;
(2) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and
research on best or promising practices used and benefits of charter
schools that effectively incorporate student body diversity, including
racial and ethnic diversity and diversity with respect to educationally
disadvantaged students, consistent with applicable law;
(3) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and
research on best or promising practices in charter schools related to
student discipline and school climate; and
(4) For an SEA that proposes to use a portion of its grant funds to
award dissemination subgrants under section 5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA
(20 U.S.C. 7221a), the quality of the subgrant award process and the
likelihood that such dissemination activities will increase the number
of high-quality charter schools in the State and contribute to improved
student academic achievement.
(g) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies. The
Secretary considers the quality of the SEA's plan (including any use of
grant administrative or other funds) to monitor, evaluate, assist, and
hold accountable authorized public chartering agencies. In determining
the quality of the SEA's plan to provide oversight to authorized public
chartering agencies, the Secretary considers how well the SEA's plan
will ensure that authorized public chartering agencies are--
(1) Seeking and approving charter school petitions from developers
with the capacity to create high-quality charter schools;
(2) Approving charter school petitions with design elements that
incorporate evidence-based school models and practices, including, but
not limited to, school models and practices that focus on racial and
ethnic diversity in student bodies and diversity in student bodies with
respect to educationally disadvantaged students, consistent with
applicable law;
(3) Establishing measureable academic and operational performance
expectations for all charter schools (including alternative charter
schools, virtual charter schools, and charter schools that include pre-
kindergarten, if such schools exist in the State) that include, but are
not limited to, the elements of high-quality charter schools as defined
in this notice;
[[Page 68819]]
(4) Monitoring their charter schools on at least an annual basis,
including conducting an in-depth review of each charter school at least
once every five years, to ensure that charter schools are meeting the
terms of their charters and complying with applicable State and Federal
laws;
(5) Using increases in student academic achievement as the most
important factor in renewal decisions; basing renewal decisions on a
comprehensive set of criteria, which are set forth in the charter
contract; and revoking, not renewing, or encouraging the voluntary
termination of charters held by academically poor-performing charter
schools;
(6) Providing, on an annual basis, public reports on the
performance of their portfolios of charter schools, including the
performance of each individual charter school with respect to meeting
the terms of, and expectations set forth in, the school's charter
contract.
(7) Supporting charter school autonomy while holding charter
schools accountable for results and meeting the terms of their charters
and performance agreements; and
(8) Ensuring the continued accountability of charter schools during
any transition to new State assessments or accountability systems,
including those based on college- and career-ready standards.
(h) Management Plan and Theory of Action. The Secretary considers
the quality of the management plan and the project's theory of action.
In determining the quality of the management plan and the project's
theory of action, the Secretary considers one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The quality, cohesion, and reasoning of the logic model (as
defined in 34 CFR 77.1 (c)), including the extent to which it addresses
the role of the grant in promoting the State-level strategy for using
charter schools to improve educational outcomes for students through
CSP subgrants for planning, program design, and initial implementation;
optional dissemination subgrants; optional revolving loan funds; and
other strategies;
(2) The extent to which the SEA's project-specific performance
measures, including any measures required by the Department, support
the logic model; and
(3) The adequacy of the management plan to--
(i) Achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and
within budget, including the existence of clearly defined
responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project
tasks; and
(ii) Address any compliance issues or findings related to the CSP
that are identified in an audit or other monitoring review.
(i) Project Design. The Secretary considers the quality of the
design of the SEA's charter school subgrant program, including the
extent to which the project design furthers the SEA's overall strategy
for increasing the number of high-quality charter schools in the State
and improving student academic achievement. In determining the quality
of the project design, the Secretary considers one or more of the
following factors:
(1) The quality of the SEA's charter school subgrant awards
process, and the dissemination subgrant awards process, if applicable,
including:
(i) The subgrant application and peer review process, timelines for
these processes, and how the SEA intends to ensure that subgrants will
be awarded to applicants demonstrating the capacity to create high-
quality charter schools; and
(ii) A reasonable year-by-year estimate, with supporting evidence,
of the number of subgrants the SEA expects to award during the project
period and the average size of those subgrants, including an
explanation of any assumptions upon which the estimates are based, and
if the SEA has previously received a CSP grant, the percentage of
eligible applicants that were awarded subgrants and how this percentage
related to the overall quality of the applicant pool;
(2) The process for monitoring CSP subgrantees;
(3) How the SEA will create a portfolio of subgrantees that focuses
on areas of need within the State, such as increasing student body
diversity, and how this prioritization aligns with the State-level
strategy;
(4) The steps the SEA will take to inform teachers, parents, and
communities of the SEA's charter school subgrant program; and
(5) A description of any requested waivers of statutory or
regulatory provisions over which the Secretary exercises administrative
authority and the extent to which those waivers will, if granted,
further the objectives of the project.
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria: We will announce the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria after considering responses to this
notice and other information available to the Department. This notice
does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action would have an annual effect on the
economy of more than $100 million because we anticipate awarding more
than $100 million in grants to SEAs in FY 2015. Therefore, this
proposed action is ``economically significant'' and subject to review
by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding
this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits,
both quantitative and qualitative, of this proposed regulatory action
and have determined that the benefits would justify the costs.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent
[[Page 68820]]
permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
would 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 proposed regulatory action would
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the potential costs
and benefits of this action as well as regulatory alternatives we
considered.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this regulatory action would not
impose significant costs on eligible SEAs, whose participation in this
program is voluntary. This action would not impose requirements on
participating SEAs apart from those related to preparing an application
for a CSP grant. The costs associated with meeting these requirements
are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.
This regulatory action would strengthen accountability for the use
of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department selects for
CSP grants the SEAs that are most capable of expanding the number of
high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students,
consistent with the purpose of the program as described in section 5201
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221). Similarly, this action would benefit
participating SEAs by supporting their efforts to encourage the
development and operation of high-quality charter schools. The
Department believes that these benefits to the Federal government and
to SEAs outweigh the costs associated with this action.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department believes that the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria proposed in this notice are needed
to administer the program effectively. As an alternative to
promulgating the proposed selection criteria, the Department could
choose from among the selection factors authorized for CSP grants to
SEAs in section 5204(a) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c) and the general
selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210. We do not believe that these
factors and criteria provide a sufficient basis on which to evaluate
the quality of applications. In particular, the factors and criteria
would not sufficiently enable the Department to assess an applicant's
past performance with respect to the operation of high-quality charter
schools or the closure of academically poor-performing charter schools
(as would be examined under proposed selection criterion (c) ``Past
Performance'') or its plan to hold authorized public chartering
agencies accountable for the performance of charter schools that they
approve (as under criterion (g) ``Oversight of Authorized Public
Chartering Agencies''), considerations which are critically important
in determining applicant quality.
We note that several of the priorities, requirements, and selection
criteria proposed in this notice are based on priorities, requirements,
selection criteria, and other provisions in the authorizing statute for
this program.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal
Government to SEAs.
Accounting Statement
Classification of
Estimated Expenditures
[in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers............ $100.
From Whom to Whom? From the Federal Government
to SEAs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search
[[Page 68821]]
feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents
published by the Department.
Dated: November 13, 2014.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2014-27264 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
