Final Priority and Requirements-Full-Service Community Schools, 37218-37222 [2023-12144]
Download as PDF
37218
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2023 / Notices
your search to documents published by
the Department.
James F. Lane,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Delegated the Authority to Perform the
Functions and Duties of the Assistant
Secretary, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2023–12166 Filed 6–6–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED–2021–OESE–0152]
Final Priority and Requirements—FullService Community Schools
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
AGENCY:
The Department of Education
(Department) announces a priority and
requirements under the Full-Service
Community Schools (FSCS) program,
Assistance Listing Number 84.215J. The
Department may use the priority and
requirements for competitions in fiscal
year (FY) 2023 and in later years. The
Department intends for the priority and
requirements to support competitions
under the FSCS program for the purpose
of conducting national evaluations of
the program’s implementation and
effectiveness.
DATES: The priority and requirements
are effective July 7, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane
Hodgdon. U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
room 3E346, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: 202–245–6057. Email:
FSCS@ed.gov.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or
have a speech disability and wish to
access telecommunications relay
services, please dial 7–1–1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The FSCS
program, established under sections
4621–4623 and 4625 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, as
amended (ESEA), provides support for
the planning, implementation, and
operation of full-service community
schools that improve the coordination,
integration, accessibility, and
effectiveness of services for children
and families, particularly for children
attending schools with concentrated
poverty, including rural schools.
Program Authority: Sections 4621–
4623 and 4625 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C.
7271–7273, 7275.
We published a notice of proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Jun 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
selection criteria for this program in the
Federal Register on January 12, 2022
(87 FR 1709) (the NPP). That document
contained background information and
rationale for proposing the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria, including a priority for
participation in a national evaluation of
the program’s effectiveness using a
randomized controlled trial (i.e.,
experimental) design. We then
published a notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for this program in the Federal
Register on July 13, 2022 (87 FR 41675)
(the 2022 FSCS NFP). In the 2022 FSCS
NFP, we discussed a plan to conduct
additional outreach before finalizing a
priority on a national evaluation.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the NPP, 19 parties
submitted comments pertinent to the
proposed national evaluation priority,
which were addressed in the 2022 FSCS
NFP. In the 2022 FSCS NFP, the
Department communicated our
appreciation for the comments,
concerns, and support shared by the
field regarding a national evaluation of
the FSCS program. We committed to
working with grantees and other
stakeholders to design and conduct the
national evaluation required under
section 4625(f) of the ESEA. To allow
more time to conduct outreach with the
field, the Department delayed launching
the national evaluation.
We discuss substantive issues under
each priority or requirement to which
they pertain. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor
changes or suggested changes the law
does not authorize us to make. In
addition, we do not address comments
that are outside the scope of the
proposed priority and requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and of any
changes in the priority and
requirements related to the proposed
national evaluation priority follows.
Proposed Priority 4—Participation in
a National Evaluation.
Comments: We summarized the 19
comments received related to Priority 4
in the 2022 FSCS NFP.
Discussion: As discussed in the 2022
FSCS NFP, the Department appreciates
the comments, concerns, and support
shared by the field regarding a national
evaluation of the FSCS program and we
are committed to working with grantees
and other stakeholders to design and
implement the national evaluation
required under section 4625(f) of the
ESEA, which requires the Department’s
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to
conduct an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the FSCS program
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
grants. To allow more time to conduct
outreach with the field, the Department
did not begin the national evaluation
with the FY 2022 grant competition.
In response to comments expressing
concern about the design of the national
evaluation, section 4625(f) of the ESEA
requires a national evaluation that
assesses the effectiveness of the grants.
Section 4625(g) of the ESEA requires
that grantees conduct local evaluations
to assess annual progress achieved,
refine and improve activities, and make
the results publicly available. The local
and national evaluations are separate
but complementary, and one cannot be
used in place of the other. The
alternative designs suggested by
commenters for a national evaluation
would not meet the requirements in
section 4625(f). While a national
evaluation of the program’s
implementation would be useful and is
included in the randomized controlled
trial design described in the national
evaluation priority, a national
evaluation of implementation alone
would not fulfill the mandate for
evaluating the program’s effectiveness.
While two of the 19 comments received
supported conducting a randomized
controlled trial evaluation beginning in
2022, the majority of commenters and
stakeholders that provided input
through subsequent outreach shared
that it would be useful to the field to
learn about the implementation of FSCS
grants prior to assessing their
effectiveness. We have decided to first
conduct a national evaluation of
program implementation and will share
those implementation findings with the
field. We will use the interim
implementation findings to inform and
enhance the design and execution of a
subsequent national evaluation of the
program’s effectiveness using a
randomized controlled trial.
Another commenter suggested that an
alternative design, a quasi-experimental
study, would be very challenging to
execute with sufficient scientific rigor at
a national level. A quasi-experimental
design would require the identification
of a comparison group of non-FSCS
funded schools that are very similar at
baseline to the schools receiving grant
funds. It would likely be very difficult
to find schools not implementing
community schools strategies that are
similar enough to schools receiving
FSCS grant funds and willing to provide
the detailed data required for the
evaluation. While such a quasiexperimental design approach has been
used in evaluating community schools
within more limited contexts, such as a
single city or one or two States, it would
be much more difficult to identify
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2023 / Notices
credible comparison schools for each
FSCS-funded school given the diverse
and widespread distribution of schools
receiving FSCS grant funds. Even if an
ostensibly suitable comparison group at
baseline could be identified, it would
not be possible to fully determine
whether there are factors in the
comparison schools that make them
more or less likely to have better
outcomes over time and to disentangle
those factors from the effects of the
FSCS grant funds.
One commenter asked how the
Department will ensure that the
outcomes measured go beyond test
scores and include outcomes such as
student physical and mental health and
a range of key non-cognitive
competencies, such as social and
emotional learning and increased sense
of safety and well-being. Using a
national evaluation of implementation
to inform the national evaluation of
effectiveness required under section
4625(f) of the ESEA provides the
Department with an opportunity to
better understand what can be
measured, including outcomes related
to health, social emotional learning,
safety, and well-being. Further, the 13
program indicators that were included
in the 2022 FSCS NFP include measures
related to attendance, school climate,
discipline, expanded learning time, and
family engagement, among others.
The Department agrees with
commenters that requiring applicants to
propose at least four schools to receive
grant funding could exclude some
districts. Therefore, in the priority for a
national evaluation of effectiveness
using a randomized controlled trial, we
are reducing the minimum number of
proposed schools from four to two.
In response to comments that a
randomized controlled trial would be
unfair, the Department disagrees. In all
FSCS competitions, there is not
sufficient funding for every interested
and eligible school. Whatever total grant
funds are available in any year, under a
randomized controlled trial design,
more applicants and localities would
receive FSCS grants, though not every
one of their interested schools could
participate or benefit from that funding.
Without a randomized controlled trial,
fewer localities receive grants, though
all interested schools can participate in
FSCS funding. Therefore, whether there
is a randomized controlled trial or not,
there will be schools that will not
receive grant funds or participate under
a funded grant. In either case, the
Department would be awarding the
same total amount of money to support
FSCS nationally.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Jun 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
Regarding comments related to data
collection, the Department agrees that it
is vital to engage stakeholders in a
variety of ways, in part to ensure that
any national evaluation plans are wellinformed and reflect the reality of
grantee variation. Since receiving
feedback on the national evaluation
priority, we interviewed key community
schools researchers and practitioners.
We synthesized the interview findings
and shared updated evaluation plans in
a webinar with the field in February
2023. We will continue to seek
stakeholder input and incorporate
multiple perspectives, as feasible and
aligned with the theory of action, in all
national evaluations.
Regarding recommendations that the
Department engage a technical advisory
group, we also agree there is substantial
value in obtaining multiple perspectives
on any national evaluation of FSCS. The
evaluation currently has a Technical
Working Group comprised of
community schools researchers and
practitioners. This group met in October
2020 to advise on initial evaluation
plans. We will continue to consult these
experts, or experts with similar
expertise, as the design and execution of
a national evaluation of FSCS
implementation and effectiveness
moves forward. The Department agrees
that mandatory participation in any
national evaluation is essential for the
results to reflect the diversity of grantees
and their efforts.
Following the publication of the 2022
FSCS NFP and after discussions with
FSCS grantees and other stakeholders,
the Department has determined that a
robust national evaluation of FSCS
grantee implementation, as
recommended in comments received on
the NPP, will help the field learn about
implementation, provide information to
the Department to help us target
supports for applicants and grantees,
and inform a subsequent national
evaluation of effectiveness that meets
the statutory requirement. Accordingly,
and as discussed in more detail below,
we are establishing requirements that
applicants include an assurance to
participate in the national evaluation
assessing the implementation of the
FSCS program and that grantees
participate in the national evaluation
assessing the implementation of the
FSCS program.
To meet the statutory requirement, the
Department will use information
learned about implementation of FSCS
grants to develop a rigorous national
evaluation of effectiveness. In order to
conduct a subsequent effectiveness
study, we are establishing a priority for
participation in a future national
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37219
evaluation of effectiveness using a
randomized controlled trial design.
Changes: The Department has
finalized a priority for participation in
a national evaluation of effectiveness of
the FSCS program using a randomized
controlled trial design that requires
applicants to propose at least two, rather
than four, schools to potentially receive
grant funding.
Other Requirements
Comments: We summarized
comments received related to FSCS
program requirements in the 2022 FSCS
NFP.
As discussed in connection with the
national evaluation proposed priority
from the 2022 FSCS NPP, numerous
commenters recommended that the
Department conduct an evaluation using
a design other than a randomized
controlled trial design. There were four
comments related to differences in
implementation of full-service
community schools across schools
because the strategy is specific to the
needs and assets of individual
communities and schools.
Discussion: We agree that it is
important to study how grantees are
implementing their FSCS grants. In
order to ensure that FSCS applicants are
fully prepared to participate in a
national evaluation of the
implementation of the FSCS program,
the Department is establishing an
application requirement and a program
requirement that grantees must work
with IES during the assessment of
implementation of the FSCS program.
Changes: The Department has added
an application requirement that
applicants include an assurance that the
eligible entity and its partner entities
will participate in a national evaluation
assessing the implementation of the
FSCS program and a program
requirement that grantees will work
with IES during the assessment of
implementation of the FSCS program.
Final Priority
This document contains one final
priority.
Participation in a National Evaluation
of Effectiveness Using a Randomized
Controlled Trial Design.
Projects in which the applicant agrees
to—
(a) Carry out the FSCS grant in a
manner consistent with a randomized
controlled trial evaluation design
developed by the Department and its
national evaluator;
(b) Propose at least two schools to
potentially receive grant funding in the
national evaluation of effectiveness. The
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
37220
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2023 / Notices
proposed schools can be elementary,
middle, and/or high schools;
(c) Not currently be fully
implementing all four pillars of fullservice community schools (as defined
in the 2022 FSCS NFP) in any of the
schools proposed for the grant;
(d) Consent to the evaluator’s random
assignment of approximately one-half of
the schools proposed by the applicant to
receive funding and begin implementing
the FSCS approach; and the other half
of schools to not receive funding from
any FSCS grant for 3 years following
random assignment;
(e) Not promote or begin using grant
funds for the implementation of the
FSCS approach in any proposed schools
until the grantee receives notification
from the national evaluator about the
random assignment of its schools to
receive FSCS grant funding or not; and
(f) Cooperate, consistent with
applicable privacy requirements, with
evaluation data collection activities,
including: surveys of grantee directors,
principals of both groups of proposed
schools (those randomly assigned to
receive grant funding and schools
assigned to not receive grant funding),
and a representative sample of parents/
guardians of students attending the two
groups of grantee schools; and provision
of district administrative records on
educators (e.g., credentials, experience)
and students (e.g., academic assessment
scores, course taking and credit
accumulation, attendance) in the two
groups of grantee schools. These data
collections will be carried out at
multiple points over the grant period.
Note: From among the proposed
schools, applicants may designate one
group of two or more schools that serve
the same grade levels as ‘‘highest need.’’
If the applicant receives a grant, the
national evaluation of effectiveness will
ensure that at least one of the schools in
the group receives FSCS funding.
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
75.105C(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Jun 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This document does not preclude us
from proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we
choose to use one or more of these
priorities, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Final Requirements
This document contains two final
requirements.
Assurance of Participation in a
National Evaluation Assessing the
Implementation of the FSCS Program.
Each applicant must include an
assurance that the eligible entity and its
partner entities will participate in a
national evaluation assessing the
implementation of the FSCS program,
which may include, but is not limited
to, the following:
(a) Completing surveys of grantee
organizations (which may include
service provider partners), grantee
schools (which may include multiple
individuals within each school such as
the principal and the service
coordinator), and potentially a sample
of teachers within grantee schools;
(b) Participating in interviews of
grantee organizations, grantee schools,
and/or a sample of teachers within
grantee schools;
(c) Providing administrative data,
such as student absenteeism rates and
high school graduation rates;
(d) Cooperating with data collection at
several points during the grant period,
such as shortly after grant award
(baseline round of data collection),
during the middle of the grant period
(interim round of data collection), and
toward the end of the grant period (final
round of data collection); and
(e) Assisting in facilitating
connections between each grantee’s
local evaluator and the national
evaluation of implementation to ensure
efficiency and coordination between the
evaluation efforts.
Participate in a National Evaluation
Assessing the Implementation of the
FSCS Program.
Each grantee must participate in a
national evaluation assessing the
implementation of the FSCS program,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
which may include, but is not limited
to, the following:
(a) Completing surveys of grantee
organizations (which may include
service provider partners), grantee
schools (which may include multiple
individuals within each school such as
the principal and the service
coordinator), and potentially a sample
of teachers within grantee schools;
(b) Participating in interviews of
grantee organizations, grantee schools,
and/or a sample of teachers within
grantee schools;
(c) Providing administrative data,
such as student absenteeism rates and
high school graduation rates;
(d) Cooperating with data collection at
several points during the grant period,
such as shortly after grant award
(baseline round of data collection),
during the middle of the grant period
(interim round of data collection), and
toward the end of the grant period (final
round of data collection); and
(e) Assisting in facilitating
connections between each grantee’s
local evaluator and the national
evaluation of implementation to ensure
efficiency and coordination between the
evaluation efforts.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) must
determine whether this regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the
Executive order and subject to review by
OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094, 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 $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the
Administrator of OIRA for changes in
gross domestic product); or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local,
territorial, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a 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 legal or policy issues for
which centralized review would
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2023 / Notices
meaningfully further the President’s
priorities or the principles stated in the
Executive order, as specifically
authorized in a timely manner by the
Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This final regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 (as amended by
Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
et seq.), OIRA designated this rule as not
a ‘‘major rule,’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
We have also reviewed this final
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ OIRA 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 the final priority and
requirements only on a reasoned
determination that the benefits justify
the costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected
those approaches that maximize net
benefits. Based on the analysis that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Jun 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
follows, the Department believes that
this regulatory action is consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Summary of Costs and Benefits: The
Department believes that the final
priority and requirements will not
impose significant costs on the entities
eligible to apply for FSCS. We also
believe that the benefits of
implementing the final priority and
requirements outweigh any associated
costs.
The potential costs are those resulting
from statutory requirements and those
we have determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
The priority and requirements give
the Department the opportunity to
conduct a national evaluation of the
FSCS program, as required in section
4625(f) of the ESEA.
Because the final priority and
requirements would neither expand nor
restrict the universe of eligible entities
for any Department grant program, and
since application submission and
participation in our discretionary grant
programs is voluntary, there are no costs
associated with this priority and
requirements for applicants; grantees
would use grant funds for participation
in evaluation activities.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification: The Secretary certifies that
this final regulatory action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The U.S. Small Business Administration
Size Standards define ‘‘small entities’’
as for-profit or nonprofit institutions
with total annual revenue below
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions
controlled by small governmental
jurisdictions (that are comprised of
cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special
districts), with a population of less than
50,000.
The small entities that this regulatory
action will affect are local educational
agencies, the Bureau of Indian
Education, and community-based
organizations, nonprofit organizations,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37221
and other public or private entities that
may apply. We believe that the costs
imposed on an applicant by the final
priority and requirements will be
limited to paperwork burden related to
preparing an application and that the
benefits of implementing this final
priority and requirements will outweigh
any costs incurred by the applicant.
Grantees will incur costs related to
participating in the national evaluation
and implementation study; however,
grant funds will be available to meet
those costs. Therefore, we do not believe
that the final priority and requirements
will significantly impact small entities
beyond the potential for receiving
additional support should the small
entity receive a competitive grant from
the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the
general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on
proposed and continuing collections of
information, in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps
ensure that: The public understands the
Department’s collection instructions,
respondents can provide the requested
data in the desired format, reporting
burden (time and financial resources) is
minimized, collection instruments are
clearly understood, and the Department
can properly assess the impact of
collection requirements on respondents.
The final priority and requirements
contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB
under OMB control number 1894–0006.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: On request to the
contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format. The Department
will provide the requestor with an
accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format, a
thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc or
other accessible format.
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
37222
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2023 / Notices
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
James F. Lane,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Delegated the Authority to Perform the
Functions and Duties of the Assistant
Secretary, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2023–12144 Filed 6–6–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Full Text of Announcement
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; FullService Community Schools Program
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Education
(Department) is issuing a notice inviting
applications for fiscal year (FY) 2023 for
the Full-Service Community Schools
(FSCS) program, Assistance Listing
Number 84.215J. This notice relates to
the approved information collection
under OMB control number 1894–0006.
DATES:
Applications Available: June 7, 2023.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:
July 7, 2023.
Date of Pre-Application Meetings: The
Department will hold pre-application
meetings via webinars for prospective
applicants. Detailed information
regarding these webinars will be
provided on the FSCS website at https://
oese.ed.gov/offices/office-ofdiscretionary-grants-support-services/
school-choice-improvement-programs/
full-service-community-schoolsprogram-fscs/fy-2023-fscs-grantcompetition/.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: August 8, 2023.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Jun 06, 2023
Deadline for Intergovernmental
Review: October 8, 2023.
ADDRESSES: For the addresses for
obtaining and submitting an
application, please refer to our Common
Instructions for Applicants to
Department of Education Discretionary
Grant Programs, published in the
Federal Register on December 7, 2022
(87 FR 75045), and available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2022/12/07/2022-26554/commoninstructions-for-applicants-todepartment-of-education-discretionarygrant-programs. Please note that these
Common Instructions supersede the
version published on December 27,
2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane
Hodgdon, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
Room 4E246, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: 202–245–6057. Email:
FSCS@ed.gov.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or
have a speech disability and wish to
access telecommunications relay
services, please dial 7–1–1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Jkt 259001
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The FSCS
program is authorized by sections 4621–
4623 and 4625 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA). This program
provides support for the planning,
implementation, and operation of fullservice community schools that improve
the coordination, integration,
accessibility, and effectiveness of
services for children and families,
particularly for children attending highpoverty schools, including high-poverty
rural schools.
Background: Meeting the needs of the
whole child is essential to helping
America’s students grow academically
and improve their well-being. The
Biden-Harris Administration’s
commitment to increasing and
supporting the adoption of community
school models across the country has
resulted in an increase in funding from
$25 million in 2020 to $150 million in
FY 2023, from 42 grantees in 2020 to
129 grantees in 2023, which includes 42
grants made to local educational
agencies (LEAs) (as defined in this
notice), nonprofit (as defined in this
notice) organizations, institutions of
higher education, and government
organizations in FY 2022. To further
demonstrate its commitment to
community schools, the White House
worked with nine Federal agencies to
identify how funding across the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
government can be used to support
community schools. These efforts
resulted in the publication of a Fact
Sheet 1 and Toolkit 2 designed to assist
community school leaders,
coordinators, advocates, and other
stakeholders to understand the current
scope of Federal funding that can be
used to support community schools.
Full-service community schools (as
defined in this notice) meet the unique
needs of the neighborhoods they serve
by leveraging local nonprofit, private
sector, and public partnerships to bring
wraparound services into school
buildings, such as mental health
supports, dental services, and assistance
with shelter and nutrition. They operate
with the assistance of school staff who
coordinate with school administrators,
stakeholders, and local organizations to
deliver these services and more to
students, their families, and members of
the community. Research 3 has shown
that comprehensive community school
interventions have increased student
attendance, on-time grade progression,
and high school graduation rates.
The growing interest at the State and
local levels in community schools,4
known as full-service community
schools, coincides with a moment in
which schools are urgently focused on
supporting students’ holistic needs as
they help them recover from the
COVID–19 pandemic and the Nation is
grappling with violence in and around
schools. In his January 2023 speech,
Secretary Miguel Cardona encouraged
all stakeholders to raise the bar in
education. ‘‘Raise the Bar: Lead the
World’’ 5 is the Department’s call to
action to transform preschool through
grade 12 education and unite around
evidence-based (as defined in this
notice) strategies that advance
educational equity and excellence for all
students. Raising the bar in education
focuses on building the skills that all
students need to thrive inside and
1 Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration
Announces Efforts to Support Community Schools.
Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2023/01/18/fact-sheet-bidenharris-administration-announces-efforts-to-supportcommunity-schools/.
2 White House Toolkit: Federal Resources to
Support Community Schools. Available at:
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/
2023-01-13-WHITE-HOUSE-TOOLKIT_FederalResources-to-Support-Community-Schools.pdf.
3 Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., & Lam, L.
(December 2017). Community Schools as an
Effective School Improvement Strategy: A Review
of the Evidence. Learning Policy Institute.
4 Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., & Lam, L.
(December 2017). Community Schools as an
Effective School Improvement Strategy: A Review
of the Evidence. Learning Policy Institute.
5 Raise the Bar, U.S. Department of Education Call
to Action. Available at: www.ed.gov/raisethebar/.
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37218-37222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12144]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0152]
Final Priority and Requirements--Full-Service Community Schools
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority
and requirements under the Full-Service Community Schools (FSCS)
program, Assistance Listing Number 84.215J. The Department may use the
priority and requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and
in later years. The Department intends for the priority and
requirements to support competitions under the FSCS program for the
purpose of conducting national evaluations of the program's
implementation and effectiveness.
DATES: The priority and requirements are effective July 7, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Hodgdon. U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, room 3E346, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: 202-245-6057. Email: [email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The FSCS program, established under sections
4621-4623 and 4625 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
amended (ESEA), provides support for the planning, implementation, and
operation of full-service community schools that improve the
coordination, integration, accessibility, and effectiveness of services
for children and families, particularly for children attending schools
with concentrated poverty, including rural schools.
Program Authority: Sections 4621-4623 and 4625 of the ESEA, 20
U.S.C. 7271-7273, 7275.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for this program in the Federal
Register on January 12, 2022 (87 FR 1709) (the NPP). That document
contained background information and rationale for proposing the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria,
including a priority for participation in a national evaluation of the
program's effectiveness using a randomized controlled trial (i.e.,
experimental) design. We then published a notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program in
the Federal Register on July 13, 2022 (87 FR 41675) (the 2022 FSCS
NFP). In the 2022 FSCS NFP, we discussed a plan to conduct additional
outreach before finalizing a priority on a national evaluation.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 19
parties submitted comments pertinent to the proposed national
evaluation priority, which were addressed in the 2022 FSCS NFP. In the
2022 FSCS NFP, the Department communicated our appreciation for the
comments, concerns, and support shared by the field regarding a
national evaluation of the FSCS program. We committed to working with
grantees and other stakeholders to design and conduct the national
evaluation required under section 4625(f) of the ESEA. To allow more
time to conduct outreach with the field, the Department delayed
launching the national evaluation.
We discuss substantive issues under each priority or requirement to
which they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other
minor changes or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to
make. In addition, we do not address comments that are outside the
scope of the proposed priority and requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority and requirements related to the proposed
national evaluation priority follows.
Proposed Priority 4--Participation in a National Evaluation.
Comments: We summarized the 19 comments received related to
Priority 4 in the 2022 FSCS NFP.
Discussion: As discussed in the 2022 FSCS NFP, the Department
appreciates the comments, concerns, and support shared by the field
regarding a national evaluation of the FSCS program and we are
committed to working with grantees and other stakeholders to design and
implement the national evaluation required under section 4625(f) of the
ESEA, which requires the Department's Institute of Education Sciences
(IES) to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the FSCS program
grants. To allow more time to conduct outreach with the field, the
Department did not begin the national evaluation with the FY 2022 grant
competition.
In response to comments expressing concern about the design of the
national evaluation, section 4625(f) of the ESEA requires a national
evaluation that assesses the effectiveness of the grants. Section
4625(g) of the ESEA requires that grantees conduct local evaluations to
assess annual progress achieved, refine and improve activities, and
make the results publicly available. The local and national evaluations
are separate but complementary, and one cannot be used in place of the
other. The alternative designs suggested by commenters for a national
evaluation would not meet the requirements in section 4625(f). While a
national evaluation of the program's implementation would be useful and
is included in the randomized controlled trial design described in the
national evaluation priority, a national evaluation of implementation
alone would not fulfill the mandate for evaluating the program's
effectiveness. While two of the 19 comments received supported
conducting a randomized controlled trial evaluation beginning in 2022,
the majority of commenters and stakeholders that provided input through
subsequent outreach shared that it would be useful to the field to
learn about the implementation of FSCS grants prior to assessing their
effectiveness. We have decided to first conduct a national evaluation
of program implementation and will share those implementation findings
with the field. We will use the interim implementation findings to
inform and enhance the design and execution of a subsequent national
evaluation of the program's effectiveness using a randomized controlled
trial.
Another commenter suggested that an alternative design, a quasi-
experimental study, would be very challenging to execute with
sufficient scientific rigor at a national level. A quasi-experimental
design would require the identification of a comparison group of non-
FSCS funded schools that are very similar at baseline to the schools
receiving grant funds. It would likely be very difficult to find
schools not implementing community schools strategies that are similar
enough to schools receiving FSCS grant funds and willing to provide the
detailed data required for the evaluation. While such a quasi-
experimental design approach has been used in evaluating community
schools within more limited contexts, such as a single city or one or
two States, it would be much more difficult to identify
[[Page 37219]]
credible comparison schools for each FSCS-funded school given the
diverse and widespread distribution of schools receiving FSCS grant
funds. Even if an ostensibly suitable comparison group at baseline
could be identified, it would not be possible to fully determine
whether there are factors in the comparison schools that make them more
or less likely to have better outcomes over time and to disentangle
those factors from the effects of the FSCS grant funds.
One commenter asked how the Department will ensure that the
outcomes measured go beyond test scores and include outcomes such as
student physical and mental health and a range of key non-cognitive
competencies, such as social and emotional learning and increased sense
of safety and well-being. Using a national evaluation of implementation
to inform the national evaluation of effectiveness required under
section 4625(f) of the ESEA provides the Department with an opportunity
to better understand what can be measured, including outcomes related
to health, social emotional learning, safety, and well-being. Further,
the 13 program indicators that were included in the 2022 FSCS NFP
include measures related to attendance, school climate, discipline,
expanded learning time, and family engagement, among others.
The Department agrees with commenters that requiring applicants to
propose at least four schools to receive grant funding could exclude
some districts. Therefore, in the priority for a national evaluation of
effectiveness using a randomized controlled trial, we are reducing the
minimum number of proposed schools from four to two.
In response to comments that a randomized controlled trial would be
unfair, the Department disagrees. In all FSCS competitions, there is
not sufficient funding for every interested and eligible school.
Whatever total grant funds are available in any year, under a
randomized controlled trial design, more applicants and localities
would receive FSCS grants, though not every one of their interested
schools could participate or benefit from that funding. Without a
randomized controlled trial, fewer localities receive grants, though
all interested schools can participate in FSCS funding. Therefore,
whether there is a randomized controlled trial or not, there will be
schools that will not receive grant funds or participate under a funded
grant. In either case, the Department would be awarding the same total
amount of money to support FSCS nationally.
Regarding comments related to data collection, the Department
agrees that it is vital to engage stakeholders in a variety of ways, in
part to ensure that any national evaluation plans are well-informed and
reflect the reality of grantee variation. Since receiving feedback on
the national evaluation priority, we interviewed key community schools
researchers and practitioners. We synthesized the interview findings
and shared updated evaluation plans in a webinar with the field in
February 2023. We will continue to seek stakeholder input and
incorporate multiple perspectives, as feasible and aligned with the
theory of action, in all national evaluations.
Regarding recommendations that the Department engage a technical
advisory group, we also agree there is substantial value in obtaining
multiple perspectives on any national evaluation of FSCS. The
evaluation currently has a Technical Working Group comprised of
community schools researchers and practitioners. This group met in
October 2020 to advise on initial evaluation plans. We will continue to
consult these experts, or experts with similar expertise, as the design
and execution of a national evaluation of FSCS implementation and
effectiveness moves forward. The Department agrees that mandatory
participation in any national evaluation is essential for the results
to reflect the diversity of grantees and their efforts.
Following the publication of the 2022 FSCS NFP and after
discussions with FSCS grantees and other stakeholders, the Department
has determined that a robust national evaluation of FSCS grantee
implementation, as recommended in comments received on the NPP, will
help the field learn about implementation, provide information to the
Department to help us target supports for applicants and grantees, and
inform a subsequent national evaluation of effectiveness that meets the
statutory requirement. Accordingly, and as discussed in more detail
below, we are establishing requirements that applicants include an
assurance to participate in the national evaluation assessing the
implementation of the FSCS program and that grantees participate in the
national evaluation assessing the implementation of the FSCS program.
To meet the statutory requirement, the Department will use
information learned about implementation of FSCS grants to develop a
rigorous national evaluation of effectiveness. In order to conduct a
subsequent effectiveness study, we are establishing a priority for
participation in a future national evaluation of effectiveness using a
randomized controlled trial design.
Changes: The Department has finalized a priority for participation
in a national evaluation of effectiveness of the FSCS program using a
randomized controlled trial design that requires applicants to propose
at least two, rather than four, schools to potentially receive grant
funding.
Other Requirements
Comments: We summarized comments received related to FSCS program
requirements in the 2022 FSCS NFP.
As discussed in connection with the national evaluation proposed
priority from the 2022 FSCS NPP, numerous commenters recommended that
the Department conduct an evaluation using a design other than a
randomized controlled trial design. There were four comments related to
differences in implementation of full-service community schools across
schools because the strategy is specific to the needs and assets of
individual communities and schools.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to study how grantees are
implementing their FSCS grants. In order to ensure that FSCS applicants
are fully prepared to participate in a national evaluation of the
implementation of the FSCS program, the Department is establishing an
application requirement and a program requirement that grantees must
work with IES during the assessment of implementation of the FSCS
program.
Changes: The Department has added an application requirement that
applicants include an assurance that the eligible entity and its
partner entities will participate in a national evaluation assessing
the implementation of the FSCS program and a program requirement that
grantees will work with IES during the assessment of implementation of
the FSCS program.
Final Priority
This document contains one final priority.
Participation in a National Evaluation of Effectiveness Using a
Randomized Controlled Trial Design.
Projects in which the applicant agrees to--
(a) Carry out the FSCS grant in a manner consistent with a
randomized controlled trial evaluation design developed by the
Department and its national evaluator;
(b) Propose at least two schools to potentially receive grant
funding in the national evaluation of effectiveness. The
[[Page 37220]]
proposed schools can be elementary, middle, and/or high schools;
(c) Not currently be fully implementing all four pillars of full-
service community schools (as defined in the 2022 FSCS NFP) in any of
the schools proposed for the grant;
(d) Consent to the evaluator's random assignment of approximately
one-half of the schools proposed by the applicant to receive funding
and begin implementing the FSCS approach; and the other half of schools
to not receive funding from any FSCS grant for 3 years following random
assignment;
(e) Not promote or begin using grant funds for the implementation
of the FSCS approach in any proposed schools until the grantee receives
notification from the national evaluator about the random assignment of
its schools to receive FSCS grant funding or not; and
(f) Cooperate, consistent with applicable privacy requirements,
with evaluation data collection activities, including: surveys of
grantee directors, principals of both groups of proposed schools (those
randomly assigned to receive grant funding and schools assigned to not
receive grant funding), and a representative sample of parents/
guardians of students attending the two groups of grantee schools; and
provision of district administrative records on educators (e.g.,
credentials, experience) and students (e.g., academic assessment
scores, course taking and credit accumulation, attendance) in the two
groups of grantee schools. These data collections will be carried out
at multiple points over the grant period.
Note: From among the proposed schools, applicants may designate one
group of two or more schools that serve the same grade levels as
``highest need.'' If the applicant receives a grant, the national
evaluation of effectiveness will ensure that at least one of the
schools in the group receives FSCS funding.
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 75.105C(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Final Requirements
This document contains two final requirements.
Assurance of Participation in a National Evaluation Assessing the
Implementation of the FSCS Program.
Each applicant must include an assurance that the eligible entity
and its partner entities will participate in a national evaluation
assessing the implementation of the FSCS program, which may include,
but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Completing surveys of grantee organizations (which may include
service provider partners), grantee schools (which may include multiple
individuals within each school such as the principal and the service
coordinator), and potentially a sample of teachers within grantee
schools;
(b) Participating in interviews of grantee organizations, grantee
schools, and/or a sample of teachers within grantee schools;
(c) Providing administrative data, such as student absenteeism
rates and high school graduation rates;
(d) Cooperating with data collection at several points during the
grant period, such as shortly after grant award (baseline round of data
collection), during the middle of the grant period (interim round of
data collection), and toward the end of the grant period (final round
of data collection); and
(e) Assisting in facilitating connections between each grantee's
local evaluator and the national evaluation of implementation to ensure
efficiency and coordination between the evaluation efforts.
Participate in a National Evaluation Assessing the Implementation
of the FSCS Program.
Each grantee must participate in a national evaluation assessing
the implementation of the FSCS program, which may include, but is not
limited to, the following:
(a) Completing surveys of grantee organizations (which may include
service provider partners), grantee schools (which may include multiple
individuals within each school such as the principal and the service
coordinator), and potentially a sample of teachers within grantee
schools;
(b) Participating in interviews of grantee organizations, grantee
schools, and/or a sample of teachers within grantee schools;
(c) Providing administrative data, such as student absenteeism
rates and high school graduation rates;
(d) Cooperating with data collection at several points during the
grant period, such as shortly after grant award (baseline round of data
collection), during the middle of the grant period (interim round of
data collection), and toward the end of the grant period (final round
of data collection); and
(e) Assisting in facilitating connections between each grantee's
local evaluator and the national evaluation of implementation to ensure
efficiency and coordination between the evaluation efforts.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in
gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or
Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a 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 legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
[[Page 37221]]
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA designated this rule as not a
``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' OIRA 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 the final priority and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches
that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Summary of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the
final priority and requirements will not impose significant costs on
the entities eligible to apply for FSCS. We also believe that the
benefits of implementing the final priority and requirements outweigh
any associated costs.
The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements
and those we have determined as necessary for administering the
Department's programs and activities.
The priority and requirements give the Department the opportunity
to conduct a national evaluation of the FSCS program, as required in
section 4625(f) of the ESEA.
Because the final priority and requirements would neither expand
nor restrict the universe of eligible entities for any Department grant
program, and since application submission and participation in our
discretionary grant programs is voluntary, there are no costs
associated with this priority and requirements for applicants; grantees
would use grant funds for participation in evaluation activities.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small
Business Administration Size Standards define ``small entities'' as
for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts),
with a population of less than 50,000.
The small entities that this regulatory action will affect are
local educational agencies, the Bureau of Indian Education, and
community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and other
public or private entities that may apply. We believe that the costs
imposed on an applicant by the final priority and requirements will be
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and
that the benefits of implementing this final priority and requirements
will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. Grantees will incur
costs related to participating in the national evaluation and
implementation study; however, grant funds will be available to meet
those costs. Therefore, we do not believe that the final priority and
requirements will significantly impact small entities beyond the
potential for receiving additional support should the small entity
receive a competitive grant from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
of information, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact
of collection requirements on respondents.
The final priority and requirements contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0006.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: On request to the contact person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities can
obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format, a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille,
large print, audiotape, or compact disc or other accessible format.
[[Page 37222]]
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
James F. Lane,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the Authority to
Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2023-12144 Filed 6-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P