Vol. 80 Monday, 

No. 114 June 15, 2015 

Part II 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria; Charter 

Schools Program Grants to State Educational Agencies; Applications for 

New Awards; Final Rule and Notice 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34202 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OII–0019] 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria; 

Charter Schools Program Grants to 

State Educational Agencies 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.282A 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement announces 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. 

DATES: These priorities, requirements, 

definitions and selection criteria are 

effective July 15, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathryn Meeley, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202– 

5970. Telephone: (202) 453–6818 or by 

email: Kathryn.Meeley@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 announces 

the final 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 

CSP Grants to SEAs program, including 

accountability for grantees, 

accountability and oversight for 

authorized public chartering agencies in 

a State, and support for educationally 

disadvantaged students. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: This regulatory 

action announces four priorities, four 

requirements, four definitions, and nine 

selection criteria that may be used for 

CSP Grants to SEAs competitions in FY 

2015 and later years. This regulatory 

action’s purpose is to achieve three 

main goals. 

The first goal is to ensure that CSP 

funds are directed toward the creation 

of high-quality charter schools. For 

example, we are creating a selection 

criterion to ask applicants to explain 

how charter schools fit into the State’s 

broader education reform strategy. In 

addition, the selection criteria request 

information from the SEA regarding 

how it will manage and report on 

project performance. 

The second goal is to strengthen 

public accountability and oversight for 

authorized public chartering agencies 

(also referred to as authorizers). The 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria collectively provide 

incentives for SEAs to implement CSP 

requirements, as well as State law and 

policies, in a manner that encourages 

authorized public chartering agencies to 

focus on school quality through rigorous 

and transparent charter approval 

processes. For example, Priority 1— 

Periodic Review and Evaluation and 

Priority 2—Charter School Oversight 

give priority to SEAs that take steps to 

improve public accountability and 

oversight for charter schools within the 

State, including by holding authorized 

public chartering agencies accountable 

for the quality of the charter schools in 

their portfolios. 

The third goal is to support and 

improve academic outcomes for 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

Our commitment to equitable outcomes 

for all students, continued growth of 

high-quality charter schools, and 

addressing ongoing concerns about 

educationally disadvantaged students’ 

access to and performance in charter 

schools, compel the Department 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. For example, 

the selection criteria encourage 

applicants to meaningfully incorporate 

student body diversity into charter 

school models and practices and ask 

applicants to describe specific actions 

they would take to support 

educationally disadvantaged students 

through charter schools. 

In addition to the three goals outlined 

above, we believe this notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria (NFP or notice) 

streamlines the CSP application process. 

For example, selection criterion (f) 

Dissemination of Information and Best 

Practices combines two statutory 

criteria that have been used separately 

in previous competitions, asking 

applicants to describe their plans to 

disseminate best or promising practices 

of charter schools to each local 

educational agency (LEA) in the State 

and to describe their dissemination 

subgrant awards processes, thereby 

decreasing the burden on applicants. 

Additional discussion regarding the 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria can be 

found in the Public Comment section of 

this document. 

Costs and Benefits: The Department 

believes that the benefits of this 

regulatory action outweigh any 

associated costs, which we believe will 

be minimal. This action will 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 NFP for a more detailed 

discussion of costs and benefits. 

Purposes 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34203 

Program Authority: The CSP is 

authorized under 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 and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2015 (FY 2015 Appropriations Act), 

Public Law 113–235. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for this program in the 

Federal Register on November 19, 2014 

(NPP) (79 FR 68812). That NPP 

contained background information and 

our reasons for proposing the particular 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

The Analysis of Comments and 

Changes section in this NFP describes 

the differences between the priorities, 

requirements, and definitions we 

proposed in the NPP and these final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 26 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. In 

addition, we do not address comments 

that raise concerns not directly related 

to the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, or selection criteria. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria since 

publication of the NPP follows. 

Priorities 

Priority 1—Periodic Review and 

Evaluation 

Comment: We received several 

general comments regarding Priority 1. 

One commenter expressed support for 

the priority. Another commenter 

recommended that we revise the 

language of Priority 1 to reflect language 

in the FY 2015 Appropriations Act that 

requires each SEA to provide an 

assurance that authorizers in the State 

use increases in student academic 

achievement as one of the most 

important factors, as opposed to the 

most important factor, when 

determining whether to renew or revoke 

a school’s charter. Another commenter 

suggested that we designate this priority 

as a minimum requirement for 

applicants rather than a priority that the 

Department may or may not utilize in 

any particular competition year. Finally, 

several commenters suggested that there 

is overlap between Priority 1 and the 

other three priorities. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

priorities, requirements, definitions and 

selection criteria should be consistent 

with the FY 2015 Appropriations Act, 

which was enacted after publication of 

the NPP in the Federal Register. 

Accordingly, we have modified Priority 

2—Charter School Oversight and 

selection criterion (g) Oversight of 

Authorized Public Chartering Agencies 

to reflect the language in the FY 2015 

Appropriations Act. We decline, 

however, to make any additional 

changes to Priority 1. 

Regarding the comment that Priority 1 

should be a minimum requirement, we 

agree with the commenter that it is 

important for authorizers to conduct 

periodic reviews to evaluate how well 

their charter schools are performing. 

This priority is derived largely from a 

priority in the CSP authorizing statute 

(20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)(2)), and we believe 

that it is appropriate to retain it as a 

priority in this NFP. 

Finally, we note that each priority can 

be used independently in any given 

competition. We believe that the 

overlapping elements across some of the 

priorities emphasize critical factors and 

provide the Department with flexibility 

to use or not use a particular priority in 

any given year. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that Priority 1 diminishes the 

ability of an authorized public 

chartering agency (authorizer) to tailor 

charter contracts and performance 

standards in accordance with the needs 

of the charter school and its students. 

The commenter also suggested that 

charter schools would act responsibly 

without this priority. Similarly, one 

commenter stated that Priority 1 

removes local control of a charter 

school. Finally, one commenter asserted 

that the priority implies that an 

authorizer will conduct a review only 

once every five years at the time of 

charter renewal, and suggested that this 

will weaken authorizer oversight. 

Discussion: This priority is based on 

section 5202(e)(2) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 7221a(e)(2)), which requires the 

Department to give priority to SEAs in 

States that provide for periodic review 

and evaluation of a charter school by its 

authorizer at least once every five years. 

In addition, we disagree that the priority 

will diminish an authorizer’s ability to 

tailor charter contracts or performance 

standards to a specific charter school. 

Rather, with this priority, we can 

reward States that provide for periodic 

review and evaluation of each charter 

school by the authorizer, at a minimum, 

once every five years. Furthermore, 

while the review provides an 

opportunity for the authorizer to take 

appropriate action or impose 

meaningful consequences on the school 

for failing to meet certain performance 

standards, it does not prevent the 

authorizer from determining a more 

tailored approach under specific 

circumstances. 

Finally, we note that the priority is 

designed to strengthen authorizer 

oversight. In specific instances, certain 

State laws allow charters to be awarded 

for a term of up to 15 years before being 

evaluated for renewal. In such 

circumstances, this priority is designed 

to promote more frequent reviews and 

evaluations. An SEA in a State that 

requires authorizers to conduct reviews 

and evaluations more frequently than 

every five years will not be penalized. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the language of Priority 1 is unclear 

and some recommended that we delete 

the priority. One commenter inquired 

whether Priority 1 is designed to 

address a specific policy concern, 

stating that they were unaware of any 

scenario in which a State would have a 

charter school policy in place that is 

inconsistent with existing State law. 

Another commenter objected to the 

reference to the authorizer taking 

appropriate action, and also 

recommended that we remove the 

reference to the student academic 

achievement requirements and goals set 

forth in a State policy exceeding such 

requirements in State law. Finally, one 

commenter recommended that Priority 1 

be revised to ensure that the periodic 

reviews actually take place. 

Discussion: Priority 1 is designed to 

clarify that performance standards for 

charter schools (including those related 

to student academic achievement) 

should be established in accordance 

with a State law, a State regulation, or 

a State policy to ensure the rigor of 

these performance standards across the 

State. Therefore, we decline to delete 

this priority. 

In addition, we decline to remove 

from Priority 1 the statement that 

periodic review and evaluation provides 

an opportunity for authorizers to take 

appropriate action or impose 

meaningful consequences on the charter 

school, if necessary. Often, the State 

charter school law, regulations, or 

policies that stipulate performance 

standards applicable to charter schools 

do not specify actions associated with 

meeting or failing to meet those 

performance standards. Given the 

underlying premise of charter schools— 

greater autonomy in exchange for 

accountability—we believe this 

language is critical to ensure that the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34204 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

periodic review and evaluation result in 

deliberate, meaningful action if a charter 

school is failing to meet the standards 

of its charter or State charter law, 

regulation, or policy. 

Changes: We agree that additional 

language in Priority 1 is necessary to 

ensure that periodic reviews actually 

take place. For this reason, we have 

revised Priority 1 to add that, in order 

to meet the priority, SEAs must take 

steps to ensure that periodic reviews 

take place. We believe this revision is 

consistent with the intent of the relevant 

priority in the authorizing statute. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: The Department 

determined through internal review that 

the last sentence of Priority 1 should be 

clarified to emphasize that the 

authorizer must have an opportunity to 

take appropriate action in order for an 

SEA to meet this priority. 

Changes: We have revised the last 

sentence of Priority 1 to clarify that 

periodic review and evaluation must 

include an opportunity for the 

authorized public chartering agency to 

take appropriate action or impose 

meaningful consequences on the charter 

school, if necessary. 

Priority 2—Charter School Oversight 

Comment: We received several 

general comments regarding Priority 2— 

Charter School Oversight. One 

commenter expressed support for the 

priority. One commenter recommended 

that we designate this priority an 

absolute priority. Another commenter 

recommended that we revise the 

priority to include language added to 

the FY 2015 Appropriations Act. 

Specifically, the commenter 

recommended that paragraph (b) be 

eliminated, and that paragraph (a)(1) 

refer only to legally binding 

performance contracts rather than to 

legally binding charters or performance 

contracts. Finally, one commenter 

expressed concern about requiring the 

use of increases in student academic 

achievement by subgroup as the most 

important factor in determining whether 

to renew or revoke a charter. The 

commenter recommended that the 

Department remove this requirement 

and substitute language that would 

allow greater authorizer discretion in 

making these renewal or revocation 

decisions. 

Discussion: This NFP establishes the 

priorities that we may choose to use in 

the CSP Grants for SEAs competitions in 

FY 2015 and later years. We do not 

designate whether a priority will be 

absolute, competitive preference, or 

invitational in this NFP; we retain the 

flexibility to determine how best to 

designate the priorities to ensure that 

funded projects address the most 

pressing areas of need for competitions 

in FY 2015 and later years. When 

inviting applications for a competition 

using one or more of these priorities, we 

will designate the type of each priority 

through a notice published in the 

Federal Register. 

We agree that Priority 2 should reflect 

the language in the FY 2015 

Appropriations Act, which was enacted 

after publication of the NPP in the 

Federal Register, and have made the 

appropriate change to Priority 2. 

Likewise, in accordance with the FY 

2015 Appropriations Act, we believe 

paragraph (b) needs to remain part of 

Priority 2 and have opted to retain the 

reference to a legally binding charter or 

performance contract in paragraph (a)(1) 

of Priority 2. 

Changes: In conformance with the FY 

2015 Appropriations Act, we have 

revised paragraph (b) of Priority 2 to 

state that student achievement is one of 

the most important factors, as opposed 

to the most important factor, when 

determining whether to renew or revoke 

a school’s charter. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that Priority 2 require 

annual financial audits and that the 

information from such audits describe 

public and private contributions. The 

commenter also suggested that this 

information be made public and that the 

Department strengthen the priority by 

requiring that charter schools include 

F–33 survey data (i.e., LEA finance 

survey data on revenues and 

expenditures) collected by the 

Department’s National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES). 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that fiscal responsibility and 

public reporting are critical aspects of 

charter school oversight. Accordingly, 

the NFP includes a priority and a 

selection criterion regarding authorizer 

monitoring of operational performance 

expectations, including financial 

management, and annual public 

reporting of charter school performance 

(see Priority 3—High-Quality 

Authorizing and Monitoring Processes 

and selection criterion (g) Oversight of 

Authorized Public Chartering Agencies). 

We note, also, that in order for an SEA 

to meet Priority 2, all charter schools in 

the State must be required to file with 

their authorizers, on an annual basis, 

independent audits of their financial 

statements. We believe these elements 

address the commenter’s concerns and, 

therefore, decline to revise Priority 2. 

We decline to require that SEAs 

submit F–33 data for charter schools in 

order to meet this priority. The F–33 

survey is a data collection and data 

census effort supported by NCES, 

whereas Priority 2 is concerned 

primarily with charter school oversight 

by authorized public chartering 

agencies. We do not believe that 

requiring SEAs to complete a census 

report in order to meet this priority 

would strengthen or otherwise improve 

charter school oversight. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department require SEAs to 

provide an assurance that charter 

schools will comply with the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Act (McKinney-Vento) (42 U.S.C. 11301, 

et seq.) and that charter schools ensure 

their compliance by designating a 

McKinney-Vento Homeless liaison 

within the LEA in order to meet Priority 

2. 

Discussion: In order to qualify for 

funds under the CSP, a charter school 

must provide all students in the 

community, including educationally 

disadvantaged students, such as those 

served under McKinney-Vento, with an 

equal opportunity to attend the charter 

school. Charter schools that are 

considered to be independent LEAs 

under the applicable State’s charter 

school law must comply with 

McKinney-Vento on the same basis as 

other LEAs. For these reasons, we 

decline to revise Priority 2 as suggested 

by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that paragraph (a)(3) of Priority 

2 would require State law to mandate 

that every charter school demonstrate 

academic improvement and 

recommended that the Department 

make this an assurance rather than a 

priority. The commenter stated that it is 

unlikely that every charter school in a 

State would demonstrate such 

improvement and that some charter 

schools may have such a high level of 

achievement that further improvement 

is not possible. 

Discussion: An SEA is not required to 

demonstrate improved student 

academic achievement in order to meet 

the priority. First, if designated a 

competitive preference or invitational 

priority, Priority 2 would not impose 

requirements on applicants. While 

applicants would be required to meet an 

absolute priority, under Priority 2, an 

SEA would have to show only that State 

law, regulation, or policy requires each 

charter school in the State to 

demonstrate improved student 

academic achievement. 

Changes: None. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34205 

Priority 3—High-Quality Authorizing 

and Monitoring Processes 

Comment: We received several 

general comments regarding Priority 3— 

High-Quality Authorizing and 

Monitoring Processes. One commenter 

expressed support for the priority. 

Another commenter recommended that 

Priority 3 be mandatory for all 

applicants. Another commenter 

recommended designating Priority 3 as 

an invitational priority because the 

priority necessitates oversight and 

monitoring that could be contrary to the 

practices States have already 

established. In addition, a commenter 

stated that Priority 3 could favor States 

with a single authorizer and not work to 

strengthen authorizer diversity. 

Discussion: This priority is designed 

to provide an incentive to States to 

adopt high-quality authorizing and 

monitoring processes. As discussed 

above, this NFP is designed only to 

establish the priorities that we may 

choose to use in the CSP Grants for 

SEAs competitions in FY 2015 and later 

years. Accordingly, we decline to 

designate this priority as absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational 

in this NFP. While Priority 3 is intended 

to strengthen authorizer quality, it is not 

designed to address authorizer diversity. 

We believe that States with a single 

authorizer, as well as States with 

multiple authorizers, can meet this 

priority by focusing on overall 

authorizer quality. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

we revise Priority 3 to include 

performance benchmarks that would 

trigger prompt inquiry by an SEA of an 

authorizer that is persistently poorperforming. The commenter also 

suggested revisions that would provide 

for ongoing public dissemination of 

authorizers’ performance information, 

thus increasing accountability for 

authorizers. 

Another commenter expressed 

concerns about the disruptive nature of 

charter school closures and suggested 

that the Department place a greater 

emphasis on high standards for 

authorizer performance, including 

consequences for persistently poorperforming authorizers. The commenter 

stated that the Department should focus 

more on the charter application phase to 

ensure that the authorizer’s review of 

charter applications is sufficiently 

rigorous in order to minimize the 

number of charter closures. 

Discussion: We agree that the public 

should be informed about authorizer 

performance, and that mechanisms 

should exist to facilitate the termination 

of chartering authority for persistently 

poor-performing authorizers. This 

priority is designed to encourage States 

to ensure quality practices for charter 

school authorizing and to take 

appropriate action to strengthen charter 

school authorizing across the State, as 

necessary. It also is designed to 

accommodate a wide range of State 

contexts, including where the SEA itself 

is an authorizer, and where an SEA may 

or may not have the authority to revoke 

the authorizer role from an organization. 

We believe that Priority 3 is sufficiently 

rigorous and fully addresses 

Congressional intent while still meeting 

the needs of SEAs in varying contexts. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise paragraph (a)(2) of 

Priority 3 to state that performance 

objectives may, rather than must, be 

school-specific. Additionally, the 

commenter recommended that the 

Department clarify whether the 

reference to standardized systems that 

measure and benchmark performance of 

the authorizer in paragraph (b) of 

Priority 3 applies to authorizers or 

SEAs. Another commenter 

recommended changing standardized 

systems to standardized reporting in 

this paragraph. 

Discussion: We believe that 

performance objectives that are 

developed for each charter school and 

tie to rigorous academic and operational 

performance expectations are critical to 

the evaluation of school performance. 

While some performance objectives may 

be used by the authorizer for more than 

one school, a school’s performance 

objectives serve as the basis for 

measuring performance at that specific 

school, and we believe that some of 

these objectives must be school specific 

in order to evaluate school performance 

effectively. However, to clarify the 

purpose of this priority, we have revised 

paragraph (a)(2) of Priority 3 to state that 

performance objectives for each charter 

school must be aligned to the rigorous 

academic and operational performance 

expectations established by the 

authorizer. 

We note that paragraph (b) of Priority 

3 gives priority to SEAs that 

demonstrate that all authorizers use 

standardized systems to measure and 

benchmark their performance, and was 

not intended to imply that an entity 

other than the authorizer would develop 

or implement these systems. We also 

agree that the term ‘‘standardized 

systems’’ could be misunderstood and 

understand the recommendation that we 

change this reference to ‘‘standardized 

reporting.’’ However, because our intent 

is to require a State to develop clear and 

specific standards, we have revised this 

section to clarify that, in order for the 

SEA to meet the priority, each 

authorizer in the State should be 

measuring and benchmarking 

performance and disseminating the 

results annually, but the SEA does not 

need to develop a standardized system 

across all authorizers. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(a)(2) of Priority 3—High-Quality 

Authorizing and Monitoring Processes 

to refer to the performance objectives for 

each school instead of school-specific 

performance objectives to clarify that 

the objectives must be aligned to the 

rigorous academic and operational 

performance expectations established by 

the authorizer. We also have revised 

paragraph (b) of Priority 3 to specify that 

authorizers must use clear and specific 

standards and formalized processes that 

measure and benchmark authorizer 

performance, instead of standardized 

systems, to clarify our intent. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we revise paragraph 

(a)(2) of Priority 3 to allow charter 

schools to create school-specific 

performance objectives that meet some 

or all of the outlined expectations rather 

than all expectations. 

Discussion: We believe that it is 

important for schools to establish 

performance objectives that are aligned 

with all academic and operational 

expectations and that high-quality 

charter schools should meet all 

performance objectives. While a charter 

school that fails to meet all of its 

performance objectives should not 

automatically have its charter revoked, 

we believe that authorizers should 

evaluate a charter school’s performance 

based on performance objectives that are 

aligned with the academic and 

operational performance expectations 

that have been established for the 

charter school. Periodic review and 

evaluation allows an authorizer to 

assess a charter school’s performance 

with respect to defined expectations and 

ensures that charter schools are held 

accountable for academic and 

organizational performance objectives. 

We also note that a charter school or 

authorizer can establish performance 

expectations and objectives that are 

more rigorous or cover more areas than 

specified under State law. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising paragraph (d) of Priority 3 to 

remove the reference to differentiated 

review based on whether the developer 

has been successful in establishing and 

operating one or more high-quality 

charter schools. The commenter also 

suggested removing the reference to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34206 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

high-quality when referring to charter 

schools. Another commenter stated that, 

with respect to the concept of 

differentiated review, although 

applicants’ past performance is 

occasionally a partial indicator of an 

organization’s ability to expand 

successfully, the expansion process may 

raise new and unforeseen challenges 

that the authorizer should consider. 

Finally, one commenter recommended 

deleting paragraph (d) altogether. 

Discussion: We believe that an 

applicant could meet Priority 3 if 

authorizers in its State conduct a 

differentiated review for charter school 

developers who operate charter schools 

that do not currently meet the definition 

of high-quality charter schools. We 

agree that differentiated review is not 

exclusive to high-quality charter schools 

and have revised the priority 

accordingly. 

For purposes of this program, we 

agree that authorizers should be able to 

exercise discretion in approving 

charters through a differentiated process 

based on the past performance of charter 

school developers. 

By promoting differentiated review, 

we intend to encourage authorizers to 

acknowledge that there are additional 

factors to consider when reviewing a 

charter petition from an existing charter 

school developer versus a charter 

petition from a charter school developer 

who is not currently operating charter 

schools. For these reasons, we decline to 

delete the paragraph. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(d) of Priority 3 to clarify that an SEA 

can meet the priority by demonstrating 

that authorizers in the State use 

authorizing processes that include 

differentiated review of charter petitions 

to assess whether and the extent to 

which, the charter school developer has 

been successful, as opposed to basing 

the differentiated review on those 

considerations. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

Priority 3 is generally problematic and 

should be deleted because it promotes 

undefined authorizer practices that do 

not work well in actual school settings, 

relies on performance data that are 

neither clear nor objective, and expects 

authorizers to weigh and interpret data 

to make closure decisions. The 

commenter also stated that standardized 

systems of measurement governing 

complex decisions regarding renewal or 

closure serve to embolden weak 

authorizers and interfere with charter 

school autonomy. 

Discussion: We recognize that the 

authorizing process may not be 

governed by absolutes in all instances. 

We also recognize that there may be 

certain qualitative data or additional 

circumstances that authorizers consider 

when determining whether to approve a 

charter petition or to revoke an existing 

school’s charter, and agree that 

authorizers should use the full range of 

information available. We disagree, 

however, that the factors of Priority 3 are 

unfounded or unlikely to promote the 

growth and development of a highquality charter school sector. 

Priority 3 encourages authorizers to 

define quantifiable and clear objectives 

and expectations, both for themselves 

and charter schools. Furthermore, we 

believe that this priority encourages 

SEAs and States to invest in and 

develop an infrastructure that fosters the 

development of high-quality charter 

schools and chartering practices. As a 

secondary benefit, this priority brings 

together many entities involved in the 

chartering process, which creates a 

network for effective development and 

dissemination of information. For 

example, this may provide an 

opportunity for authorizers to share best 

practices and learn from each other 

within a State. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding language to 

Priority 3 to state that the reporting 

referenced in paragraph (a)(5) must 

provide information necessary for the 

State to benchmark performance. The 

commenter also recommended revising 

paragraph (b) to require SEAs to 

disseminate information on authorizer 

performance. Additionally, the 

commenter recommended revising 

paragraph (c) to remove the factor for 

multi-tiered clearance or review and 

instead focus on an evaluation of an 

applicant’s readiness to open and 

operate. Finally, the commenter 

recommended that the Department 

delete from paragraph (d) the reference 

to high-quality charter schools, 

regarding authorizing processes that 

include differentiated review. 

Discussion: With regard to adding 

language to require the State to 

benchmark performance in paragraph 

(a)(5), the paragraph already requests 

the use of frameworks and processes to 

evaluate performance of charter schools 

on a regular basis and, therefore, already 

includes the commenter’s suggestion. In 

response to the recommendation to 

revise paragraph (b) of Priority 3, the 

intent of the priority is not to ask 

authorizers to disseminate information 

on performance in general. Paragraph 

(b) already calls for annual 

dissemination of performance 

information related to standards and 

formalized processes that measure and 

benchmark the performance of the 

authorizer. We believe paragraph (b), 

with our previously described revisions, 

is clear in that respect and decline to 

revise it further. 

We decline to revise paragraph (c) of 

this priority. Multi-tiered clearance or 

review will often involve making a 

determination about whether a charter 

school is prepared to open and operate 

successfully. However, there may be 

scenarios where the multi-tiered 

clearance or review is more involved or 

examines other elements, and we want 

to give authorizers latitude to consider 

those elements. For this reason, we 

believe it would be counter-productive 

to limit the focus of the paragraph to the 

evaluation of readiness to open and 

operate. 

Finally, we decline to delete the 

reference to high-quality in paragraph 

(d) because a major purpose of the CSP 

Grants for SEAs program is to foster the 

development of high-quality charter 

schools. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(b), as described above, to refer to clear 

and specific standards and formalized 

processes, instead of standardized 

systems. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

several revisions to paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of Priority 3. First, the commenter 

suggested adding language regarding the 

use of student achievement as a factor 

in renewal and revocation decisions. 

Additionally, the commenter suggested 

that we revise paragraph (b) to provide 

additional authority for intervention for 

poor-performing authorizers and to 

emphasize that SEAs should be paying 

close attention to authorizer 

performance. 

Discussion: We believe that the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will provide sufficient 

incentives for SEAs to monitor 

authorizers and to take appropriate 

action against poor-performing 

authorizers. As a general rule, 

authorized public chartering agencies 

are created pursuant to State charter 

school law and, as such, are governed 

by State law. Therefore, the Department 

defers to States with respect to the 

oversight of authorizers. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 4—SEAs That Have Never 

Received a CSP Grant 

Comment: We received general 

comments regarding Priority 4. One 

commenter expressed support for the 

priority. Another commenter 

recommended that we make Priority 4 

invitational. 

Discussion: This NFP establishes the 

priorities that we may choose to use in 

the CSP Grants for SEAs competitions in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34207 

FY 2015 and later years. We do not 

designate whether a priority will be 

absolute, competitive preference, or 

invitational in this NFP; but rather, 

retain the flexibility to designate each 

priority as invitational, competitive 

preference, or absolute in order to 

ensure that program funds are used to 

address the most pressing programmatic 

concerns for competitions in FY 2015 

and later years. When inviting 

applications for a competition using one 

or more of these priorities, we will 

designate the type of each priority 

through the notice inviting applications 

for new awards (NIA). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that Priority 4 penalizes States 

that have established robust charter 

sectors. One commenter stated that the 

priority is overly broad and would 

provide an advantage to States with new 

charter school laws that have been 

unsuccessful in previous competitions. 

Similarly, several commenters stated 

that the Department should be more 

concerned with directing CSP funds to 

ensure charter school quality and 

oversight rather than to States that have 

been ineligible to apply for a grant or a 

State with weak charter school laws. 

One commenter suggested that the 

priority would favor less qualified 

applications above higher quality 

applications. Similarly, another 

commenter suggested that the priority 

would penalize States that support 

innovation or have otherwise 

demonstrated successful and highquality authorizing practices. Finally, 

one commenter recommended that we 

remove the priority altogether. 

Discussion: Priority 4 is designed to 

provide the Department with the option 

to provide incentives to SEAs that have 

never received a CSP grant and might be 

at a competitive disadvantage due to a 

limited charter school infrastructure or 

limited record of past performance. 

Additionally, the priority reflects our 

belief that CSP funds can have a greater 

impact when they help seed a charter 

sector as a part of a State’s initial effort 

to create high-quality public schools. 

We believe that in any year in which 

we run a competition, the combination 

of priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria in the NIA will ensure that highquality applications will have an 

opportunity to receive funding. We 

disagree that Priority 4 will penalize 

States that support innovation or have 

demonstrated success in the charter 

school sector. Other priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria will provide an opportunity for 

States to describe their proposed 

activities, regardless of whether they 

have received a CSP grant in the past. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

Priority 4 provides a disincentive to 

States that have invested in the growth 

of charter schools. The commenter 

recommended that the Department 

establish a bifurcated process to 

separate States that have not previously 

received a grant from States that have. 

Similarly, another commenter 

recommended that the Department limit 

the priority to States that have been 

ineligible rather than unsuccessful in 

previous grant competitions. 

Discussion: We disagree that the 

priority should focus on SEAs that were 

ineligible rather than unsuccessful. As 

written, this priority will already apply 

to a very limited pool of applicants. 

Only a small number of States with 

charter school laws have not received a 

CSP grant at any point in the past. We 

do not believe that it is necessary to 

separate unsuccessful applicants from 

ineligible applicants; we believe that 

our application review process ensures 

that only the highest quality proposals 

will be recommended for funding. In 

addition, the priority promotes the 

purposes of the CSP with respect to 

innovation and geographic diversity. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

Priority 4 excludes States with critical 

needs to support educationally 

disadvantaged students; the commenter 

noted that some States have a greater 

need for funds than comparable States 

that have not previously received an 

SEA grant. The commenter stated that 

only four SEAs are eligible for points 

under this priority, and that those States 

would be unlikely to benefit from SEA 

funding. The commenter asserted that 

charter management organizations 

(CMOs) are reluctant to operate in States 

that have not received SEA grants 

because the States are isolated, funding 

is inadequate, or talent is limited. A few 

commenters suggested that SEA funds 

are better expended in States that 

welcome charter growth and produce 

conditions favorable to charter 

expansion and that Priority 4 unfairly 

penalizes States that have invested in 

robust charter sectors and supported 

innovation in the field. 

Several commenters expressed a 

general concern that the Department 

should not give priority to States that 

have been unsuccessful in receiving a 

CSP grant over States that have received 

CSP funding in the past. One 

commenter suggested that Priority 4 

would unfairly disadvantage States with 

significant rural school populations, 

while another commenter recommended 

that we expand the priority to include 

States that submitted applications but 

were denied funding under the FY 2011 

CSP Grants for SEAs competition. 

Another commenter recommended 

revising the background statement to 

state that this priority would encourage 

rather than assist States that have not 

yet received a CSP grant. 

Discussion: We disagree that this 

priority will exclude States with 

substantial populations of educationally 

disadvantaged students or that States 

with smaller populations (or more rural 

communities) will not benefit from SEA 

funding. We do not believe that a 

developer—including a CMO—will be 

discouraged from operating in a State 

merely because the State has not 

received a CSP grant previously. 

We also disagree that Priority 4 

penalizes States that have invested in 

their charter sectors or that it provides 

a disincentive for SEAs to support 

innovation in the charter school sector. 

States in both situations will be eligible 

to respond to this priority if they have 

never received a CSP grant. We do not 

believe Priority 4 will unfairly 

disadvantage SEAs in States with 

significant rural populations, as the 

priority does not distinguish between 

urban and rural applicants. Finally, we 

do not believe that it is appropriate to 

prioritize unsuccessful applicants from 

the FY 2011 CSP Grants for SEAs 

competition but not give priority to 

unsuccessful applicants from 

competitions held in other fiscal years. 

Further, all SEAs that applied for 

funding under the FY 2011 CSP Grants 

for SEAs competition have received CSP 

grants in the past; therefore, giving 

priority to those States would be 

contrary to the purpose of Priority 4. 

Changes: None. 

Requirements 

Lottery and Enrollment Preferences 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

the view that data on enrollment 

patterns will be essential for 

understanding the extent to which an 

existing charter school complies with 

the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance on 

weighted lottery procedures. The 

commenter asserted that States with 

clusters of specialized charter schools 

should be required to provide 

assurances that procedures exist to 

ensure that these charter schools do not 

limit students’ access to more inclusive 

education settings. Finally, another 

commenter stated that the Department 

should prohibit charter schools from 

having an enrollment preference or 

exemption that would exclude any 

group of students. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34208 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Discussion: We agree that equal access 

for all students is important in the 

context of charter school development 

and the provision of public education 

generally. The CSP Nonregulatory 

Guidance (www2.ed.gov/programs/

charter/nonregulatory-guidance.html) is 

intended to provide information and 

guidance to CSP grantees on the 

Department’s interpretation of various 

CSP statutory and regulatory 

requirements. The Guidance specifies 

the circumstances under which a 

charter school receiving CSP funds may 

use a weighted lottery to give slightly 

greater chances of admission to 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

As public schools, charter schools must 

employ open admissions practices and 

comply with applicable Federal civil 

rights laws, including laws prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of race, 

ethnicity, or disability, and 

requirements of Part B of IDEA. For 

these reasons, we do not believe that an 

additional assurance is necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the collective body of Federal law 

related to student enrollment practices 

was never intended to create agency 

guidance on the matter of weighted 

lottery processes. Rather, the commenter 

asserted that the original drafters of the 

statutes only intended to distinguish 

charter schools from magnet or other 

specialized public schools. The 

commenter suggested a more modest 

role for the Department in the charter 

school lottery process, focusing on 

relevant statutory language, reducing 

prescriptive guidance, and permitting 

greater deference to State law, provided 

that it does not conflict with applicable 

Federal statutes. 

Discussion: We agree that States 

should have great flexibility in 

administering their charter school 

subgrant programs, including their 

lottery processes. The purpose of the 

CSP Nonregulatory Guidance is to 

provide clarity to grantees regarding 

how Federal requirements apply to their 

projects and to ensure that grantees are 

aware of permissible enrollment 

practices for charter schools receiving 

CSP funds. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that an entity other than an 

SEA may be responsible for monitoring 

charter school lotteries and admissions 

processes. These commenters 

recommended adding other responsible 

public entities to the current list of 

entities (SEAs and authorized public 

chartering entities) responsible for 

reviewing, monitoring, or approving 

lotteries with enrollment preferences to 

account for this difference. 

Discussion: We acknowledge that the 

SEA may not be the only entity 

responsible for approving and 

monitoring a charter school’s lottery and 

admissions process. Because the SEA is 

the grant recipient under this program 

and provides subgrants to charter 

schools and charter school developers, 

for purposes of the CSP, the SEA is 

primarily responsible for ensuring that 

subgrantees comply with CSP 

requirements, including the definition 

of a charter school and the lottery 

requirement in section 5210(1) of the 

ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(1)). 

Changes: None. 

Logic Model 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that a logic model is either unnecessary, 

unduly burdensome to applicants, or 

not required for monitoring compliance. 

Other commenters recommended that 

the Department provide additional 

guidance on the form and composition 

of the logic model requirement (e.g., on 

granularity, format, components, etc.). 

One commenter argued that the 

requirement to include a logic model 

would not lead to the creation of highquality charter schools. Finally, another 

commenter recommended deleting the 

requirement on the ground that a State 

with a small charter sector or a new 

charter school law might be illpositioned to articulate a statewide 

theory of action with regard to the use 

of CSP funds. 

Discussion: We believe that the logic 

model is an important element that will 

enable us to review and evaluate the 

theory of action that supports each 

application. All applicants should be 

able to articulate clearly their plan for 

using Federal funds. 

The logic model represents one of 

many sources of information to allow us 

to assess grantee progress. In addition, 

we believe that developing a logic 

model will help SEAs clearly articulate 

their proposed outcomes and methods 

for achieving them. The logic model 

will also assist peer reviewers in 

evaluating the merits and key elements 

of each applicant’s project plan. Because 

of its importance to the process, we 

believe that a logic model is not unduly 

burdensome as part of a well-developed 

application. 

Department regulations define a logic 

model in 34 CFR 77.1, and we will refer 

all applicants to that definition in any 

NIA in which we utilize this 

requirement. We may provide 

supplemental information in an NIA or 

through other means that we believe 

will benefit applicants during a grant 

competition. 

Changes: None. 

High-Quality Charter School 

Comment: One commenter supported 

allowing a State to develop its own 

definition of high-quality charter school. 

The commenter suggested allowing a 

State to meet this requirement with an 

assurance rather than requiring the 

Department to approve the State’s 

definition. The commenter explained 

that the requirement that a Stateproposed definition be at least as 

rigorous as the Federal definition is 

unclear, as is the role the Department 

would play in determining if one State’s 

definition is more rigorous than another. 

Discussion: We do not intend to 

compare one applicant’s State definition 

of high-quality charter school to 

another. Consistent with the application 

requirement, a State’s alternative 

definition will be reviewed to determine 

if it is at least as rigorous as the standard 

in paragraph (a) of the definition based 

on the reasoning and evidence provided 

by the applicant. We also note that peer 

reviewers’ evaluation of a State’s 

alternative definition of high-quality 

charter schools will be reflected in their 

scoring of the relevant selection criteria 

referencing high-quality charter schools. 

Changes: None. 

Definitions 

Academically Poor-Performing Charter 

School 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the definition. Another 

commenter recommended revising 

paragraph (b) of the definition to clarify 

that an alternative definition could be 

used if the SEA demonstrates that the 

alternative definition is at least as 

rigorous as the description in paragraph 

(a) of the definition of academically 

poor-performing charter school. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

definition of academically poorperforming charter school should be 

clarified to specify the standard that an 

SEA’s proposed definition of the term 

must meet. We believe this comment 

also is applicable to the definition of 

high-quality charter school. 

Changes: We have revised paragraphs 

(b) of the requirements for academically 

poor-performing charter school and 

high-quality charter school to clarify 

that an SEA’s definition of each term 

must be at least as rigorous as paragraph 

(a) of the definitions of academically 

poor-performing charter school and 

high-quality charter school, as set forth 

in this NFP. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the definition of academically poorVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Jun 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JNR2.SGM 15JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34209 

performing charter school is too rigid, 

and stated that typical students enter 

charter schools no fewer than two years 

behind grade level in instruction. The 

commenter asserted that effective 

charter schools will provide 

opportunities for increased academic 

growth in order to ensure that students 

meet grade level upon exiting the 

school. The commenter expressed 

concern that this definition does not 

present the above-described growth 

trajectory as a significant component of 

assessing student performance when 

considering whether a charter school is 

academically poor-performing. Finally, 

one commenter questioned how a Stateproposed definition would be reviewed, 

particularly in a scenario where an 

absolute standard, rather than a growth 

standard, is used. 

Discussion: We disagree with the 

commenter that the definition of 

academically poor-performing charter 

school does not account for student 

academic growth. In order to meet this 

definition, a charter school would have 

to both be in the lowest performing five 

percent of all public schools in a State 

and have failed to demonstrate student 

academic growth of at least one grade 

level for each cohort of students. 

Therefore, a charter school that is 

successfully demonstrating growth, 

even if the students remain below grade 

level, would not be considered 

academically poor-performing. 

We do not intend to compare one 

applicant’s State definition of 

academically poor-performing charter 

school to another. Consistent with the 

application requirement, a State’s 

alternative definition will be reviewed 

to determine if it is at least as rigorous 

as the Department’s definition of the 

term as specified in paragraph (a) based 

on the reasoning and evidence provided 

by the applicant. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department alternatively define 

an academically poor-performing 

charter school as one that fails to meet 

the student performance goals 

established in the school’s charter or 

related performance agreements. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important for a charter school to adhere 

to the performance objectives outlined 

in its charter or performance contract. 

Because these objectives can vary by 

school, however, we do not believe that 

such an alternative definition would 

facilitate meaningful comparison of 

academic performance across all charter 

schools in a State. In addition, this 

definition could potentially allow a 

charter school to underperform without 

penalty if its charter or performance 

contract includes performance 

objectives that are less rigorous than 

other State requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that our definition for this term 

includes all subgroups specified in the 

ESEA except racial and ethnic groups 

and, thus, allows the Department to 

avoid considering achievement gaps 

among different races and ethnicities. 

Discussion: We disagree that this 

definition impacts any reporting 

requirements related to achievement 

gaps, or removes race and ethnicity from 

consideration of achievement gaps. We 

note that the definition of high-quality 

charter school, which explicitly 

addresses achievement gaps, requires 

demonstrated success in closing historic 

achievement gaps for the subgroups of 

students referenced in Section 1111 of 

the ESEA, which includes the reporting 

of information disaggregated by race, 

ethnicity, and other factors (20 U.S.C. 

6311). We believe this priority provides 

incentives for SEAs to support the 

development of charter schools that are 

expanding educational opportunities for 

the most educationally disadvantaged 

students. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the term homeless youth is defined by 

a number of Federal and State agencies 

and recommended that the Department 

revise the definition of educationally 

disadvantaged students to include 

homeless students as defined by subtitle 

B of title VII of McKinney-Vento (42 

U.S.C. 11434a). Several commenters 

recommended adding additional 

categories of students, including foster 

children, to the definition of 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

Discussion: The definition of 

educationally disadvantaged students 

in this NFP includes the categories of 

students eligible for services in targeted 

assistance schools under title I, part A 

of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6315(b)). We 

believe that this is an appropriate group 

of students to define as educationally 

disadvantaged students insofar as the 

services provided in a targeted 

assistance school are intended to be 

provided to the school’s eligible 

children identified as having the 

greatest need for special assistance. For 

this reason, we do not believe it is 

necessary to include other groups of 

students in the definition. 

For purposes of this definition, we 

consider students who meet the 

definition of homeless children and 

youths under section 725(2) of 

McKinney-Vento (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)) 

to be homeless students and thus among 

the groups of students covered. We do 

not believe it is necessary to revise the 

definition to this end. 

Changes: None. 

High-Quality Charter School 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the Department should not designate a 

charter school that has been open for 

fewer than three years as a high-quality 

charter school. 

Discussion: We disagree that a charter 

school that has been open for fewer than 

three years cannot qualify as a highquality charter school. If, for example, a 

charter school is only open for one year, 

it must still show evidence of academic 

growth for all students for that period. 

We believe that a school can 

demonstrate successfully the elements 

of the definition with fewer than three 

years of data. If the elements of the 

definition are met, then the school can 

be considered a high-quality charter 

school. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

adopt the definition of high-quality 

charter school in legislation proposed 

(but not enacted) by the 114th Congress. 

Specifically, the commenters 

recommended we adopt the definition 

described in S. 2304 and H.R. 10. 

Expanding Opportunity through Quality 

Charter Schools Act. S.2304, 114th 

Cong. (2014). 

Discussion: The definition of highquality charter school from S. 2304 and 

H.R. 10 requires strong academic 

results, which may include academic 

growth as determined by a state, 

highlights strong financial and 

organizational management, and asks 

that the school demonstrate success in 

significantly increasing student 

academic achievement, including 

graduation rates where applicable. This 

definition does not specify a time period 

over which results must be 

demonstrated. The definition 

announced in this NFP is consistent 

with the definition of high-quality 

charter school used in other Department 

programs, and we believe it is the 

appropriate definition for this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

permit applicants to satisfy three of the 

five elements of the definition, rather 

than all five. In the alternative, the 

commenter proposed that we revise 

paragraph (a)(1) to refer to high or 

increased student academic 

achievement rather than simply 

increased student academic 

achievement. The commenter stated that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34210 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

an already high-achieving charter school 

could be penalized without the change. 

Discussion: We believe that each of 

the five elements represents an outcome 

or characteristic that is important and 

necessary to identify high-quality 

charter schools. If, for example, a 

charter school demonstrates an increase 

in student achievement and success in 

closing historic achievement gaps but 

has significant compliance issues, we do 

not believe that school should be 

considered a high-quality charter 

school. Removing one or more of these 

factors from consideration would 

substantially erode the definition. 

We also decline to revise paragraph 

(a)(1) of the definition to require high or 

increased student academic 

achievement. We do not believe that the 

definition, as written, will penalize an 

existing high-achieving charter school. 

A charter school with students who 

demonstrate high rates of proficiency on 

State assessments, for example, can still 

demonstrate increases in academic 

achievement in other ways, such as 

increasing school-wide proficiency rates 

or increasing the number of students at 

the advanced level. We believe that it is 

important to encourage increases in 

student academic achievement and 

attainment even in a school with 

comparatively high-performing 

students. We also note that this 

definition addresses student mastery of 

grade-level standards. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

paragraph (a)(1) should not distinguish 

between educationally disadvantaged 

students and all other students. The 

commenter suggested a technical 

revision to the language or, as an 

alternative, removing the reference to 

educationally disadvantaged students 

as it adds complexity to an already 

complex definition. 

Discussion: The CSP statute 

emphasizes the importance of assisting 

educationally disadvantaged students, 

as well as other students, in meeting 

State academic content standards and 

State student academic achievement 

standards. Therefore, we believe that it 

is important that a charter school 

specifically identify and increase 

academic achievement for educationally 

disadvantaged and other students in 

order to be considered a high-quality 

charter school. Consequently, we 

decline to remove this element of the 

definition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of the definition 

of high-quality charter school is 

ambiguous as written. The commenter 

stated that the paragraph implies that 

we would require a school to compare 

performance independently between 

each racial and ethnic, income, 

disability, and English proficiency 

category, thus requiring approximately 

28 comparisons. The commenter 

recommended that instead of requiring 

that a school demonstrate no significant 

achievement gap between any of the 

identified subgroups, we should require 

no gap between subgroups or, if 

applicable, appropriate comparison 

populations. Additionally, the 

commenter recommended referring to 

Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA, 

rather than 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) because the 

former statutory reference is most 

commonly used for performance 

accountability purposes. 

Discussion: We believe that, if an 

applicant chooses to respond to 

paragraph (2) of this definition, they 

have decided to demonstrate that there 

are no significant achievement gaps 

between any of the subgroups of 

students described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)); therefore, 

they would have the data to support this 

claim with applicable subgroup 

information. An applicant that responds 

to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this definition 

has decided to demonstrate that it is 

successfully closing the achievement 

gap and is able to provide the relevant 

supporting data. This definition has 

been used in previous CSP competitions 

with that understanding. However, we 

agree that section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) is 

the more appropriate reference, 

consistent with other CSP grants, and 

have revised the definition accordingly. 

Changes: We have revised paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of the high-quality 

charter school definition to reference 

section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that a school should not be required to 

take into account the performance of a 

particular subgroup listed under (a)(2)(i) 

or (a)(2)(ii) if the number of students in 

that subgroup is so small that the data 

are statistically unreliable. The 

commenter stated that this is the 

operating procedure for Title I grants. 

Discussion: We agree that the data for 

the various subgroups should not be 

compared in cases where the data 

sample is so small it is statistically 

unreliable or would infringe upon the 

privacy of a student. When using the 

definition of high-quality charter school, 

or providing other data for CSP 

programs, we intend for applicants to 

use only data that are available and 

reportable and provide any necessary 

explanations to clarify the use of such 

data. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department define a highquality charter school as a school that 

meets or exceeds goals stated in the 

school’s approved charter or 

performance contract, rather than focus 

on State tests, attendance rates, 

graduation rates, or postsecondary 

attendance at the expense of other 

assessment tools (e.g., preparation for 

careers). 

Discussion: We agree that other 

methods exist to evaluate the quality of 

a charter school. This is captured 

throughout the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and criteria in this NFP, 

particularly in sections focused on 

authorizer quality. However, because 

the performance goals in a charter or 

performance contract will vary from 

school to school, we believe it would be 

difficult for an SEA to use the goals in 

a charter school’s performance contract 

to assess the quality of charter schools 

across the State. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that this definition is too 

narrow and could lead to ‘‘creaming’’ 

high-aspiration students from noncharter public schools. One commenter 

expressed confusion over many 

elements of the definition, such as the 

references to increased student 

achievement and the need to close 

historic achievement gaps. Additionally, 

the commenter stated that the definition 

ignores other assessment tools such as 

preparation for careers. 

Discussion: We first note that the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria are designed to 

provide incentives to SEAs to increase 

the number of high-quality charter 

schools in the State and, thus, provide 

more high-quality options for all 

students. In addition, the selection 

criteria are related to a State’s broader 

plan to ensure equitable access for 

students throughout the State by 

ensuring that all students—including 

educationally disadvantaged students— 

have equal access and opportunities to 

attend high-quality charter schools. 

Charter schools receiving CSP funds are 

required to provide all students in the 

community with an equal opportunity 

to attend the charter school and admit 

students by lottery if the charter school 

is oversubscribed. We believe the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will support and 

reinforce these program requirements. 

We next address the comment that 

many of the elements of the definition 

are confusing. This definition provides 

discrete and measurable indicators for 

defining a charter school as highquality. The rate at which a charter 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34211 

school reduces or closes a historic 

achievement gap is a quantifiable 

measure of student achievement and 

school success. Similarly, testing and 

attendance rates provide data that can 

be used to examine school performance. 

We believe that the percentage of 

charter school students who go on to 

enroll in postsecondary institutions is 

yet another indicator of the performance 

and efficacy of a State’s charter schools. 

Finally, we note that the term 

‘‘postsecondary education’’ may 

encompass both non-traditional 

postsecondary education options as well 

as other career and technical training. 

We agree that there are other tools that 

measure student achievement, including 

career readiness. We believe the 

definition of high-quality charter school 

in this NFP, however, promotes the 

purposes of the CSP and provides a 

consistent, clear, and measurable metric 

of student academic achievement. For 

these reasons, we decline to revise the 

definition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we revise the 

definition of high-quality charter school 

to examine growth differentially. The 

commenter stated that comparing 

graduation rates of a school serving 

students who are at a very low 

percentile of proficiency with a school 

serving students at a very high 

percentile of proficiency is neither 

comparable nor fair, and contended that 

what success looks like at those schools 

will manifest in different ways. 

Discussion: The definition states that 

academic results for students served by 

a high-quality charter school must be 

above the average academic results for 

such students in the State. Because the 

definition allows for comparisons 

among similar populations of students, 

we believe that it addresses the 

commenter’s concern. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended several substantive 

revisions to elements of the definition 

that would remove references to the 

achievement gap, evidence of academic 

achievement over three years, and 

references to attainment and 

postsecondary enrollment, as well as 

add a requirement for compliance in the 

area of safety, financial management, or 

statutory or regulatory compliance. 

Discussion: We decline to adopt these 

proposed changes. First, it is unclear 

from the commenter’s suggested 

revisions whether a CSP applicant’s 

high-quality charter schools would have 

to show increased achievement in one 

or more (or all) subgroups. We decline 

to remove the three-year achievement 

requirement because we believe that a 

three-year period provides a reasonable 

time within which a charter school’s 

performance can be evaluated to 

determine whether the school is highquality. This does not mean the charter 

school could not be deemed highquality with fewer than three years of 

data available, as noted within the 

definition. However, if three years of 

data exist, the charter should be 

evaluated based on all three years. 

Further, we believe the references to 

attendance, attainment, and retention 

are critical to the spirit of this definition 

given their correlation to performance. 

Finally, we believe the recommended 

revisions would remove or substantially 

diminish the focus of charter schools on 

serving educationally disadvantaged 

students and treating all students 

equitably, which are crucial elements 

that promote the purposes of the CSP. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

why, under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the 

definition for high-quality charter 

school, demonstrated success in closing 

historic achievement gaps would be 

acceptable, while in paragraph (a)(2)(ii), 

an applicant must show actual 

significant gains rather than the closing 

of gaps. The commenter stated that a 

school could satisfy the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) if its higher-achieving 

students decreased in performance and 

its lower achieving students did not 

make gains. Additionally, the 

commenter asked when, under 

paragraph (3) of the definition for highquality charter school, results on 

statewide tests might not be considered 

applicable to meeting the definition of 

high-quality charter school, if those 

results are available. 

Discussion: First, we note that in 

order for a school to be considered highquality, all subgroups would have to 

demonstrate significant progress and the 

school would have to close achievement 

gaps simultaneously. These are two 

distinct but equally important 

components of this definition that work 

in tandem to ensure that SEA subgrants 

are used to support high-quality charter 

schools. In order to be considered highquality, a charter school must meet 

elements (a)(1)–(5), unless the State opts 

to use an alternate definition. With 

regard to the commenter’s second 

question, we note that an example of 

available but not necessarily applicable 

results could be an elementary charter 

school that tracks college completion 

rates of its alumni. Although these data 

theoretically could be collected, unless 

there was a general requirement for the 

collection of this information by all 

charter schools, it might not be a 

relevant measure. Without uniform data 

collection for all charter schools, there 

would be no comparison data to 

illustrate meaningful impact, and the 

data likely would not take into 

consideration other influences, such as 

the other secondary schools the students 

attended before going to college. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

two revisions to the definition. First, the 

commenter recommended moving 

element (a)(5), which prohibits a highquality charter school from having any 

significant compliance issues, (to 

paragraph (b); and replacing the term 

particularly with including, to make the 

provision more logical. 

Discussion: We decline to revise 

paragraph (a)(5) or paragraph (b). 

Paragraph (a) provides the Department’s 

definition of high-quality charter school, 

and paragraph (b) provides an SEA the 

option to propose its own definition. 

Paragraph (a)(5) is intended to highlight 

three areas where significant 

compliance issues can occur, but is not 

meant to be exhaustive. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

define ‘‘significant achievement gap.’’ 

Discussion: We decline to define 

‘‘significant achievement gap’’ in this 

NFP because we believe that not 

defining the term affords States greater 

flexibility. An applicant should be able 

to provide the necessary evidence and 

information in its application, 

demonstrating that schools identified as 

high-quality charter schools are either 

closing the achievement gap or have no 

significant achievement gap. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criteria 

(a) State-Level Strategy 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended expanding paragraph (1) 

of selection criterion (a) State-Level 

Strategy to include activities of 

authorizers and other entities that 

impact charter schools in the State. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important for authorizers and other 

entities that impact charter schools to be 

part of the State’s overall strategy for 

improving student academic 

achievement and attainment, and we 

encourage States to address the extent to 

which the activities of authorizers and 

other entities are integrated into the 

State-level strategy. For purposes of this 

program, however, we believe that the 

focus should be on the individual 

State’s plan for integrating its CSP grant 

activities with its broader public 

education strategy. While a State whose 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34212 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

charter school authorizing practices are 

integrated into its CSP activities should 

include this information, we only 

expect States to discuss such practices 

in relation to proposed CSP grant 

activities. Likewise, if the CSP activities 

are integrated into the practices of 

authorizers and other entities, we would 

expect the State to discuss that as well. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter opined 

that a State’s charter sector is 

purposefully designed to serve as an 

alternative to, rather than an integrated 

component of, a State’s overall strategy 

for school improvement. 

Discussion: Although charter schools 

are an alternative to traditional public 

schools, charter schools also are public 

schools, and we believe that it is 

important for States to include charter 

schools as part of their overall strategy 

for providing public education. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we expand the 

criterion to require SEAs to explain how 

the State will ensure that charter 

schools serve the same or similar 

student populations as their non-charter 

public school counterparts. 

Discussion: Charter schools are public 

schools and, as such, must employ open 

admissions policies and ensure that all 

students in the community have an 

equal opportunity to attend the charter 

school. A charter school’s admissions 

practices must comply with applicable 

Federal and State laws, including 

Federal civil rights laws, such as title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

and title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990. Further, 

paragraph (2) of selection criterion (d) 

Quality of Plan to Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students 

addresses the quality of the SEA’s plan 

to ensure that charter schools attract, 

recruit, admit, enroll, serve, and retain 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

Additionally, the CSP Nonregulatory 

Guidance clarifies that section 

5203(b)(3)(E) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 

7221b(b)(3)(E)) requires SEAs to provide 

an assurance that applications for CSP 

subgrants will include a description of 

how parents and other members of the 

community will be involved in the 

planning, program design, and initial 

implementation of the charter school. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about referring to a State’s Race 

to the Top application or ESEA 

Flexibility request as examples of 

statewide education reform efforts in 

paragraph (1) of selection criterion (a) 

State-Level Strategy. The commenter 

questioned whether a charter sector 

could be strong in a State that did not 

receive a Race to the Top grant or an 

ESEA Flexibility waiver. Additionally, 

the commenter recommended revising 

the language to consider the extent to 

which the authorizer, in addition to the 

State, encourages strategies for 

improving student academic 

achievement. 

Discussion: While States’ Race to the 

Top applications and ESEA Flexibility 

requests are examples of initiatives that 

could be discussed in relation to Statelevel strategy, the list we provided was 

not intended to be exhaustive or 

exclusive. A State that has not received 

a Race to the Top grant or an ESEA 

Flexibility waiver may discuss its Statelevel strategy within the context of other 

efforts and receive full points on this 

criterion. We decline to expand the list 

of examples in this element of the 

criterion to include authorizer actions 

and authorizer strategy but agree that 

limiting the examples to Race to the Top 

and ESEA Flexibility applications may 

be confusing. Therefore, we have 

removed the examples from the final 

selection criterion. While an SEA may 

discuss its authorizer practices within 

the context of its State-level strategy, a 

discussion of authorizer quality and 

practice alone is unlikely to be deemed 

an adequate response to the criterion. 

Changes: We have removed the 

reference to State Race to the Top 

applications and ESEA Flexibility 

waivers from paragraph (1) of this 

selection criterion. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding the State 

Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) as an 

example of an improvement effort in 

paragraph (1). The commenter stated 

that adding the SSIP will ensure that 

charter schools and the students they 

serve are actively considered in any and 

all State planning efforts. 

Discussion: SSIPs are multi-year plans 

that each State produces to describe 

how it will improve educational 

outcomes for children with disabilities 

served under IDEA. The Department’s 

Office of Special Education Programs 

administers the IDEA and works with 

States as they implement these plans. 

Like a State’s Race to the Top 

application and ESEA Flexibility waiver 

request, a SSIP describes activities that 

could be responsive to this selection 

criterion. We agree that providing only 

a few examples for this criterion may be 

confusing, however, and are removing 

the examples from the final selection 

criterion and decline to include this 

revision. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about how the Department will 

consider States’ various funding needs 

in relation to the composition of the 

student body, in cases where charter 

schools do not enroll student 

populations that are demographically 

similar to traditional non-charter public 

schools. The commenter mentioned 

students with disabilities and English 

learners as populations that may require 

additional funding in order to ensure 

that they are adequately served, and 

asked whether this will be a 

consideration in review of funding 

equity for paragraph (2) of selection 

criterion (a) State-Level Strategy. 

Discussion: We recognize that the 

demographic composition and funding 

needs of schools may vary at the State 

and local levels. For this reason, this 

criterion is designed to allow applicants 

to describe the State’s overall systems 

for funding public schools generally, 

and charter schools specifically, 

including any variances between the 

two, to demonstrate the extent to which 

funding equity for similar students is 

incorporated into the State’s overall 

strategy. 

Changes: None. 

(b) Policy Context for Charter Schools 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that charter school policy is a local issue 

rather than an SEA-focused issue. One 

commenter stated that selection 

criterion (b) Policy Context for Charter 

Schools generally speaks to the SEA as 

the primary force behind information 

dissemination, growth, oversight, and 

other factors related to charter schools. 

The commenter stated that, in some 

States, an emphasis on the SEA would 

be misguided because the SEA may be 

hostile towards charter schools or may 

lack the legal ability to play a large role 

in the charter sector. 

Discussion: The Department 

administers several grant programs 

under the CSP, including direct grants 

to non-SEA eligible applicants (i.e., 

charter school developers and charter 

schools). The purpose of these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

section criteria, however, is to 

implement the provisions of the CSP 

statute that authorize the Secretary to 

award grants to SEAs to enable them to 

conduct charter school subgrant 

programs in their States, in accordance 

with the requirements of the ESEA. In 

some cases, State charter school laws 

assign the primary role for charter 

school oversight to entities other than 

the SEA, and these entities play critical 

roles in information dissemination and 

growth of charter schools. This selection 

criterion asks SEA applicants to respond 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34213 

to each factor within the context of their 

State activities. We understand, 

however, that the SEA may not be the 

sole entity responsible for executing 

these activities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the selection criterion (b) 

Policy Context for Charter Schools. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

about the promotion of policies that 

weaken the collective bargaining rights 

of certain State or school employees 

based on the language contained in 

paragraph (1)(i) regarding 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. 

Discussion: By definition, charter 

schools are exempt from many 

significant State and local rules that 

inhibit the flexible operation and 

management of public schools. In 

exchange for this increased flexibility, 

charter schools are held accountable for 

results, including improved student 

academic achievement. Charter schools 

still must comply with Federal and 

State laws generally and meet all health 

and safety requirements. The criterion is 

designed to enable reviewers to assess 

the flexibility afforded charter schools, 

including flexibility with respect to 

school operations and management. The 

criterion bears no relation to 

employment policies or employee 

rights. Therefore, we decline to make 

any changes in response to the concern 

raised by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

acknowledged the appropriateness of 

including flexibility under paragraph (1) 

of selection criterion (b) Policy Context 

for Charter Schools and recommended 

expanding the flexibility relative to 

establishing goals and quality measures 

related to State-mandated standards or 

assessments. The commenter referred to 

section 5210(1)(C) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 7221i(1)(C)), which defines a 

charter school as a public school that, 

among other things, operates in pursuit 

of a specific set of educational 

objectives determined by the school’s 

developer. 

Discussion: We believe the autonomy 

of charter schools to develop their own 

educational objectives and performance 

goals is critical, and this criterion 

acknowledges that importance by 

specifically emphasizing autonomy 

within paragraph (1)(ii). This criterion 

addresses the policy context for charter 

schools in a State, rather than the 

development of specific performance 

objectives, which would happen during 

the charter approval process. We believe 

Priority 3—High-Quality Authorizing 

and Monitoring Processes provides a 

strong incentive for the development of 

rigorous objectives that an authorizer 

would apply to the charter schools in its 

portfolio, and that this criterion would 

capture the unique qualities of 

individual charter schools. However, 

charter schools are still required to 

report on certain objectives applicable 

to all public schools. Together, the 

elements of this selection criterion 

ensure that an individual charter 

school’s autonomy over the 

development of educational objectives 

is reflected in the CSP Grants for SEAs 

application. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

paragraph 3 of selection criterion (b) 

Policy Context for Charter Schools, 

which requests that SEAs describe their 

plans for ensuring that LEAs, including 

charter school LEAs, comply with IDEA. 

The commenter referenced several 

recently negotiated settlement 

agreements between schools and the 

Department’s Office for Civil Rights 

related to IDEA compliance and 

recommended that we develop clear 

means to monitor charter school 

compliance with IDEA and other 

applicable statutes governing civil 

rights. 

Discussion: Paragraph (3) of selection 

criterion (b) Policy Context for Charter 

Schools will enable peer reviewers to 

evaluate the quality of an SEA’s plan to 

ensure charter schools’ compliance with 

applicable Federal civil rights laws and 

part B of IDEA. We believe that this 

element of IDEA oversight is one that 

States are already required to have in 

place under section 612(a)(11) of the 

IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(11)). This 

provision requires each SEA to exercise 

general supervision over all educational 

programs for children with disabilities 

administered in the State and to ensure 

that all such programs meet the 

requirements of part B of the IDEA. In 

addition, the Federal definition of a 

charter school ensures compliance with 

Federal civil rights laws and part B of 

IDEA. See section 5210(1)(G) of the 

ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i). 

Changes: None. 

(c) Past Performance 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported the inclusion of selection 

criterion (c) Past Performance. Several 

commenters questioned how a State 

with a new charter school law (and, 

therefore, no previous charter 

experience) would receive points or 

otherwise not be unfairly disadvantaged 

during the application process. 

Additionally, one commenter asked 

how the Department would ensure that 

States with few or no academically 

poor-performing charter schools are not 

unfairly disadvantaged under this 

criterion. 

Discussion: This selection criterion 

applies only to SEAs in States with 

charter school laws that have been in 

effect for five years or more. Therefore, 

an SEA in a state that enacted its first 

charter school law less than five years 

before the closing date of the relevant 

competition will not be scored on this 

criterion, and its total score will be 

calculated against a maximum point 

value that does not include the points 

assigned to this criterion. 

In addition, SEAs that are required to 

respond to this criterion will not be at 

a disadvantage for having few or no 

academically poor-performing charter 

schools. In such a case, the SEA should 

include sufficient information for the 

reviewers to understand and evaluate 

the quality of its charter schools, 

including an explanation of how the 

State has minimized its number of 

academically poor-performing charter 

schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

stated that the reduction in the number 

and percentage of academically poorperforming charter schools should not 

be evaluated based on a reduction of 

‘‘each’’ of the past five years. 

Discussion: We believe that it is 

important to examine the reduction in 

the number and percentage of 

academically poor-performing charter 

schools each year in order to determine 

the rate and consistency at which 

academically poor-performing charter 

schools have been closed or improved 

in a State. In addition, providing past 

performance data for each year gives the 

peer reviewers a more complete picture 

on which to score the applications. We 

encourage applicants to provide context 

about the performance of charter 

schools in the State. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that we add past 

performance information as an 

application requirement. Specifically, 

one commenter suggested that we focus 

CSP funds on States that enhance, rather 

than diminish, the overall quality of 

public education. 

Discussion: Selection criterion (c) Past 

Performance allows us to evaluate the 

extent to which an SEA’s past 

performance has led to an increase in 

high-quality charter schools and a 

decrease in academically poorperforming charter schools within their 

State. An application requirement 

would only collect this information, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34214 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

rather than allow for evaluation. For this 

reason, past performance will remain a 

selection criterion. We agree with the 

commenter that CSP funds should be 

awarded to States that enhance the 

overall quality of public schools, 

including charter schools. We believe 

that the final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria will 

achieve that purpose. The NIA for each 

competition will provide the specific 

criteria against which applications will 

be evaluated in that year. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the evaluation of an SEA’s past 

performance also be based on (1) the 

extent to which the demographic 

composition of the State’s charter 

schools (in terms of educationally 

disadvantaged students) is similar to the 

demographic composition of noncharter public schools; (2) the extent to 

which approved charter applications in 

the State reflect innovations in charter 

schools; (3) the track record of the 

State’s lead authorizer in minimizing 

compliance issues in its charter schools; 

and (4) the track record of the SEA in 

ensuring high-quality authorizer 

performance through early 

identification of authorizer performance 

issues with appropriate remedies. 

Discussion: The focus of this criterion 

is on the SEA’s performance in 

increasing the number of high-quality 

charter schools, decreasing the number 

of academically poor-performing charter 

schools, and improving student 

academic achievement. While we agree 

that the additional factors proposed by 

the commenter could inform an 

evaluation of an SEA’s past 

performance, in many cases, an SEA 

providing a detailed response to the 

criteria will address the additional 

factors proposed by the commenter. 

Moreover, proposed addition (1) is 

covered by paragraph (2) of selection 

criterion (d) Quality of Plan to Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students, 

assessing the quality of the SEA’s plan 

to serve an equitable number of 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

Proposed addition (2) is covered broadly 

under selection criterion (f) 

Dissemination of Information and Best 

Practices, which assesses the quality of 

the SEA’s plan to disseminate best and 

promising practices of successful 

charter schools in the State. Proposed 

addition (3) is covered under the 

definition of a high-quality charter 

school in paragraph (5) which notes that 

a high-quality charter school should 

have no significant compliance issues. 

Finally, proposed addition (4) is 

covered under Priority 1—Periodic 

Review and Evaluation, which asks for 

SEAs to demonstrate that periodic 

review and evaluation occurs at least 

once every five years and provides an 

opportunity for authorizers to take 

appropriate action and impose 

meaningful consequences. Proposed 

addition (4) may also be addressed in an 

SEA’s response to selection criterion (g), 

which asks SEAs how they will monitor 

and hold accountable authorizing public 

chartering agencies. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

selection criterion (c) Past Performance 

does not consider the quality of States’ 

existing charter schools and opined that 

it should be a specific focus for the SEA 

grant competition. Another commenter 

suggested that the Department consider 

revising this criterion to examine an 

SEA’s performance only by its reduction 

of the number of academically poorperforming charter schools. 

Discussion: We agree that the quality 

of a State’s existing charter schools is an 

important consideration when 

evaluating the overall quality of an 

SEA’s application for CSP funds and 

believe we have addressed that factor in 

these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. While 

reducing the number of academically 

poor-performing charter schools is an 

important measure of an SEA’s past 

performance with respect to 

administration of its charter schools, we 

believe that is only one aspect of the 

overall quality of a State’s charter 

schools program. A major purpose of the 

CSP Grants to SEAs program is to 

increase the number of high-quality 

charter schools across the Nation and to 

improve student academic achievement. 

For these reasons, we decline to make 

the recommended change. 

Changes: None. 

(d) Quality of Plan To Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the Department should include a 

reference to diversity in all of the 

selection criteria, beyond what is 

included in selection criterion (d) 

Quality of Plan to Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students. 

Additionally, the commenter suggested 

that the Department expand selection 

criterion (d) Quality of Plan to Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students 

to include the following 10 additional 

factors, to ensure that charter schools 

are fully inclusive and do not either 

directly or indirectly discourage 

enrollment of all students: (a) 

Compliance with Federal and State 

laws, particularly laws related to 

educational equity, nondiscrimination, 

and access to public schools for 

educationally disadvantaged students; 

(b) broad-reaching, inclusive marketing 

efforts; (c) streamlined applications with 

no enrollment or other barriers; (d) 

receptive processes that do not steer 

away educationally disadvantaged 

students; (e) availability of services for 

students with disabilities and English 

learners; (f) positive practices to address 

behavioral issues, avoiding practices 

that encourage students to leave the 

charter school; (g) sparing use of grade 

retention practices; (h) provision of 

services for disadvantaged students that 

are comparable to those offered in 

nearby public schools, including freeand reduced-price meals; (i) addressing 

location and transportation in ways that 

are designed to serve a diverse 

community that includes educationally 

disadvantaged students; and (j) 

comprehensive planning to ensure that 

charter school enrollment patterns do 

not contribute to increased racial and 

economic isolation in proximate schools 

within the same school district. 

Discussion: Many of the factors 

proposed by the commenter are covered 

under selection criterion (d) Quality of 

Plan to Support Educationally 

Disadvantaged Students and the other 

criteria. More broadly, these selection 

criteria provide a basis for SEAs to 

address each of the factors proposed by 

the commenter at a level of detail that 

we believe will enable peer reviewers to 

evaluate the quality of the applications 

effectively. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise this selection criterion to include 

a description of how SEAs plan to avoid 

disproportionate enrollment of 

homeless students in charter schools. 

The commenter stated that some noncharter public schools have shifted 

homeless students from their schools to 

charter schools. 

Discussion: As public schools, charter 

schools must employ open admissions 

policies and ensure that all students in 

the community have an equal 

opportunity to attend the charter school. 

Further, charter schools receiving CSP 

funds must admit students by lottery if 

there are more applicants than spaces 

available at the charter school. While 

charter schools may weight their 

lotteries in favor of educationally 

disadvantaged students, which may 

include homeless students, they are not 

required to do so. Accordingly, the 

criterion includes a review of the SEA’s 

plan to ensure that charter schools 

attract, recruit, admit, enroll, serve, and 

retain educationally disadvantaged and 

other students equitably. Although this 

criterion emphasizes the importance of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34215 

charter schools serving educationally 

disadvantaged students, which may 

include homeless students, the criterion 

does not diminish the requirement that 

charter schools receiving CSP funds 

provide all students in the community 

with an equal opportunity to attend the 

charter school. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

amend paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of the 

selection criterion to address the quality 

of authorizers’ and other State entities’ 

plans to support educationally 

disadvantaged students, in addition to 

the SEA’s plans to support such 

students. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important for authorizers and other 

State entities to contribute to an SEA’s 

efforts to support educationally 

disadvantaged students. Because this 

program authorizes the Secretary to 

award CSP grants to SEAs, however, the 

focus of these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria is on SEAs’ plans to support 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

To the extent that it is relevant, 

however, an SEA should include in its 

response to this criterion information 

regarding how its plan includes 

collaboration, coordination, and 

communication with other State entities 

for the purpose of providing effective 

support for educationally 

disadvantaged students and other 

students. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the criterion speaks to innovation in 

paragraph (3), and recommended that 

we make innovation a priority driven by 

individual schools rather than the SEA. 

The commenter recommended that the 

Department define innovation to 

include innovative curriculum, 

instructional methods, governance, 

administration, professional roles of 

teachers, instructional goals and 

standards, student assessments, use of 

technology, and stated that innovation 

should be a priority for all students, 

rather than just educationally 

disadvantaged students and other 

students. 

Discussion: The CSP authorizing 

statute does not define innovation, and 

we prefer to permit applicants to 

exercise more flexibility by not defining 

the term in this NFP. We agree that 

innovation often happens at the school 

level but, for the purposes of this 

program, we are interested in how SEAs 

are encouraging innovation in charter 

schools within their State. 

Changes: None. 

(e) Vision for Growth and 

Accountability 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended revising selection 

criterion (e) Vision for Growth and 

Accountability to focus on the overall 

State plan by asking the SEA to describe 

the statewide vision for cultivating highperforming charter schools, as opposed 

to merely the SEA’s vision. One 

commenter noted that a statewide vision 

may include the views of the SEA, 

authorizer(s), or other bodies. The other 

commenter suggested that the criterion 

should request information on charter 

schools with the capacity to become 

high-quality, rather than focus on the 

creation of high-quality charter schools. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

statewide vision for growth and 

accountability is important and that the 

SEA should play a role in defining and 

assisting the State in realizing that 

vision. Thus, the SEA should describe a 

broad vision for cultivating high-quality 

charter schools. We agree that a charter 

school’s capacity to become high-quality 

is relevant to an evaluation of the 

statewide vision for charter school 

growth and accountability. Therefore, 

we have revised paragraph (2) to request 

that SEAs provide a reasonable estimate 

of the overall number of high-quality 

charter schools in the State at both the 

beginning and end of the grant period. 

Changes: We have revised selection 

criterion (e) Vision for Growth and 

Accountability to clarify that the SEA 

should describe its statewide vision for 

charter school growth and 

accountability, including the role of the 

SEA instead of just the vision of the 

SEA. We also revised the priority to list 

the factors the Secretary will consider in 

determining the quality of that 

statewide vision. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about administrative burden 

within the context of selection criteria 

(e), (f), and (g). The commenter 

suggested that the Department add 

language that would incentivize States 

to reduce reporting and administrative 

requirements for charter schools, 

particularly when a school has a proven 

track record of high student 

achievement. 

Discussion: We are mindful of the 

general reporting burden charter schools 

face as they comply with Federal, State, 

local, and authorizer reporting and other 

administrative requirements. However, 

the purpose of this regulatory action is 

to support the development of highquality charter schools throughout the 

Nation by strengthening several 

components of the CSP Grants to SEAs 

program. These final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria do not address State or local 

reporting requirements. We believe that 

the factors outlined in the three 

selection criteria noted above do not 

increase reporting burden on charter 

schools, but rather, request that SEAs 

communicate how their plans address 

accountability within areas of reporting 

that already exist; how they plan to 

disseminate information about charter 

schools across the State, which is a 

requirement of the grant; and how, 

within the construct of their laws, they 

plan to provide oversight to authorizers. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

selection criterion (e) Vision for Growth 

and Accountability is inherently 

subjective and recommended that the 

Department clarify what it would 

consider to be a highly rated plan. 

Discussion: We rely on a team of 

independent peer reviewers to use their 

professional knowledge and expertise to 

evaluate responses to the selection 

criteria and rate the quality of the 

applications based on those responses. 

For these reasons, the Department 

declines to further delineate what 

constitutes a highly rated plan. 

Applicants are asked to address the 

criterion in their proposed plans in a 

way that they believe successfully 

responds to the selection criterion. 

Changes: None. 

(f) Dissemination of Information and 

Best Practices 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that the Department revise selection 

criterion (f) Dissemination of 

Information and Best Practices to 

request a description of the extent to 

which authorizers or other State 

entities, as well as the SEA, will serve 

as leaders in identifying and 

disseminating information, including 

information regarding the quality of 

their plans to disseminate information 

and research on best or promising 

practices that effectively incorporate 

student body diversity and are related to 

school discipline and school climate. 

Discussion: We understand that SEAs 

often collaborate with authorizers or 

other State entities to disseminate 

information about charter schools and 

best practices in charter schools. 

Information dissemination is a 

requirement for all SEAs that receive 

CSP funding. This criterion is intended 

to collect specific information about 

how the SEA plans to meet this 

requirement. Although we support 

collaboration, because SEAs are the 

grantees under the program, we decline 

to make the proposed revision. 

Changes: None. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34216 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(g) Oversight of Authorized Public 

Chartering Agencies 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for selection criterion (g) 

Oversight of Authorized Public 

Chartering Agencies. Another 

commenter recommended deleting this 

selection criterion, stating that it 

assumes that authorizers are providing 

inadequate or ineffective oversight and 

that requiring SEAs to oversee and 

manage authorizers’ activities would 

impose undue costs and require more 

funding than the CSP Grants for SEAs 

program currently provides. The 

commenter also stated that the criterion 

should be deleted because it assumes 

that SEAs have statutory authority to 

monitor, evaluate, or otherwise hold 

accountable authorizers. 

Discussion: This criterion is not 

intended to imply that authorizers are 

not providing adequate or effective 

oversight. Rather, the criterion is 

intended to challenge SEAs to take steps 

to ensure higher-quality charter school 

authorizing. We understand that SEAs 

do not always have the statutory 

authority to take action against 

authorizers that perform poorly or 

approve low-quality charter schools. 

However, all SEAs can review and 

evaluate data on authorizer and charter 

school performance, and this criterion is 

designed to encourage that role within 

the administrative plans SEAs put in 

place for the CSP grant. The CSP Grants 

for SEAs program allows up to five 

percent of funds to be set aside for 

administrative costs, which can be used 

for a wide range of activities to support 

charter schools funded under the grant, 

including monitoring and oversight and 

providing technical assistance. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising paragraph (1) of selection 

criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized 

Public Chartering Agencies to require 

authorizers only to seek charter school 

petitions from developers that have the 

capacity to create high-quality charter 

schools, rather than requiring 

authorizers to seek and approve charter 

school petitions from such developers. 

Second, two commenters recommended 

revising paragraph (1) to focus on the 

capacity of developers to create charter 

schools that can become high-quality 

charter schools. 

Discussion: We decline to delete the 

word ‘‘approving’’ from paragraph (1), 

which asks for the SEA’s plan on how 

it will ensure that authorizers both seek 

and approve applications from 

developers with the capacity to create 

high-quality charter schools. We believe 

that, in addition to seeking applications 

from developers that have the capacity 

to create high-quality charter schools, 

authorizers should strive to assess the 

likelihood that applications will result 

in high-quality charter schools. 

However, we agree that it would be 

useful to clarify that these developers 

need only demonstrate that they have 

the capacity to create charter schools 

that can become high-quality charter 

schools. These suggested changes are 

consistent with other changes that we 

are making to these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(1) of selection criterion (g) Oversight of 

Authorized Public Chartering Agencies 

to refer to developers that have the 

capacity to create charter schools that 

can become high-quality charter 

schools. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended either substantial edits to 

paragraph (2) of selection criterion (g) 

Oversight of Authorized Public 

Chartering Agencies or the deletion of 

paragraph (2) altogether. These 

commenters stated that the focus on 

evidence-based whole-school models 

and practices related to racial and 

ethnic diversity would significantly 

limit charter school and authorizer 

autonomy and restrict innovation in the 

charter school sector. Finally, some 

commenters opined that this factor 

would create an obstacle for charter 

school developers seeking to open 

schools in communities that are not 

racially and ethnically diverse. 

Discussion: We agree that innovation 

is a critical and fundamental attribute of 

charter schools. We disagree, however, 

that asking SEAs to describe how they 

will ensure that authorizers are 

approving charter schools with design 

elements that incorporate evidencebased school models and practices 

would limit innovation or preclude the 

creation of charter schools in certain 

communities. Despite the commenter’s 

concern, this criterion does not ask 

applicants to ensure that all approved 

charter schools solely use evidencebased approaches—authorizers may 

approve charter school petitions that 

include new or untested ideas as long as 

there are elements within their new 

approach that are supported by 

evidence. 

As discussed above, selection criteria 

do not impose requirements on 

applicants, but merely request 

information to enable peer reviewers to 

evaluate how well an applicant will 

comply with certain programmatic 

requirements based on their responses 

to the selection criteria. Thus, while we 

encourage SEAs and charter schools to 

take steps to improve student body 

diversity in charter schools, paragraph 

(2) of selection criterion (g) Oversight of 

Authorized Public Chartering Agencies 

does not require every approved school 

to be racially and ethnically diverse. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise paragraph (5) of selection 

criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized 

Public Chartering to reflect language 

added in the FY 2015 Appropriations 

Act which requires applicants to 

provide assurances that authorizers use 

increases in student academic 

achievement for all groups of students 

as one of the most important factors in 

deciding whether to renew a school’s 

charter. 

Discussion: We agree that this factor 

should be consistent with the language 

in the FY 2015 Appropriations Act, 

which was enacted after publication of 

the NPP in the Federal Register, and 

have made appropriate revisions. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(5) of selection criterion (g) Oversight of 

Authorized Public Chartering Agencies 

to reflect the requirement in the FY 

2015 Appropriations Act that SEAs 

provide assurances that State law, 

regulations, or other policies require 

authorizers to use increases in student 

academic achievement as one of the 

most important factors in charter 

renewal decisions, instead of the most 

important factor. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify selection criterion (g) Oversight 

of Authorized Public Chartering 

Agencies to ensure that States hold 

authorizers accountable for the 

enrollment, recruitment, retention and 

outcomes of all students, including 

students with disabilities. The 

commenter noted that all State charter 

school laws have provisions regarding 

special education and related services 

but that the substance of these statutes 

varies considerably from State to State. 

The commenter recommended 

providing clarity within selection 

criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized 

Public Chartering Agencies to specify 

that in accordance with IDEA, SEAs 

must exercise their authority to ensure 

authorizers provide students with 

disabilities equal access to the State’s 

charter schools, and provide students 

with disabilities a free appropriate 

public education in the least restrictive 

environment. 

Discussion: In general, selection 

criteria do not impose requirements on 

applicants. Rather, they are intended to 

solicit information to enable peer 

reviewers to evaluate an SEA’s plan to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34217 

hold authorizers accountable within the 

constraints of the State’s charter school 

law. One factor in selection criterion (g) 

provides for consideration of the quality 

of the SEA’s plan to monitor, evaluate, 

assist, and hold authorized public 

chartering agencies accountable in 

monitoring their charter schools on at 

least an annual basis, including 

ensuring that the charter schools are 

complying with applicable State and 

Federal laws. Charter law provisions 

regarding IDEA requirements would be 

part of the SEA’s plan. 

In addition, although SEAs’ statutory 

authority over authorizers varies from 

State to State, all charter schools 

receiving CSP subgrants through the 

SEA must comply with applicable 

Federal and State laws, including 

Federal civil rights laws and part B of 

the IDEA, to meet the Federal definition 

of a charter school (section 5210(1)(G) of 

the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7221i). 

We also refer the commenter to 

selection criterion (a) State-Level 

Strategy, which requires SEAs to 

demonstrate how they will improve 

educational outcomes for students 

throughout the State. Finally, we refer 

the commenter to selection criterion (d) 

Quality of Plan to Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students, 

which explicitly requires SEAs to 

provide a plan and vision for supporting 

educationally disadvantaged students, 

which includes students with 

disabilities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended revising selection 

criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized 

Public Chartering Agencies to allow the 

Secretary to consider the quality of an 

authorizer either in addition to, or in 

place of, the quality of an SEA’s plan to 

monitor the authorizer. The commenter 

expressed concern that the elements of 

this criterion will give an SEA undue 

influence over authorizers. 

Discussion: The CSP Grants for SEAs 

program provides funds to SEAs to 

enable them to conduct charter school 

subgrant programs in their State. State 

charter school laws vary with respect to 

an SEA’s oversight authority over 

authorizers. Therefore, this criterion is 

intended to challenge SEAs to take steps 

to ensure that charter school authorizers 

establish policies and employ practices 

to create and retain high-quality charter 

schools that meet the terms of their 

charter contracts and comply with 

applicable State and Federal laws, 

within the constraints of the State’s 

charter school law. For this reason, we 

leave the language as originally drafted. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested textual revisions to selection 

criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized 

Public Chartering Agencies. First, one 

commenter recommended extensive 

changes to paragraph (2) in order to 

emphasize the need for an authorizer to 

conduct a petition approval process that 

considers an individual developer’s 

capacity to create high-quality charter 

schools, among other factors. 

Additionally, one commenter suggested 

adding financial measures to academic 

and operational performance measures 

as an element of paragraph (3). One 

commenter recommended that we revise 

paragraph (7) to emphasize providing 

rather than supporting charter school 

autonomy. Finally, one commenter 

stated that the words ‘‘public’’ and 

‘‘government’’ are not synonymous with 

regard to authorizing entities, but did 

not provide additional context for the 

comment. 

Discussion: We decline to change 

paragraph (2) as suggested. We believe 

that it is critically important for an 

authorizer to evaluate entities for the 

capacity to develop a high-quality 

charter school. We also do not believe 

that it is appropriate to add a reference 

to financial factors to paragraph (3), as 

financial performance expectations are 

included as part of the general 

operational performance expectations 

discussed in the paragraph. 

We also disagree with the proposed 

revisions to paragraph (7). We recognize 

that autonomy manifests in many ways 

and that the degree of autonomy 

afforded to charter schools is based on 

State law. With this criterion, we ask 

SEAs to describe their plans to ensure 

that authorizers are supporting charter 

school autonomy; this could be through 

the authorizer’s provision of that 

autonomy, but also could occur in other 

indirect ways. For this reason, we 

decline to revise the language as 

suggested by the commenter. Finally, 

we agree that the terms ‘‘public’’ and 

‘‘government’’ are not synonymous with 

respect to authorizers. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise selection criterion (g) 

Oversight of Authorized Public 

Chartering Agencies to request that an 

SEA describe all efforts in the State to 

strengthen authorized public chartering 

agencies, rather than describe only the 

SEA’s efforts. The commenter expressed 

expectations that an SEA will have 

robust oversight over authorizers. 

Discussion: Because SEAs are the 

grantees under this program, we believe 

the emphasis should remain on the SEA 

rather than other entities within the 

State. We note that selection criterion 

(e) Vision for Growth and 

Accountability addresses the statewide 

vision for strengthening authorizers, 

which may involve direct State action or 

other entities playing an oversight or 

performance management role in 

partnership with the State. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we revise selection 

criterion (g) Oversight of Authorized 

Public Chartering Agencies to ask SEAs 

to include an analysis of whether the 

State’s budget is adequate for the SEA’s 

plan to support high-quality authorizing 

within the context of each State’s 

charter school law. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that the adequacy of a 

State’s budget for an SEA’s plan is 

relevant in determining the quality of 

the SEA’s plan to support high-quality 

authorizing. While we encourage each 

SEA to provide a detailed description of 

its plan, including any available 

resources to implement the plan, we 

decline to specify what constitutes a 

quality plan. 

Changes: None. 

(h) Management Plan and Theory of 

Action 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we limit consideration of 

monitoring reviews under paragraph 

(3)(ii) of selection criterion (h) 

Management Plan and Theory of Action 

to those that have occurred within the 

past three years. 

Discussion: Restricting the time 

period for monitoring reviews to three 

years may not provide a full picture of 

an applicant’s capacity for effective 

program administration. Further, 

permitting an SEA to address 

compliance issues or findings identified 

in reviews beyond the three-year period 

will enable it to describe any corrective 

actions that have been implemented 

successfully. 

Changes: None. 

(i) Project Design 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we revise paragraph 

(1)(i) of selection criterion (i) Project 

Design to request information about 

how the SEA will ensure that subgrants 

will be awarded to applicants 

demonstrating the capacity to create 

charter schools that can become highquality charter schools, as opposed to 

the capacity to create high-quality 

charter schools. 

Discussion: With this criterion, we ask 

SEAs to describe the likelihood of 

awarding subgrants to applicants that 

demonstrate the capacity to create highquality charter schools. Asking 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34218 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

applicants to demonstrate their capacity 

to create high-quality charter schools 

implies that the SEA will employ 

rigorous subgrant review processes to 

assure subgrants are awarded to eligible 

applicants with the capacity to create 

high-quality charter schools. This 

criterion does not impose a time limit 

by which new charter schools must be 

able to demonstrate that they are highquality charter schools, but still conveys 

the ultimate goal of SEAs awarding CSP 

subgrants to charter school developers 

that will create high-quality charter 

schools. We believe that this language 

already achieves the commenter’s goal 

and decline to revise the criterion. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

it is not useful to ask SEAs to estimate 

the number of high-quality charter 

schools they will create during the life 

of the grant or the proportion of charter 

schools that have yet to open that will 

become high-quality. The commenter 

suggested that we strike paragraph (1)(i) 

of selection criterion (i) Project Design, 

which requests the SEA to discuss the 

subgrant application and peer review 

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 

retain the language in paragraph (1)(ii), 

which requests that the SEA provide a 

reasonable year-by-year estimate of the 

number of subgrants the SEA expects to 

award during the project period. 

Discussion: Paragraph (1)(i) of 

selection criterion (i) Project Design 

does not ask SEAs to provide an 

estimate of new charter schools that will 

become high-quality, but rather, focuses 

on the quality of the SEA’s subgrant 

award process and how the SEA will 

ensure that subgrants are awarded to 

applicants demonstrating the capacity to 

create high-quality charter schools. On 

the other hand, we agree that the 

determination of the amount of CSP 

funds to award to an SEA requires a 

reasonable estimate of the number and 

size of subgrants the SEA expects to 

award during the grant period. For these 

reasons, we decline to make the change 

suggested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department revise paragraph (3) 

of selection criterion (i) Project Design 

to include maintaining as well as 

increasing student body diversity as 

examples of areas of need in the State 

on which the SEA’s subgrant program 

might focus. 

Discussion: We agree that it would be 

useful to add maintaining a high level 

of student body diversity as an example 

of a potential area of need in a State. For 

this reason, we have made the 

recommended revision. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(3) of selection criterion (i) Project 

Design to refer to increasing student 

body diversity or maintaining a high 

level of student body diversity, as 

opposed to just increasing diversity. 

General Comments 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed the opinion that charter 

school law is a State and local concern 

and should be subject to less Federal 

regulation. Several other commenters 

expressed concern that the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria fail to acknowledge 

that States may have charter school laws 

that minimize the importance of SEAs 

in the charter school sector. 

Discussion: We recognize that charter 

schools are authorized under State law 

and that State charter school laws vary. 

The CSP Grants for SEAs program, 

however, provides funds to SEAs to 

enable them to conduct charter school 

subgrant programs in the State. In order 

for SEAs to qualify for CSP funds, they 

must comply with the statutory and 

regulatory requirements governing the 

program. These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

intended to clarify CSP requirements 

and to ensure that CSP funds are spent 

in accordance with those requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department require SEAs to 

ensure that education management 

organizations (EMOs) make their 

financial records available to governing 

boards on request. 

Discussion: As for-profit entities, 

EMOs are not eligible to apply for CSP 

subgrants under the CSP Grants to SEAs 

program. While CSP subgrant recipients 

may enter into contracts with EMOs for 

the provision of goods and services 

within the scope of authorized activities 

under the program and approved 

subgrant project, the subgrantee is 

responsible for administering the project 

and supervising the administration of 

the project. When negotiating the terms 

of the contract with the EMO, the 

subgrantee should ensure that the 

contract includes whatever provisions 

are necessary for the proper and 

efficient administration of the subgrant 

(e.g. a provision that would give the 

grant and subgrant recipients, the 

Department, the Comptroller of the 

United States, or any of their duly 

authorized representatives, access to 

any books, documents, papers, and 

records of the contractor that are 

directly pertinent to the program for the 

purpose of conducting audits or 

examinations). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria collectively disadvantage 

students with disabilities. 

Discussion: We disagree that these 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

disadvantage students with disabilities. 

A major focus of the CSP grants for 

SEAs program is to provide financial 

assistance to SEAs to enable them to 

conduct charter school subgrant 

programs to assist educationally 

disadvantaged and other students in 

meeting State academic content 

standards and State student academic 

achievement standards. Likewise, these 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria reflect 

the Department’s interest in ensuring 

that charter schools receiving CSP funds 

serve educationally disadvantaged 

students, including students with 

disabilities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the priorities, requirements, definitions, 

and selection criteria imply that 

economically disadvantaged students as 

well as ethnic and racial minority 

students are not well-represented in 

charter schools and that this is not true 

in all States. In addition, the commenter 

provided an example of a State in which 

charter schools primarily serve students 

at greatest academic risk, and suggested 

that the Department emphasize 

academic growth as opposed to student 

achievement in order to capture the 

success of charter schools serving those 

students. 

Discussion: These final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are not intended to imply that 

economically disadvantaged, racial, or 

ethnic minority students are 

underrepresented in charter schools 

nationwide. We recognize that student 

demographic distributions vary by State 

and that many charter schools are 

successfully serving diverse student 

populations, including educationally 

disadvantaged students (i.e., students at 

risk of academic failure) and students 

who are members of racial or ethnic 

minorities. In addition, the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria provide opportunities 

for SEAs to demonstrate academic 

growth as well as improved student 

academic achievement in charter 

schools for all students, including 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

For example, paragraph (1) of the 

definition of a high-quality charter 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34219 

school requires a charter school to 

demonstrate increased academic 

achievement and attainment for all 

students. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

consider diversity-enhancing policies in 

the charter, magnet, and non-charter 

school sectors. Specifically, the 

commenter recommended that the 

Department support strategies that 

reflect collaborative cross-sector efforts 

and community input, consider actual 

and potential cross-sector student 

enrollment dynamics and impacts, and 

broadly increase school diversity across 

all taxpayer-supported school sectors. 

Discussion: We agree that cross-sector 

collaboration can be useful in increasing 

student body diversity in public 

schools, including charter schools. 

Although SEAs are the only eligible 

applicants under this program, SEAs 

have great flexibility to devise charter 

school subgrant programs that promote 

cross-sector collaboration within the 

parameters of the CSP authorizing 

statute and applicable regulations. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that paragraph (3) of selection criterion 

(d) Quality of Plan to Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students, 

which considers the extent to which an 

SEA encourages innovations in charter 

schools in order to improve the 

academic achievement of educationally 

disadvantaged students, and paragraph 

(2) of selection criterion (g) Oversight of 

Authorized Public Chartering Agencies, 

which considers whether an SEA’s plan 

ensures that authorizers are approving 

charter school petitions with design 

elements that incorporate evidencebased school models and practices, are 

contradictory. 

Discussion: We disagree that the two 

factors contradict each other. For 

example, an SEA may support charter 

schools that incorporate evidence-based 

practices into an innovative school 

model focused on improving the 

academic achievement of educationally 

disadvantaged students. While the 

entirety of the proposed model may not 

have been evaluated because of the 

demographics of educationally 

disadvantaged students served, some or 

all of the individual components of the 

model or practices used may be 

evidence-based. In the context of 

selection criterion (g) Oversight of 

Authorized Public Chartering Agencies, 

the intent of encouraging SEAs to 

propose a plan whereby authorizers 

approve charter schools petitions with 

design elements that incorporate 

evidence-based school models is to 

promote rigorous review as it relates to 

authorizing but not to discourage 

authorizers from approving an untested 

innovative school design model focused 

on serving a subset of educationally 

disadvantaged students, as long as the 

model, or elements or practices with the 

model, are sufficiently based in 

research. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the Department should require SEAs to 

work with all partners in the field to 

ensure that the pool of charter school 

developers is diverse and focused on the 

needs of educationally disadvantaged 

students. 

Discussion: We believe that it is 

important for SEAs to work with other 

entities that are relevant to charter 

schools to improve the overall quality of 

the charter school sector and to improve 

academic outcomes for educationally 

disadvantaged students. To that end, we 

have included selection criteria that ask 

applicants to discuss their State-level 

strategies and plans to serve 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

consider additional options for a State 

to submit a competitive application. The 

commenter indicated that, in some 

States, the chief education officer (e.g., 

superintendent of instruction or similar 

position) may lack the will or ability to 

advance a strong grant proposal under 

the CSP Grants for SEAs program. 

Discussion: Given that this program 

awards funds to SEAs, we cannot 

compel a State to advance charter 

schools when the relevant leadership 

believes that it is not appropriate to do 

so. In States in which the SEA does not 

have an approved application under the 

CSP, non-SEA eligible applicants (i.e., 

charter school developers and charter 

schools) may apply directly to the 

Department for CSP startup and 

dissemination grants. Additional 

information about the Department’s CSP 

Grants to Non-SEA Eligible Applicants 

program can be found at www2.ed.gov/ 

programs/charternonsea/

applicant.html. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

general concern about the structure of 

the priorities, requirements, definitions, 

and selection criteria, stating that the 

priorities are long and vague and may be 

difficult for the Department to apply. 

The commenter opined that the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria favor a narrow 

interpretation of sound chartering 

practices that lacks research-based 

support. 

Discussion: These final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria will form the basis of our CSP 

Grants for SEAs competition for FY 

2015 and future years. While we do not 

identify which priorities we will utilize 

for any particular competition, we 

believe that the substance of the 

priorities in this NFP is appropriate 

given the amount of Federal funds that 

will flow to the States and their 

subgrantees. We also disagree that these 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria lack 

appropriate alignment with leading 

practices. Rather, we believe that these 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

well-founded in current educational 

research and widely-accepted practice. 

For applicants that require additional 

information about these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, the Department will include 

information in each NIA on any planned 

pre-application meetings as well as 

instructions on how to request 

additional information. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

a selection criterion to measure the 

strength of a State’s charter school law 

with respect to provisions related to the 

closure of academically poorperforming charter schools. 

Discussion: We agree that an SEA’s 

ability to close academically poorperforming charter schools is an 

important factor in assessing the quality 

of an SEA’s grant application. These 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria address school closure 

in several areas, including Priority 3— 

High-Quality Authorizing and 

Monitoring Processes, selection criterion 

(c) Past Performance, and selection 

criterion (e) Vision for Growth and 

Accountability. These provisions 

address State charter authorizing 

practices, including charter school 

closure policies, and their impact on the 

development of high-quality charter 

schools and closure of academically 

poor-performing charter schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we add a new 

priority related to facilities access, based 

on the following additional factors: (1) 

Funding for facilities; (2) assistance 

with facilities acquisition; (3) access to 

public facilities; (4) the ability to share 

in bonds or mill levies; (5) the right of 

first refusal to purchase public school 

buildings; or (6) low- or no-cost leasing 

privileges. 

Discussion: We support State efforts 

to assist charter schools in acquiring 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34220 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

facilities. Accordingly, selection 

criterion (a) State-Level Strategy 

considers the extent to which funding 

equity for charter school facilities is 

incorporated into the State-level 

strategy. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed priorities generally imply 

that authorizers must follow a uniform 

path for decision-making, that such a 

path will lead to homogony across 

authorizers, and that this monoculture 

is not preferable. The commenter 

suggested that the Department address 

authorizer diversity and an authorizer’s 

ability to exercise its own judgment and 

discretion with regard to chartering 

decisions. 

Discussion: We agree that authorizers 

should exercise judgment over their 

portfolio of charter schools and should 

be evaluated based on the success of 

those portfolios. We also note that it is 

important for SEAs to develop and 

adopt principles and standards around 

charter school authorizing to ensure 

some level of quality control and public 

accountability within the charter sector 

if charter schools are to fulfill their 

intended purposes. These final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria enable the Department 

and peer reviewers to evaluate SEA 

applications regarding quality control 

and public accountability around 

charter school authorizing within their 

State. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern about charter 

schools’ compliance with open records 

and meeting laws. One of the 

commenters recommended that the 

Department require States to ensure that 

charter schools comply with these laws, 

while the other commenter suggested 

that the Department require SEAs to 

provide guidance to charter schools, 

LEAs, and authorizers clarifying that 

neither the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act (FERPA) nor IDEA 

prevent the sharing of student data in an 

efficient and timely manner. 

Discussion: We support transparency 

across all aspects of the chartering 

process. Open meetings laws are not 

addressed in ESEA or other areas of 

Federal law. Therefore, the decision to 

include charter schools in open 

meetings requirements is a State issue. 

It is worth noting, however, that factors 

(4) and (6) of selection criterion (g) 

Oversight of Authorized Public 

Chartering Agencies ask charter schools 

how they comply with all related State 

laws. Regarding the request to add an 

additional assurance regarding records 

transfer, we note that section 5208 of the 

ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221g) requires an SEA 

and LEA to transfer a student’s records 

when that student transfers schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

general concern over parent contracts in 

certain charter school settings. The 

commenter stated that these contracts 

have the potential to deny eligibility to 

a student if a child’s parent or guardian 

is unable to comply with the contract, 

and that such contracts can have a 

discriminatory impact on certain 

students. The commenter recommended 

that the Department determine CSP 

Grants to SEAs program eligibility on 

the condition that subgrantees prohibit 

parent contracts. The commenter also 

recommended that the Department 

require school districts, authorizers, and 

individual schools to provide a citywide, multi-year plan to note 

demographic changes, criteria for new 

school openings or closings, and 

equitable geographic distribution of 

schools. Additionally, the commenter 

asked that the Department require 

authorizers to submit an impact 

statement before approving any new 

charter school application. Finally, the 

commenter recommended that the 

Department require an SEA to conduct 

an annual assessment of the cumulative 

impact of charter schools on traditional 

school districts. This assessment would 

analyze funding, enrollment trends, and 

educational outcomes. 

Discussion: While the CSP 

authorizing statute does not expressly 

prohibit parent contracts, SEAs are 

required to ensure that charter schools 

are providing equal educational 

opportunities for all students. In 

addition, charter schools receiving CSP 

subgrants may not charge tuition and, as 

public schools, ls must employ open 

admissions policies and provide all 

students with an equal opportunity to 

attend the charter school. While SEAs 

have great flexibility to conduct their 

charter schools subgrant programs in a 

manner that promotes State goals and 

objectives, they must do so consistent 

with CSP requirements. Thus, SEAs 

may not require or allow charter schools 

to employ admissions or other policies 

that are discriminatory or otherwise 

exclude certain students from applying 

for admission to the charter school. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

request that we require impact 

statements, we do not believe that 

requiring an SEA to conduct an annual 

impact assessment of charter schools 

represents the best expenditure of CSP 

funds. Further, elements related to 

impact could be addressed in selection 

criterion (a) State-Level Strategy, and 

also under selection criterion (g) 

Oversight of Authorized Public 

Chartering Agencies, through the 

development of a State-level strategy 

and authorizers’ review and monitoring 

of their school portfolios. For these 

reasons, we decline to impose any of the 

recommended requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require SEAs to post information 

regarding individual charter schools 

online, such as the school’s charter, 

performance contract, and school rules. 

The commenter also stated that 

members of the charter sector should be 

subject to financial conflict of interest 

guidelines similar to those that magnet 

schools follow. 

Discussion: We believe that charter 

schools should be transparent in their 

operations and make information as 

widely available to the public as 

possible. In addition, charter schools are 

public schools and, as such, are subject 

to all applicable laws governing 

information access. However, we defer 

to States regarding the specific 

information they choose to post on a 

particular Web site. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the inclusion of the statutory priority for 

States that have a non-LEA authorizer as 

described in section 5202(e)(3)(B) of the 

ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)(3)(B)). The 

commenter expressed the belief that the 

priority was not included in the NPP 

because the Department does not 

propose to supplement the statutory 

language, and that the priority should be 

used in the FY 2015 CSP Grants for 

SEAs competition. 

Discussion: The commenter is correct 

that the final priorities in this NFP do 

not alter the statutory priority described 

in section 5202(e)(3)(B) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 7221a(e)(3)(B)), which delineates 

priority criteria to incentivize States 

who have an authorizer that is not a 

LEA or, if only LEAs can authorize 

charter schools within a given State, an 

appeals process for the denial of a 

charter school application. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to require applicants to 

submit information about the SEA’s 

process for awarding grants to charter 

schools with a significant expansion of 

enrollment under the CSP program and 

noted that current CSP regulations give 

States latitude in defining significant 

expansion of enrollment. 

Discussion: Under this program, the 

Department awards grants to SEAs to 

assist them in conducting a charter 

school subgrant program in their States. 

As a general matter, funds may be used 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34221 

only for post-award planning and initial 

implementation of charter schools and 

the dissemination of information about 

charter schools. The CSP Replication 

and Expansion Grant program (CFDA 

Number 84.282M) awards grants to nonprofit charter management organizations 

(CMOs) and other not for-profit entities 

to support the replication and 

expansion of high-quality charter 

schools. In limited circumstances, the 

Department has granted waiver requests 

submitted by SEAs under this program 

to enable the SEA to award a CSP grant 

to a charter school that has substantially 

expanded its enrollment. Because CSP 

Grants to SEAs generally do not support 

charter school expansions, however, the 

Department declines to include the 

proposed requirement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

including a note in the NIA stating that, 

while guiding growth within the 

priorities of a State or district is an 

admirable goal, the application and 

review process should not remove a 

strong community charter school 

proposal from consideration just 

because it does not focus on a priority 

for a State or authorizer. 

Discussion: We acknowledge that a 

community charter school applicant 

may propose models to a specific 

authorizer that may not be aligned with 

a State’s specific priorities for charter 

growth. While SEAs may exercise 

flexibility in designing and establishing 

priorities for their CSP subgrant 

programs, they are required to utilize a 

peer review process to evaluate subgrant 

applications to ensure fairness in the 

competitive subgrant award process and 

that the highest quality applications are 

approved for funding. We encourage the 

State to have a deliberate plan for 

innovative charter school growth, but 

individual authorizers approve or reject 

charter school petitions based on the 

requirements of the applicable State 

charter school law. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: We received several 

general comments about the goals stated 

in the Executive Summary section. One 

commenter stated that including annual 

measurable objectives as the most 

important factor in charter renewal 

decisions will exclude other equally 

important factors such as health, safety, 

finances, and governance. Additionally, 

one commenter stated that requiring all 

subgroups to attain high levels of 

achievement is inappropriate at the 

present time. Finally, two commenters 

asserted that an SEA should have the 

authority to establish academic 

outcomes related to its authorizers’ 

portfolios so that the SEA can drive 

systemic and systematic changes in 

charter practices while also increasing 

the performance standards of a State’s 

charter school system. 

Discussion: With regard to the first 

point, we do not intend to imply that 

annual measurable objectives are the 

most important factor. All enumerated 

factors are equally important and 

include the elements enumerated by the 

commenter. Further, we recognize that 

various subgroups will achieve differing 

gains over time. In addition, while SEA 

oversight authority over authorizers 

varies based on State charter school law, 

we believe that having a State-Level 

Strategy provides the SEA with an 

opportunity to create systemic and 

systematic change while also increasing 

student academic achievement in 

charter schools. 

With regard to the final point, we 

disagree with the commenter and note 

that an SEA’s authority is an issue of 

State law. We do, however, believe that 

these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria may 

motivate a State to exercise a more 

active role over authorizer 

accountability. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

commended the Department’s focus on 

educationally disadvantaged students 

and recommended that we reward 

States that present data demonstrating 

that there is equitable access to charter 

schools for all subgroups. 

Discussion: We believe that equitable 

access to charter schools for all 

subgroups is addressed in paragraph (2) 

of selection criterion (d) Quality of Plan 

to Support Educationally 

Disadvantaged Students. A critical 

aspect of these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria is to 

ensure equitable access to charter 

schools for students across all 

subgroups, including educationally 

disadvantaged students. For this reason, 

we decline to make the suggested 

revision. 

Changes: None. 

FINAL PRIORITIES: 

Priority 1—Periodic Review and 

Evaluation. 

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, 

and takes steps to ensure that such 

reviews take place. The review and 

evaluation must serve 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. This periodic review and 

evaluation must include an opportunity 

for the authorized public chartering 

agency to take appropriate action or 

impose meaningful consequences on the 

charter school, if necessary. 

Priority 2—Charter School Oversight. 

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 authorized 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)(C)(v)) as 

one of the most important factors when 

determining whether to renew or revoke 

a school’s charter. 

Priority 3—High-Quality Authorizing 

and Monitoring Processes. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must demonstrate that all authorized 

public chartering agencies in the State 

use 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) Performance objectives for each 

school aligned to those expectations; 

(3) Clear criteria for renewing the 

charter of a school based on an objective 

body of evidence, including evidence 

that the charter school has (a) met the 

performance objectives outlined in the 

charter or performance contract; (b) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34222 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

demonstrated organizational and fiscal 

viability; and (c) demonstrated fidelity 

to the terms of the charter or 

performance contract and applicable 

law; 

(4) Clear criteria for revoking the 

charter of a school if there is violation 

of a 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 

that need improvement. 

(b) Clear and specific standards and 

formalized processes that measure and 

benchmark the performance of the 

authorized public chartering agency or 

agencies, 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 evaluating 

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 

to assess 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. 

Priority 4—SEAs that Have Never 

Received a CSP Grant. 

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)). 

FINAL REQUIREMENTS: 

Academically poor-performing 

charter school: Provide one of the 

following: 

(a) Written certification that, for 

purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses 

the definition of academically poorperforming charter school provided 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 how the proposed 

definition is at least as rigorous as the 

standard in paragraph (a) of the 

definition of academically poorperforming charter school set forth in 

the Definitions section of this notice. 

High-quality charter school: Provide 

one of the following: 

(a) Written certification that, for 

purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses 

the definition of high-quality charter 

school provided 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 how the 

proposed definition is at least as 

rigorous as the standard in paragraph (a) 

of the definition of high-quality charter 

school set forth in the Definitions 

section of this notice. 

Logic model: Provide a complete logic 

model (as defined in 34 CFR. 77.1) for 

the project. The logic model must 

address the role of the grant in 

promoting the State-level strategy for 

expanding the number of high-quality 

charter schools through startup 

subgrants, optional dissemination 

subgrants, optional revolving loan 

funds, and other strategies. 

Lottery and Enrollment Preferences: 

Describe (1) how lotteries for admission 

to charter schools will be conducted in 

the 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 and the CSP authorizing statute (for 

information related to admissions and 

lotteries under the CSP, please see 

Section E of the CSP Nonregulatory 

Guidance (January 2014) at 

www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/

nonregulatory-guidance.html). 

FINAL DEFINITIONS: 

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 of at least an average 

of one grade level 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 

Requirements section of this notice. 

Educationally disadvantaged students 

means economically disadvantaged 

students, students with disabilities, 

migrant students, limited English 

proficient students (also referred to as 

English learners or English language 

learners), 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 and available, high school 

graduation rates and college and other 

postsecondary education enrollment 

rates) for all students, including, as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34223 

applicable, educationally disadvantaged 

students served by the charter school; 

(2) Either— 

(i) Demonstrated success in closing 

historic achievement gaps for the 

subgroups of students described in 

section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA 

(20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)) at the 

charter school; or 

(ii) No significant achievement gaps 

between any of the subgroups of 

students described in section 1111 

(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 

6311) at the charter school and 

significant gains in student academic 

achievement for all populations of 

students served by the charter school; 

(3) Results (including, if applicable 

and available, performance on statewide 

tests, annual student attendance and 

retention rates, high school graduation 

rates, college and other postsecondary 

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 

the purpose 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 

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 by the authorizer. 

FINAL SELECTION CRITERIA: 

(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; 

(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 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 processes 

for: 

(i) Annually informing each charter 

school in the State about Federal funds 

the charter school is eligible to receive 

and 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 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 such 

a State, 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34224 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 statewide 

vision, including the role of the SEA, for 

charter school growth and 

accountability. In determining the 

quality of the statewide 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 ambitiousness, quality of 

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 in the State 

at both the beginning and the end of the 

project period; and 

(3) The ambitiousness, quality of 

vision, and feasibility of the SEA’s plan 

(including key actions) to support the 

closure of academically poorperforming 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. 

7221b(b)(2)(C) and 7221c(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(f)(6)(B)), 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 and research (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 by, 

and the 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(f)(6)(B)), 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 that 

have the capacity to create charter 

schools that can become 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 are 

consistent with the definition of highquality charter school in this notice; 

(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 or 

performance contracts and complying 

with applicable State and Federal laws; 

(5) Using increases in student 

academic achievement as one of the 

most important factors in renewal 

decisions; basing renewal decisions on 

a comprehensive set of criteria, which 

are set forth in the charter or 

performance 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 or performance contract; 

(7) Supporting charter school 

autonomy while holding charter schools 

accountable for results and meeting the 

terms of their charters or performance 

contracts; 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, including the 

cohesiveness and strength of reasoning, 

of the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c)), and the extent to which it 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34225 

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 process 

for awarding subgrants for planning, 

program design, and initial 

implementation, and, if applicable, for 

dissemination, 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 

eligible applicants demonstrating the 

capacity to create high-quality charter 

schools; and 

(ii) A reasonable year-by-year 

estimate, with supporting evidence, of 

(a) 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 (b) 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 or 

maintaining a high level of student body 

diversity, and how this focus 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. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, and definitions we invite 

applications through a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This 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 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 final regulatory 

action and have determined that the 

benefits would justify the costs. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions and selection 

criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34226 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In this regulatory impact analysis we 

discuss the potential costs and benefits 

of this action, comments we received 

regarding those costs and benefits, and 

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. 

Discussion of Comments 

We received several comments 

expressing concern that this regulatory 

action imposes undue administrative 

burden on applicants and grantees. 

Although the Department recognizes 

that there are costs to SEAs associated 

with applying for and receiving CSP 

grants, we do not believe that the 

requirements imposed on SEAs through 

this regulatory action—which relate 

only to preparing an application for a 

CSP grant—carry significant costs. 

Moreover, for the reasons noted in the 

preceding section, we believe the 

benefits of this action to the Federal 

government and to SEAs outweigh those 

costs. 

We note, in addition, that SEAs 

receiving CSP grants may use up to 5 

percent of grant funds for administrative 

costs associated with carrying out their 

grant projects. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department believes that the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria in this notice are 

needed to administer the program 

effectively. As an alternative to 

promulgating the 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(a)) 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 examined under 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 selection 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 in 

this NFP 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.

$115. 

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. 

Waiver of Congressional Review Act 

These regulations have been 

determined to be major for purposes of 

the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, under the 

CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days 

after the date on which the rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Section 808(2) of the CRA, however, 

provides that any rule which an agency 

for good cause finds (and incorporates 

the finding and a brief statement of 

reasons therefor in the rule issued) that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, shall take effect at 

such time as the Federal agency 

promulgating the rule determines. 

These final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

needed to conduct the 2015 CSP Grants 

for SEAs competition. The Department 

must award funds authorized for this 

program under the FY 2015 

Appropriations Act for this competition 

to qualified applicants by September 30, 

2015, or the funds will lapse. Even on 

an extremely expedited timeline, it is 

impracticable for the Department to 

adhere to a 60-day delayed effective 

date for the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria and make grant awards to 

qualified applicants by the September 

30, 2015 deadline. When the 60-day 

delayed effective date is added to the 

time the Department will need to 

receive applications (approximately 35 

days), review the applications 

(approximately 45 days), and finally 

approve applications (approximately 30 

days), the Department will not be able 

to allocate funds authorized under the 

FY 2015 Appropriations Act to all 

qualified applicants by September 30, 

2015. 

Not being able to allocate the 

approximately $116 million would have 

a significant negative effect on the 

quality of charter schools and public 

accountability and oversight. The 

Department has therefore determined 

that, pursuant to section 808(2) of the 

CRA, the 60-day delay in the effective 

date generally required for 

congressional review is impracticable, 

contrary to the public interest, and 

waived for good cause. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 34227 

request to either of the program contact 

persons listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: June 8, 2015. 

Nadya Chinoy Dabby, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14391 Filed 6–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES