[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14197-14210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05463]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2022-OESE-0006]


Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program 
(CSP)--Grants to State Entities (SE Grants); Grants to Charter 
Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-
Quality Charter Schools (CMO Grants); and Grants to Charter School 
Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the 
Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Developer 
Grants)

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Education proposes priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for CSP SE Grants, CMO Grants, and 
Developer Grants, Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) 84.282A, 84.282B, 
84.282E, and 84.282M. We may use one or more of these priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for grant 
competitions under these programs in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later 
years. We take this action to create results-driven policies to help 
promote positive student outcomes, student and staff diversity, 
educator and community empowerment, promising practices, and 
accountability, including fiscal transparency and responsibility, in 
charter schools supported with CSP funds, which can serve as models for 
other charter schools.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``Help.''
    <bullet> Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, address them to 
Porscheoy Brice, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 
Room 3E209, Washington, DC 20202-5970.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Porscheoy Brice, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E209, Washington, DC 20202-
5970. Telephone: (202) 260-0968. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e98a81889b9d8c9b9a8a818686859aa98c8dc78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="62010a031016071011010a0d0d0e112207064c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria, we urge you to clearly identify the specific 
section of the proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection 
criteria that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. 
Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs 
or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and 
efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 
the comments in person. Please contact the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to make arrangements to inspect the 
comments in person.
    Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Programs: SE Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants 
are three of six CSP grant programs that support various activities 
critical to the successful creation and implementation of charter 
schools. The major purposes of the CSP are to expand opportunities for 
all students, particularly traditionally underserved students, to 
attend charter schools and meet challenging State academic standards; 
provide financial assistance for the planning, program design, and 
initial implementation of charter schools; increase the number of high-
quality charter schools available to students across the United States; 
evaluate the impact of charter schools on student achievement, 
families, and communities; share best practices between charter schools 
and other public schools; aid States in providing facilities support to 
charter schools; and support efforts to strengthen the charter school 
authorizing process.
    SE Grants (ALN 84.282A) comprise the largest portion of CSP funds. 
These competitive grants are awarded to State entities (SEs) that, in 
turn, award competitive subgrants to eligible applicants for the 
purpose of opening new charter schools and replicating and expanding 
high-quality charter schools. Eligible applicants are charter school 
developers that have applied to an authorized public chartering agency 
to operate a charter school and have provided adequate and timely 
notice to that authority. A developer is an individual or group of 
individuals (including a public or private nonprofit organization), 
which may include teachers, administrators and other school staff, 
parents, or other members

[[Page 14198]]

of the local community in which a charter school project will be 
carried out.\1\ For-profit organizations are ineligible to apply for 
grants or subgrants under the CSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4310(5) and (6) of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 7221i(5) and (6)) 
(www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to making subgrants to eligible applicants to open new 
charter schools and to replicate or expand high-quality charter 
schools, SE grantees may use grant funds to provide technical 
assistance to eligible applicants and authorized public chartering 
agencies in opening new charter schools and replicating and expanding 
high-quality charter schools; and work with authorized public 
chartering agencies in the State to improve authorizing quality, 
including developing capacity for, and conducting, fiscal oversight and 
auditing of charter schools. SE Grant funds may also be used for grant 
administration, which may include technical assistance and monitoring 
of subgrants for performance and fiscal and regulatory compliance, as 
required under 2 CFR 200.332(d).
    If a State does not have an active CSP SE Grant, the Department may 
award Developer Grants (ALNs 84.282B and 84.282E) to eligible 
applicants in the State on a competitive basis to enable them to open 
new charter schools or to replicate or expand high-quality charter 
schools. Through CMO Grants (ALN 84.282M), the Department provides 
funds to non-profit charter management organizations (CMOs) on a 
competitive basis to enable them to replicate or expand one or more 
high-quality charter schools.
    CSP SE Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants are intended to 
support charter schools that serve elementary or secondary school 
students. Funds also may be used to serve students in early childhood 
education programs or postsecondary students. Section 4310 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 
defines ``replicate'' as opening a new charter school, or a new campus 
of a high-quality charter school, based on the educational model of an 
existing high-quality charter school; and ``expand'' as significantly 
increasing enrollment or adding one or more grades to a high-quality 
charter school (20 U.S.C. 7221i(9) and (7)). Section 4310 defines 
``high-quality charter school,'' in pertinent part, as a charter school 
that shows evidence of strong academic results, which may include 
strong student academic growth, as determined by a State; has no 
significant issues in the areas of student safety, financial and 
operational management, or statutory or regulatory compliance; and has 
demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic 
achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for all 
students served by the charter school and for each of the subgroups of 
students defined in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 
7221i(8)).
    For CMO Grants and Developer Grants, these proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are intended to 
supplement the regulatory priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria in: Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and 
Selection Criteria--Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter 
Schools Program; Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the 
Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (CMO NFP), 
published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 61532), 
and Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools 
Program; Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New 
Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality 
Charter Schools (Developer NFP), published in the Federal Register on 
July 3, 2019 (84 FR 31726).
    Program Authority: Title IV, part C of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221-
7221j).

Proposed Priorities

    Proposed Priorities Applicable to CMO Grants and Developer Grants: 
We propose two priorities for CMO Grants and Developer Grants.

Proposed Priority 1--Promoting High-Quality Educator- and Community-
Centered Charter Schools to Support Underserved Students.

    Background: Charter schools were envisioned to drive the creation 
of innovative approaches to teaching and learning for all students 
while being held accountable for academic performance.\2\ The original 
proponents of charter schools anticipated that charter schools would be 
shaped by educators and offer opportunities for developing and sharing 
new instructional methods and resources that address the needs of 
students and families in the community. While that is the case in some 
charter schools, in others, teachers, parents, and community leaders 
have expressed concerns about not being included as active participants 
in charter school decision-making.\3\ Such concerns may be due, in 
part, to limited requirements for community engagement. According to 
the National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance, 
``most laws require only peripheral participation, such as garnering 
parent support for the school during the application process or keeping 
parents informed of student performance. These participation 
requirements do not take full advantage of charter schools' potential 
to draw on the knowledge and expertise of their parent community.'' \4\ 
Similarly, some charter schools may not fully engage other community 
members and organizations that are also well-positioned to help assess 
the educational aspirations and needs of students living in their 
neighborhoods and can offer important contributions to help improve the 
academic, financial, and organizational or operational performance of 
the school.\5\ Charter schools and CMOs may have needs that community 
members and organizations can help meet, including, for example, 
specific teacher areas of expertise; facilities for activities such as 
arts, sports, or enrichment; or serving their students' well-being and 
readiness to learn. Similarly, community partnerships can expand 
options for courses that may not be available in a school, enhance 
independent study or skill development opportunities (e.g., career and 
technical education or work-based learning), and build sustainability 
of program offerings. Community partnerships can also assess the 
receptiveness of a community to a new charter school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Kahlenberg, Richard D. & Potter, Halley (2014). Restoring 
Shanker's Vision for Charter Schools [verbar] American Federation of 
Teachers (aft.org) www.aft.org/ae/winter2014-2015/kahlenberg_potter.
    \3\ Baker, Timberly L., Wise, Jillian, Kelley, Gwendolyn, and 
Skiba, Russell J. (2016). Identifying Barriers: Creating Solutions 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1124003.pdf.
    \4\ National Resource Center on Charter School Finance & 
Governance. Enhancing_Charter_Schools Through Parent Involvement 
https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/sites/default/files/files/field_publication_attachment/Enhancing_Charter_Schools-AmyBiehlHS.pdf.
    \5\ National Charter School Resource Center (2021). How Charter 
Schools Can Leverage Community Assets through Partnerships https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/sites/default/files/files/field_publication_attachment/How Charter Schools Can 
LeverageCommunity Assets through Partnerships.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Educator- and community-centered charter schools can provide 
opportunities to meet the needs of all students, particularly 
underserved students. Studies show that when teachers are engaged in 
educational decision-making and are given an

[[Page 14199]]

opportunity to collaborate with administrators, it promotes a better 
learning environment for students that leads to increased student 
achievement and college and career readiness.\6\ For example, charter 
schools can ensure meaningful input of educators by appointing multiple 
educators to their governing boards or purposefully developing 
instructional and operational models that proactively solicit and 
respond to educators' feedback. Additionally, community-centered 
charter schools are built on relationships that may enable them to be 
more transparent and collaborative in their design and practices, 
including proactively recruiting, enrolling, and retaining students of 
diverse backgrounds and abilities.\7\ Community-centered charter 
schools may have established partnerships with local organizations and 
informal and formal processes to engage with and solicit input from 
local stakeholders on a regular basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rimm-Kaufman, Sara and Sandilos, Lia (2010). Improving 
students' relationships with teachers (apa.org) www.apa.org/education-career/k12/relationships.
    \7\ Safal Partners: Kern, Nora (2016). Intentionally Diverse 
Charter Schools: A Toolkit for Charter School Leaders https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/sites/default/files/files/field_publication_attachment/NCSRC%20Intentionally%20Diverse%20Charter%20School%20Toolkit.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority:
    (a) Under this priority, an applicant must propose to open a new 
charter school, or replicate or expand a high-quality charter school, 
that is developed and implemented--
    (1) With meaningful and ongoing engagement with current and former 
educators, including current and former teachers, including in founding 
the school, board governance, school-level decision-making related to 
curriculum and instruction, and day-to-day operations of the school; 
and
    (2) Using a community-centered approach that includes an assessment 
of community assets, informs the development of the charter school, and 
includes the implementation of protocols and practices designed to 
ensure that the charter school will use and interact with community 
assets on an ongoing basis to create and maintain strong community 
ties.
    (b) In its application, an applicant must provide a high-quality 
plan that demonstrates how its proposed project would meet the 
requirements in paragraph (a) of this priority, accompanied by a 
timetable with milestones.

Proposed Priority 2--Charter School and Traditional Public School or 
District Collaborations That Benefit Students and Families

    Background: Research has shown that collaborations among charter 
schools and traditional public schools or traditional school districts 
(charter-traditional collaborations) have the potential to improve the 
quality of charter schools and traditional public schools.\8\ In order 
to benefit the public school system as a whole, and students and 
families in the community, charter-traditional collaborations require 
significant investments of time and resources to address commonly 
shared barriers and challenges in both charter schools and traditional 
public schools. Successful charter-traditional collaborations can lead 
to information-sharing about best practices for developing systems and 
processes that benefit all families and students served by the members 
of the collaboration.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Chait, Robin (2019). Bridging the Divide: Collaboration 
Between Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools. 
www.ested.org/wested-insights/collaboration-between-traditional-public-schools-and-charter-schools/.
    \9\ DeArmond, Michael, Cooley Nelson, Elizabeth, and Bruns, 
Angela (2015). The Best of Both Worlds: Can District-Charter Co-
Location Be a Win-Win? https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559807.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some examples of charter-traditional collaborations that benefit 
students and families include: Sharing curriculum resources and 
instructional materials, including opportunities for students to have 
increased access to a more comprehensive set of course offerings; 
creating systems and structures for the delivery of shared, effective 
teacher and leader professional development and instructional 
practices, including through professional learning communities; 
developing strong principal pipeline programs; and shared 
transportation systems that increase student access to and diversity 
within schools while lessening the financial burden all schools 
encounter when providing transportation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Yatsko, Sarah, Cooley Nelson, Elizabeth, and Lake, Robin 
(2013). District-Charter Collaboration Compact: Interim Report. 
https://crpe.org/district-charter-collaboration-compact-interim-report/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed priority, an applicant must propose to 
collaborate with at least one traditional public school or traditional 
school district in an activity that would be beneficial to all partners 
in the collaboration and lead to increased educational opportunities 
and improved student outcomes.
    Proposed Priority:
    (a) Under this priority, an applicant must propose to collaborate 
with at least one traditional public school or traditional school 
district in an activity that is designed to benefit students and 
families served by each member of the collaboration, designed to lead 
to increased educational opportunities and improved student outcomes, 
and includes implementation of--
    (1) One or more of the following services and resources:
    (i) Curricular and instructional resources or academic course 
offerings.
    (ii) Professional development opportunities for teachers and 
leaders, which may include professional learning communities, 
opportunities for teachers to earn additional certifications, such as 
in a high need area or National Board Certification, and partnerships 
with educator preparation programs to support teaching residencies.
    (iii) Evidence-based (as defined in section 8101(21) of the ESEA) 
practices to improve academic performance for underserved students.
    (iv) Policies and practices to create safe, supportive, and 
inclusive learning environments, including systems of positive 
behavioral intervention and support; and
    (2) One or more of the following initiatives:
    (i) Transparent enrollment and retention practices and processes 
that include clear and consistent disclosure of policies or 
requirements (e.g., discipline policies, purchasing and wearing 
specific uniforms and other fees, or caregiver participation), and any 
services that are or are not provided, that could impact a family's 
ability to enroll or remain enrolled (e.g., transportation services or 
participation in the National School Lunch Program).
    (ii) A shared transportation plan and system that reduces 
transportation costs for partners in the collaboration and takes into 
consideration various transportation options, including public 
transportation and district-provided or shared transportation options, 
cost-sharing or free or reduced-cost fare options, and any distance 
considerations for prioritized bus services.
    (iii) Other collaborations designed to address a significant 
barrier or challenge faced by both charter schools and traditional 
public schools and improve student outcomes.
    (b) In its application, an applicant must provide a letter from 
each partnering traditional public school or school district 
demonstrating a commitment to participate in the proposed charter-
traditional collaboration. Within 45 days of receiving a grant award, 
the applicant must submit to the Department a written

[[Page 14200]]

agreement (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding), signed by officials 
authorized to sign on behalf of the charter school and each partnering 
traditional public school or school district, that--
    (1) Identifies and describes each member of the collaboration;
    (2) States the purpose and duration of the collaboration;
    (3) Describes the roles and responsibilities of each member of the 
collaboration, including key staff responsible for completing specific 
tasks;
    (4) Describes how the collaboration will benefit each member, 
including how it will benefit students and families affiliated with 
each member and lead to increased educational opportunities and 
improved student outcomes, and specific and measurable, if applicable, 
goals;
    (5) Describes the resources each member of the collaboration will 
contribute; and
    (6) Contains any other relevant information.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Proposed Application Requirements

    Background: The ESEA requires SE Grant, CMO Grant, and Developer 
Grant applications to include specific information. In particular, SE 
Grant applications must address the application requirements in section 
4303(f) of the ESEA, CMO Grant applications must address the 
application requirements in section 4305(b)(3) of the ESEA, and 
Developer Grant applications must address relevant application 
requirements in section 4303(f) of the ESEA. In addition to these 
statutory application requirements, we established additional 
application requirements for CMO Grants and Developer Grants in the CMO 
NFP and Developer NFP, respectively.
    As a supplement to the application requirements in the ESEA, CMO 
NFP, and Developer NFP, the Department proposes new application 
requirements and assurances to help ensure the creation of new charter 
schools, and the replication and expansion of high-quality charter 
schools, that are: (1) Racially and socio-economically diverse; (2) 
driven by the needs of students and families in the community in which 
the charter school is or will be located; and (3) fiscally responsible 
and transparent, particularly with respect to contractual relationships 
with for-profit management organizations (also referred to as education 
management organizations (EMOs)). We reiterate that a charter school 
is, by definition, ``a public school that . . . is operated under 
public supervision and direction,'' and for-profit entities are 
ineligible to receive funding as a CSP project grantee or subgrantee 
(see section 4310(2)(B), (3), (4), and (5) of the ESEA). It is also a 
violation of CSP requirements for a grantee or subgrantee to relinquish 
full or substantial control of the charter school (and, thereby, the 
CSP project) to a for-profit management organization or other for-
profit entity because, among other things, a grantee or subgrantee 
receiving CSP funds must establish and maintain proper internal 
controls and directly administer or supervise the administration of the 
project. See 2 CFR 200.302-303; and 34 CFR 75.701 and 76.701. A grantee 
or subgrantee that enters into a contract for goods or services must 
comply with the Federal procurement standards at 2 CFR 200.317-200.327, 
and applicable conflict of interest requirements, including that no 
employee, officer, or agent of the charter school may participate in 
the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by 
Federal funds if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest.
    Generally, the Department believes, based on experience 
administering the CSP, that the proposed application requirements and 
assurances would help facilitate the proper review and evaluation of 
CSP grant applications, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful 
grant and subgrant implementation. These proposed requirements and 
assurances would also help ensure that all students have access to 
high-quality, diverse, and equitable learning opportunities in their 
communities, which should be a goal of all public schools.
    High-performing charter school authorizers generally require 
applicants for a charter (i.e., to create a charter school) to present 
data on the academic achievement, demographics, and enrollment and 
retention rates of students in all surrounding public schools. These 
data help with assessing the extent to which the proposed charter 
school will meet the needs of, and enroll students that are 
representative of, the students in the community. Consistent with this 
part of the charter application process, we propose to require 
applicants for CMO Grants, Developer Grants, and subgrants under the SE 
Grant program to conduct a community impact analysis to inform the 
need, number, and types of charter schools to be created in a given 
community. The community impact analysis must describe how the plan for 
the proposed charter school takes into account the student demographics 
of the schools from which students are, or would be, drawn to attend 
the charter school. The community impact analysis must also describe 
the steps the charter school has taken or will take to ensure that the 
proposed charter school would not hamper, delay, or in any manner 
negatively affect any desegregation efforts in the public school 
districts from which students are, or would be, drawn or in which the 
charter school is or would be located, including efforts to comply with 
a court order, statutory obligation, or voluntary efforts to create and 
maintain desegregated public schools, and that it would not otherwise 
increase racial or socio-economic segregation or isolation in the 
schools from which the students are, or would be, drawn to attend the 
charter school. The focus of the community impact analysis on racial 
and socio-economic diversity builds on existing statutory and 
regulatory provisions that give priority to applicants that plan to 
operate or manage high-quality charter schools with racially and socio-
economically diverse student bodies (see section 4305(b)(5)(A) of the 
ESEA; CMO NFP at 61542; and Developer NFP at 31734). Please note that 
an applicant that proposes to operate or manage a charter school in a 
racially or socio-economically segregated or isolated community still 
would be eligible to apply for funding, even if the student body of the 
charter school would be racially or socio-economically segregated or 
isolated due to community

[[Page 14201]]

demographics. Such an applicant, like all other applicants, would be 
required to provide a community impact analysis describing how the plan 
for the proposed charter school takes into account the student 
demographics of the schools from which students are, or would be, drawn 
to attend the charter school, and the steps the applicant has taken or 
will take to ensure that the proposed charter school would not increase 
racial or socio-economic segregation or isolation in those schools.
    Further, as autonomous public schools that create their 
operational, curricular, and policy procedures, charter schools are 
well positioned to draw on the knowledge and expertise of families and 
other stakeholders in the community to help shape school practices. As 
with Proposed Priority 1, the proposed community impact analysis 
requirements are designed to ensure that families play an active role 
in informing decision-making regarding the need for charter schools in 
a specific community and to strengthen requirements regarding how the 
community is engaged and integrated in the charter school planning and 
approval process.
    Under section 4310(2)(B) of the ESEA, charter schools receiving CSP 
funds must be created by a developer as a public school or adapted by a 
developer from an existing public school and operated under public 
supervision and direction. While for-profit organizations are 
ineligible to apply for direct grants or subgrants under the CSP, some 
charter schools enter into contracts with for-profit EMOs for services. 
It is the responsibility of the grantee or subgrantee to ensure that 
such an agreement with an EMO is a contract, and not a subaward or 
subgrant, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.331. Arrangements under which a 
for-profit EMO, including a non-profit CMO operated by or on behalf of 
a for-profit entity, exercises full or substantial administrative 
control over the charter school (and, thereby, the CSP project) or over 
programmatic decisions are not permissible under CSP-funded projects, 
pursuant to 34 CFR 75.701 and 76.701, which require grantees and 
subgrantees, respectively, to directly administer or supervise the 
administration of their projects. EMOs provide a variety of services to 
charter schools--from limited management and financial support services 
to whole-school package offerings. Some examples of impermissible 
delegations of administrative control include situations in which the 
EMO controls all or a substantial portion of grant or subgrant funds 
and expenditures, including making programmatic decisions (also 
referred to as ``sweeps contracts''); the EMO employs the school 
principal and a large proportion of the teachers; or the EMO makes 
decisions about curricula and instructional practices.
    We propose application requirements designed to ensure that any 
charter school that receives CSP funds and enters, or plans to enter, 
into a contract with an EMO complies with all statutory and regulatory 
requirements, including applicable Federal procurement and conflict of 
interest standards in 2 CFR 200.317-200.327, and Federal regulations 
requiring grantees and subgrantees to establish and maintain effective 
internal and administrative control over the Federal award (2 CFR 
200.303; and 34 CFR 75.701 and 76.701). The proposed application 
requirements also are designed to ensure fiscal transparency 
surrounding these contracts by requiring applicants to address whether 
they have entered or plan to enter into a contract with a for-profit 
management organization and, if so, to provide detailed information 
regarding the terms of the contract. This includes the amount of any 
CSP funding that would be used to pay for services under the contract 
and information about the governing board members, individuals who have 
a financial interest in the management organization, and any perceived 
or actual conflicts of interests. Applicants would also address how the 
applicant will ensure that it makes all programmatic decisions, 
maintains control over all program funds, directly administers or 
supervises the administration of the grant or subgrant in accordance 
with 34 CFR 75.701 and 76.701, and complies with the conflict of 
interest standards in 2 CFR 200.317-200.327.
    Under section 4310(6) of the ESEA, an eligible applicant is defined 
as a charter school developer that has (1) applied to an authorized 
public chartering agency to operate a charter school and (2) provided 
adequate and timely notice to that authority. As noted above, eligible 
applicants in States that do not have an active SE Grant may apply to 
the Department for a direct grant under the Developer Grant program. 
Non-profit CMOs are the only eligible entities under the CMO Grant 
program and usually serve as the developer and apply for the charter on 
behalf of the charter schools that they fund through their grant. 
Because an applicant need not have received a charter to be eligible to 
apply for a CSP grant, there is inherent risk of an applicant receiving 
a CSP grant but ultimately not having its charter application approved. 
Given this risk, we propose requirements to better inform the 
Department of these situations, including by providing the expected 
timeline from the authorized public chartering agency to provide a 
final decision on the charter application and identifying any planning 
costs expected to be incurred before such decision. This information 
can, in turn, be used by the Department to establish guardrails, such 
as through grant conditions, to minimize risk.
    Finally, to reinforce the proposed application requirements, we 
also propose assurances related to charter schools' contracts with 
EMOs; subgrant awards; reporting requirements; racial and socio-
economic diversity of students and teachers in the charter school, and 
the impact of the charter school on racial and socio-economic diversity 
in the public school district and schools from which students are, or 
will be, drawn to attend the charter school; and ensuring that CSP 
funding for implementation of a charter school is provided only when a 
charter has been approved and a school facility has been secured.
    We propose to apply one or more of the following application 
requirements in any year in which a competition is held under one or 
more of the following CSP grant programs: SE Grants, CMO Grants, or 
Developer Grants. We identify the program applicability for each 
proposed application requirement.
    Proposed Requirements Applicable to CMO Grants and Developer 
Grants.
    Proposed Requirement 1 for CMO Grants and Developer Grants:
    Each applicant must provide a community impact analysis that 
demonstrates that there is sufficient demand for the proposed project 
and that the proposed project would serve the interests and meet the 
needs of students and families in the community or communities from 
which students are, or will be, drawn to attend the charter school, and 
that includes the following:
    (a) Descriptions of the community support and unmet demand for the 
charter school, including any over-enrollment of existing public 
schools or other information that demonstrates demand for the charter 
school, such as evidence of demand for specialized instructional 
approaches.
    (b) Descriptions of the targeted student and staff demographics and 
how the applicant plans to establish and maintain racially and socio-
economically diverse student and staff populations, including proposed 
strategies (that are consistent with applicable legal requirements) to 
recruit,

[[Page 14202]]

enroll, and retain a diverse student body and to recruit, hire, 
develop, and retain a diverse staff and talent pipeline at all levels 
(including leadership positions).
    (c) Analyses of publicly available information and data, including 
citations and sources, on academic achievement, demographics, and 
enrollment trends of students in the public schools and school 
districts from which students are, or will be, drawn to attend the 
charter school, and an explanation of how the area from which the 
proposed charter school would reasonably expect to draw students was 
determined.
    (d) An analysis of the proposed charter school's demographic 
projections and a comparison of such projections with the demographics 
of public schools and school districts from which students are, or will 
be, drawn to attend the charter school.
    (e) Evidence that demonstrates that the number of charter schools 
proposed to be opened, replicated, or expanded under the grant does not 
exceed the number of public schools needed to accommodate the demand in 
the community, including projected enrollment for the charter schools 
based on analysis of community needs and unmet demand and any 
supporting documents for the methodology and calculations used to 
determine the number of schools proposed to be opened, replicated, or 
expanded.
    (f) A robust family and community engagement plan designed to 
ensure the active participation of families and the community and that 
includes the following:
    (1) How families and the community are or were engaged in 
determining the vision and design for the charter school, including 
specific examples of how families' and the community's input was, or is 
expected to be, incorporated into the vision and design for the charter 
school.
    (2) How the charter school will meaningfully engage with both 
families and the community to create strong and ongoing partnerships.
    (3) How the charter school will foster a collaborative culture that 
involves the families of all students, including underserved students, 
in school decision-making on an ongoing basis.
    (4) How the charter school's enrollment and recruitment process 
will engage and accommodate families from various backgrounds, 
including by holding enrollment and recruitment events on weekends or 
during non-standard work hours, making translators available, and 
providing enrollment and recruitment information in widely accessible 
formats (e.g., hard copy and online in multiple languages, large print 
or braille for visually-impaired individuals) through widely available 
and transparent means (e.g., online and at community locations).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Please note that all public schools are obligated under 
Federal civil rights laws to ensure meaningful communication with 
limited English proficient parents and effective communication with 
individuals with disabilities. 28 CFR 35.160. See generally Lau v. 
Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974); 34 CFR part 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) How the charter school has engaged or will engage families and 
the community to develop an instructional model that will serve the 
targeted diverse student population and their families effectively.
    (g) How the plans for the operation of the charter school will 
support and reflect the needs of students and families in the 
community, including considerations for how the school's location, or 
anticipated location if a facility has not been secured, will 
facilitate access for the targeted diverse student population (e.g., 
access to public transportation or other transportation options, the 
demographics of neighborhoods within walking distance of the school, 
and transportation plans and costs for students who are not able to 
walk or use public transportation to access the school).
    (h) A description of the steps the applicant has taken or will take 
to ensure that the proposed charter school would not hamper, delay, or 
in any manner negatively affect any desegregation efforts in the public 
school districts from which students are, or would be, drawn to attend 
the charter school, including efforts to comply with a court order, 
statutory obligation, or voluntary efforts to create and maintain 
desegregated public schools, and that it would not otherwise increase 
racial or socio-economic segregation or isolation in the schools from 
which the students are, or would be, drawn to attend the charter 
school.
    Proposed Requirement 2 for CMO Grants and Developer Grants:
    For any existing or proposed contract with a for-profit management 
organization (including a non-profit management organization operated 
by or on behalf of a for-profit entity), without regard to whether the 
management organization exercises full or substantial administrative 
control over the charter school or the CSP project, the applicant must 
include--
    (a) The name and contact information of the management 
organization;
    (b) A detailed description of the terms of the contract, including 
the cost (i.e., fixed costs and estimates of any ongoing costs or fees) 
and percentage such cost represents of the school's total funding, 
amount of CSP funds proposed to be used towards such cost (with an 
explanation of why such cost is reasonable), duration, roles and 
responsibilities of the management organization, and steps the 
applicant will take to ensure that it pays fair market value for any 
services or other items purchased or leased from the management 
organization, makes all programmatic decisions, maintains control over 
all CSP funds, and directly administers or supervises the 
administration of the grant in accordance with 34 CFR 75.701;
    (c) A description of any business or financial relationship between 
the charter school developer and the management organization, including 
payments, contract terms, and any property owned, operated, or 
controlled by the management organization or related individuals or 
entities that will be used by the charter school;
    (d) The name and contact information for each member of the 
governing board of the proposed charter school;
    (e) A list of all individuals who have a financial interest in the 
management organization, including--
    (1) Descriptions of any affiliations or conflicts of interest for 
charter school staff, board members, and management organization staff;
    (2) A list of all related individuals or entities providing 
contractual services to the charter school and the nature of those 
services; and
    (3) Detailed descriptions of any actual or perceived conflicts of 
interest, the steps the applicant took or will take to avoid any actual 
or perceived conflicts of interest, and how the applicant resolved or 
will resolve any actual or perceived conflicts of interest to ensure 
compliance with 2 CFR 200.318(c);
    (f) An explanation of how the applicant will ensure that the 
management contract is severable, severing the management contract will 
not cause the proposed charter school to close, the duration of the 
management contract will not extend beyond the expiration date of the 
school's charter, and renewal of the management contract will not occur 
without approval and affirmative action by the governing board of the 
charter school; and
    (g) A description of the steps the applicant will take to ensure 
that it maintains control over all student records and has a process in 
place to provide those records to another public school or school 
district in a timely manner upon the transfer of a student from the 
charter school to another public school, including due to closure

[[Page 14203]]

of the charter school, in accordance with section 4308 of the ESEA.
    Proposed Requirement 3 for CMO Grants and Developer Grants:
    An applicant that has applied to an authorized public chartering 
agency to operate a new, expanded, or replicated charter school, and 
has not yet received approval, must provide--
    (a) A signed and dated copy of its application to the authorized 
public chartering agency;
    (b) Documentation that it has provided notice to the authorized 
public chartering agency that it has applied for a CSP grant;
    (c) A timeline from the authorized public chartering agency for 
providing a final decision on the charter application; and
    (d) Any planning costs in its proposed budget that are expected to 
be incurred prior to the date the authorized public chartering agency 
expects to issue a decision on the applicant's charter application.
    Proposed Requirements Applicable to SE Grants:
    Background: Applicants for subgrants under the CSP SE Grant program 
are required to provide, as part of their subgrant application, a 
description of the roles and responsibilities of eligible applicants, 
partner organizations, and CMOs, including the administrative and 
contractual roles and responsibilities of such partners (section 
4303(f)(1)(C)(i)(II) of the ESEA). Another goal of these proposed 
requirements is to ensure that CSP SE grantees are well positioned to 
oversee a high-quality peer review process as they make subgrant awards 
in their respective States to support opening new charter schools and 
replicating and expanding high-quality charter schools. Also, we want 
to ensure that, after making subgrant awards in their States, SE 
grantees fulfill their responsibility to monitor charter school 
subgrant award recipients, as required under 2 CFR 200.332(d). SEs are 
required to provide descriptions of how the SE will review applications 
from eligible applicants (section 4303(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the ESEA) as 
well as its plan to adequately monitor subgrant recipients under the 
SE's program (section 4303(g)(1)(D)(i) of the ESEA). The CSP SE Grant 
program supports many charter schools nationally, and the proposed new 
requirements for SE applicants to create subgrant application review 
and subgrantee monitoring plans present an opportunity for peer 
reviewers to evaluate the quality of these plans not only to inform 
funding decisions, but also to enhance the quality of charter schools 
in the areas of transparency, oversight, and accountability.
    The proposed application requirements, which would supplement 
existing statutory requirements for SEs, would: Require subgrant 
applicants to provide a community impact analysis and submit more 
detailed information regarding the nature of any management contracts 
with for-profit EMOs, including non-profit CMOs operated by or on 
behalf of for-profit entities, as we are proposing to require of 
applicants for CMO Grants and Developer Grants; require SEs to give 
priority in making subgrants to charter schools that are educator-led 
and community-centered or that participate in collaborations among 
charter schools and traditional public schools or school districts 
(charter-traditional-district collaborations), as with the above 
priorities for CMO and Developer; require SEs to provide justification 
and supporting evidence for the planned number of subgrants and 
subgrant award amounts to ensure proposed projects are reasonable; and, 
as discussed in the previous paragraph, strengthen the requirements 
related to SEs' review of subgrant applications and monitoring of 
subgrants in their States.
    Proposed Requirement 1 for SE Grants:
    Each subgrant applicant must provide a community impact analysis 
that demonstrates that there is sufficient demand for the proposed 
project and that the proposed project would serve the interests and 
meet the needs of students and families in the community or communities 
from which the students are, or will be, drawn to attend the charter 
school, and that includes the following:
    (a) Descriptions of the community support and unmet demand for the 
charter school, including any over-enrollment of existing public 
schools or other information that demonstrates demand for the charter 
school, such as evidence of demand for specialized instructional 
approaches.
    (b) Descriptions of the targeted student and staff demographics and 
how the applicant plans to establish and maintain racially and socio-
economically diverse student and staff populations, including proposed 
strategies (consistent with applicable legal requirements) to recruit, 
enroll, and retain a diverse student body and to recruit, hire, 
develop, and retain a diverse staff and talent pipeline at all levels 
(including leadership positions).
    (c) Analyses of publicly available information and data on student 
academic achievement, demographics, and enrollment trends of students 
in schools in the public school district and schools from which 
students are, or will be, drawn or in which the charter school is or 
will be located, including citations and sources and an explanation of 
how the area from which the proposed charter school would reasonably 
expect to draw students was determined.
    (d) An analysis of the proposed charter school's demographic 
projections and a comparison of such projections with the demographics 
of public schools and school districts from which students are, or will 
be, drawn to attend the charter school.
    (e) Evidence that demonstrates that the number of charter schools 
proposed to be opened, replicated, or expanded under the grant does not 
exceed the number of public schools needed to accommodate the demand in 
the community, including projected enrollment for the charter schools 
based on analysis of community needs and unmet demand and any 
supporting documents for the methodology and calculations used to 
determine the number of schools proposed to be opened, replicated, or 
expanded.
    (f) A robust family and community engagement plan designed to 
ensure the active participation of families and the community that 
includes the following:
    (1) How families and the community are or were engaged in 
determining the vision and design for the charter school, including 
specific examples of how families' and the community's input was, or is 
expected to be, incorporated into the vision and design for the charter 
school.
    (2) How the charter school will meaningfully engage with both 
families and the community to create strong and ongoing partnerships.
    (3) How the charter school will foster a collaborative culture that 
involves the families of all students, including underserved students, 
in school decision-making on an ongoing basis.
    (4) How the charter school's enrollment and recruitment processes 
will engage and accommodate families from various backgrounds, 
including by holding enrollment and recruitment events on weekends or 
non-standard work hours, making translators available, and providing 
enrollment and recruitment information in widely accessible formats 
(e.g., hard copy and online in multiple languages, large print or 
braille for visually-impaired individuals) through widely available and 
transparent means (e.g., online and at community locations).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Please note that all public schools are obligated under 
Federal civil rights laws to ensure meaningful communication with 
limited English proficient parents and effective communication with 
individuals with disabilities. 28 CFR 35.160. See generally Lau v. 
Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974); 34 CFR part 100.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14204]]

    (5) How the charter school has engaged or will engage families and 
the community to develop an instructional model to best serve the 
targeted diverse student population and their families.
    (g) How the plans for the operation of the charter school will 
support and reflect the needs of students and families in the 
community, including considerations for how the school's location, or 
anticipated location if a facility has not been secured, will 
facilitate access for the targeted diverse student population (e.g., 
access to public transportation or other transportation options, the 
demographics of neighborhoods within walking distance of the school, 
and transportation plans and costs for students who are not able to 
walk or use public transportation to access the school).
    (h) A description of the steps the applicant has taken or will take 
to ensure that the proposed charter school would not hamper, delay, or 
in any manner negatively affect any desegregation efforts in the public 
school districts from which students are, or would be, drawn to attend 
the charter school, including efforts to comply with a court order, 
statutory obligation, or voluntary efforts to create and maintain 
desegregated public schools, and that it would not otherwise increase 
racial or socio-economic segregation or isolation in the schools from 
which the students are, or would be, drawn to attend the charter 
school.
    Proposed Requirement 2 for SE Grants:
    For any existing or proposed contract with a for-profit management 
organization (including a non-profit management organization operated 
by or on behalf of a for-profit entity), without regard to whether the 
management organization exercises full or substantial administrative 
control over the charter school or the CSP project, the subgrant 
applicant must include--
    (a) The name and contact information of the management 
organization;
    (b) A detailed description of the terms of the contract, including 
the cost (i.e., fixed costs and estimates of any ongoing costs or fees) 
and percentage such cost represents of the school's total funding, 
amount of CSP funds proposed to be used towards such cost (with an 
explanation of why such cost is reasonable), duration, roles and 
responsibilities of the management organization, and steps the 
applicant will take to ensure that it pays fair market value for any 
services or other items purchased or leased from the management 
organization, makes all programmatic decisions, maintains control over 
all CSP funds, and directly administers or supervises the 
administration of the subgrant in accordance with 34 CFR 76.701;
    (c) A description of any business or financial relationship between 
the charter school developer and the management organization, including 
payments, contract terms, and any property owned, operated, or 
controlled by the management organization or related individuals or 
entities to be used by the charter school;
    (d) The name and contact information for each member of the 
governing board of the proposed charter school;
    (e) A list of all individuals who have a financial interest in the 
management organization, including--
    (1) Descriptions of any affiliations or conflicts of interest for 
charter school staff, board members, and management organization staff;
    (2) A list of all related individuals or entities providing 
contractual services to the charter school and the nature of those 
services; and
    (3) Detailed descriptions of any actual or perceived conflicts of 
interest, the steps the applicant took or will take to avoid any actual 
or perceived conflicts of interest, and how the applicant resolved or 
will resolve any actual or perceived conflicts of interest to ensure 
compliance with 2 CFR 200.318(c);
    (f) An explanation of how the applicant will ensure that the 
management contract is severable, severing the management contract will 
not cause the proposed charter school to close, the duration of the 
management contract will not extend beyond the expiration date of the 
school's charter, and renewal of the management contract will not occur 
without approval and affirmative action by the governing board of the 
charter school; and
    (g) A description of the steps the applicant will take to ensure 
that it maintains control over all student records and has a process in 
place to provide those records to another public school or school 
district in a timely manner upon the transfer of a student from the 
charter school to another public school in accordance with section 4308 
of the ESEA.
    Proposed Requirement 3 for SE Grants:
    Each SE applicant must provide a detailed description of how it 
will review applications from eligible applicants, including--
    (a) How eligibility will be determined;
    (b) How peer reviewers will be recruited and selected, including 
efforts the applicant will make to recruit peer reviewers from diverse 
backgrounds and underrepresented groups;
    (c) How subgrant applications will be reviewed and evaluated;
    (d) How cost analyses and budget reviews will be conducted to 
ensure that costs are necessary, reasonable, and allocable to the 
subgrant;
    (e) How applicants will be assessed for risk (i.e., fiscal, 
programmatic, compliance); and
    (f) How funding decisions will be made.
    Proposed Requirement 4 for SE Grants:
    Each SE applicant must provide a detailed description, including a 
timeline, of how the SE will monitor and report on subgrant performance 
in accordance with 2 CFR 200.329, and address and mitigate subgrantee 
risk, including--
    (a) How subgrantees will be selected for in-depth monitoring, 
including factors that indicate higher risk (e.g., charter schools that 
have management contracts with for-profit EMOs, virtual charter 
schools, and charter schools with a history of poor performance);
    (b) How identified subgrantee risk will be addressed;
    (c) How subgrantee expenditures will be monitored;
    (d) How monitoring for progress and compliance will be conducted 
and who will conduct the monitoring;
    (e) How monitors will be trained;
    (f) How monitoring findings will be shared with subgrantees;
    (g) How corrective action plans will be used to resolve monitoring 
findings; and
    (h) How the SE will ensure transparency so that monitoring findings 
and corrective action plans are available to families and the public.
    Proposed Requirement 5 for SE Grants:
    Each SE applicant must provide explanations and supporting 
documents for the methodology and calculations used to determine the 
number of proposed subgrant awards and the average subgrant award 
amount.
    Proposed Requirement 6 for SE Grants:
    Each SE applicant must describe how the SE will give priority in 
awarding subgrants to eligible applicants that propose projects that 
include one or more of the following:
    (a) A community-centered approach that informs the planning, 
design, and implementation of the charter school and includes--

[[Page 14205]]

    (1) An assessment of community assets;
    (2) Meaningful and ongoing engagement with families, educators, and 
other members of the community, including in areas related to board 
governance and school-level decision-making related to curriculum and 
instruction; and
    (3) The implementation of protocols and practices designed to 
ensure that the charter school will use and interact with community 
assets on an ongoing basis to create and maintain strong community 
ties.
    (b) A collaboration with at least one traditional public school or 
school district in an activity that is designed to benefit students and 
families served by each member of the collaboration, designed to lead 
to increased educational opportunities and improved student outcomes, 
and includes implementation of--
    (1) One or more of the following services and resources:
    (i) Curricular and instructional resources or academic course 
offerings.
    (ii) Professional development opportunities for teachers and 
leaders, which may include professional learning communities, 
opportunities for teachers to earn additional certifications, such as 
in a high need area or National Board Certification, and partnerships 
with educator preparation programs to support teaching residencies.
    (iii) Evidence-based (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA) 
practices to improve academic performance for underserved students.
    (iv) Policies and practices to create safe, supportive, and 
inclusive learning environments, including systems of positive 
behavioral intervention and support; and
    (2) One or more of the following initiatives:
    (i) Common enrollment and retention practices that include, as part 
of the enrollment process, disclosure of policies or requirements 
(e.g., discipline policies, purchasing and wearing specific uniforms 
and other fees, or caregiver participation), and any services that are 
or are not provided, that could impact a family's ability to enroll or 
remain enrolled (e.g., transportation services or participation in the 
National School Lunch Program).
    (ii) A shared transportation plan and system that reduces 
transportation costs for partners in the collaboration and takes into 
consideration various transportation options, including public 
transportation and district-provided or shared transportation options, 
cost-sharing or free or reduced-cost fare options, and any distance 
considerations for prioritized bus services.
    (iii) Other collaborations designed to address a significant 
barrier or challenge faced by both charter schools and traditional 
public schools and improve student outcomes.

Proposed Assurances

    Background: The ESEA requires CSP SE Grant, CMO Grant, and 
Developer Grant applications to include applicable assurances from 
section 4303(f)(2) of the ESEA. In addition, CMO Grant applications 
must include the assurance required under section 4305(b)(3)(C) of the 
ESEA.
    As discussed in the background for the Proposed Application 
Requirements section, for-profit EMOs are ineligible to apply for 
direct grants or subgrants under the CSP. The Department is aware, 
however, that some charter schools enter into contracts with EMOs. 
Under these circumstances, it is the responsibility of the grantee or 
subgrantee to ensure that an agreement with an EMO is a contract, and 
not a subaward or subgrant as per 2 CFR 200.331. In addition, a 
contract for goods or services with a for-profit entity must comply 
with the Federal procurement standards at 2 CFR 200.317-327, and 
applicable conflict of interest requirements, including that no 
employee, officer, or agent of the charter school may participate in 
the selection, award, or administration of any contract supported by 
Federal funds if a real or apparent conflict of interest exists. EMOs 
provide a variety of services to charter schools--from supplemental 
management and financial support services to whole-school package 
offerings. Under these management contracts between charter schools and 
EMOs, the EMO often exercises full administrative control over the 
charter school project, which, as noted above, violates CSP 
requirements. Examples of impermissible delegations of administrative 
control include situations where the EMO controls all or a substantial 
portion of subgrant funds and expenditures, including making 
programmatic decisions (also referred to as ``sweeps contracts''); the 
EMO employs the school principal and a large proportion of the 
teachers; or the EMO makes decisions about curricula and instructional 
practices. Such arrangements under which a for-profit EMO, including a 
non-profit management organization operated by or on behalf of a for-
profit entity, exercises full administrative control over the charter 
school (and, thereby, the CSP project) are not permissible under CSP-
funded projects, pursuant to 34 CFR 75.701 and 76.701, which require 
that the grantee or subgrantee directly administer or supervise the 
administration of the project; and 2 CFR 200.303, which requires that 
the grantee or subgrantee establish and maintain proper internal 
control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that 
the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with 
Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the 
grant. See also 2 CFR 200.302 (financial management).
    Consistent with the proposed application requirements for CMO 
Grants and Developer Grants, and for subgrants under the SE Grant 
program, we propose assurances to ensure that any charter school that 
receives CSP funds and enters, or plans to enter, into a contract with 
an EMO, including a non-profit CMO operated by or on behalf of a for-
profit entity, complies with all relevant statutory and regulatory 
requirements, including applicable Federal procurement standards in 2 
CFR 200.317-327, Federal regulations governing conflicts of interest, 
and Department regulations requiring grantees and subgrantees to 
directly administer or supervise the administration of the project and 
retain control over programmatic decisions. The proposed assurances 
also are designed to ensure transparency, including fiscal 
transparency, surrounding these contracts.
    In addition, CSP applicants (including CSP SE subgrant applicants) 
may receive CSP funds for planning a charter school before receiving an 
approved charter or securing a facility--factors that may prevent a 
charter school from ever opening. Accordingly, we are also proposing 
assurances to provide greater public transparency with CSP funding 
decisions and to address the risk of CSP implementation funds 
supporting grantees and subgrantees that are unable to open the charter 
school or secure a facility for the charter school in a timely manner.
    Also, we are proposing an assurance relating to transparency in 
admission and enrollment policies, such as requirements for uniforms, 
volunteer hours, fees, or other obligations, that may create barriers 
that impact a family's ability to enroll or remain enrolled in the 
charter school. This assurance is designed to ensure that families are 
aware of financial and other obligations prior to enrolling in the 
charter school.

[[Page 14206]]

    Proposed Assurances Applicable to SE Grants, CMO Grants, and 
Developer Grants:
    (a) Each charter school receiving CSP funding must provide an 
assurance that it has not and will not enter into a contract with a 
for-profit management organization, including a non-profit management 
organization operated by or on behalf of a for-profit entity, under 
which the management organization exercises full or substantial 
administrative control over the charter school and, thereby, the CSP 
project.
    (b) Each charter school receiving CSP funding must provide an 
assurance that any management contract between the charter school and a 
for-profit management organization, including a non-profit CMO operated 
by or on behalf of a for-profit entity, guarantees or will guarantee 
that--
    (1) The charter school maintains control over all CSP funds, makes 
all programmatic decisions, and directly administers or supervises the 
administration of the grant or subgrant;
    (2) The management organization does not exercise full or 
substantial administrative control over the charter school (and, 
thereby, the CSP project), except that this does not limit the ability 
of a charter school to enter into a contract with a management 
organization for the provision of services that do not constitute full 
or substantial control of the charter school project funded under the 
CSP (e.g., food services or payroll services) and that otherwise comply 
with statutory and regulatory requirements;
    (3) The charter school's governing board has access to financial 
and other data pertaining to the charter school, the EMO, and any 
related entities; and
    (4) The charter school is in compliance with applicable Federal and 
State laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest, and there 
are no actual or perceived conflicts of interest between the charter 
school and the management organization.
    (c) Each SE or CMO that has provided CSP funding to a charter 
school, and each charter school receiving CSP funding, must provide an 
assurance that it will post on its website, on an annual basis, a copy 
of any management contract between the charter school and a for-profit 
management organization, including a non-profit CMO operated by or on 
behalf of a for-profit entity, and report information on such contract 
to the Department (or, in the case of a charter school that receives 
CSP funding through an SE Grant, to the SE), including--
    (1) The name and contact information of the management 
organization;
    (2) A detailed description of the terms of the contract, including 
the cost and percentage such cost represents of the charter school's 
total funding, amount of CSP funds proposed to be used towards such 
cost (with an explanation of why such cost is reasonable), duration, 
roles and responsibilities of the management organization, and the 
steps the charter school is taking to ensure that it makes all 
programmatic decisions, maintains control over all CSP funds, and 
directly administers or supervises the administration of the grant or 
subgrant in accordance with 34 CFR 75.701 and 76.701;
    (3) A description of any business or financial relationship between 
the charter school developer or CMO and the management organization, 
including payments, contract terms, and any property owned, operated, 
or controlled by the management organization or related individuals or 
entities to be used by the charter school;
    (4) The names and contact information of members of the boards of 
directors of the charter school;
    (5) A list of all individuals who have a financial interest in the 
management organization, including descriptions of any affiliations or 
conflicts of interest for charter school staff, board members, and 
management organization staff, and a list of all related individuals or 
entities providing contractual services to the charter school and the 
nature of those services;
    (6) A detailed description of any actual or perceived conflicts of 
interest, the steps the charter school took or will take to avoid any 
actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and how the charter school 
resolved or will resolve any actual or perceived conflicts of interest 
to ensure compliance with 2 CFR 200.318(c); and
    (7) A description of how the charter school ensured that such 
contract is severable and that a change in management companies will 
not cause the proposed charter school to close.
    (d) Each charter school receiving CSP funding must provide an 
assurance that it will disclose, as part of the enrollment process, any 
policies or requirements (e.g., purchasing and wearing specific 
uniforms and other fees, or requirements for family participation), and 
any services that are or are not provided, that could impact a family's 
ability to enroll or remain enrolled (e.g., transportation services or 
participation in the National School Lunch Program).
    (e) Each applicant for a CMO Grant, Developer Grant, or subgrant 
under the SE Grant program, without regard to whether there are any 
desegregation efforts in the public school districts in the surrounding 
area, must provide an assurance that it (or, in the case of an 
applicant for a CMO Grant, each charter school it proposes to fund) 
will hold or participate in a public hearing in the school districts or 
communities in which the proposed charter school will be located to 
obtain information and feedback regarding the potential impact of the 
charter school, including the steps the charter school has taken or 
will take to ensure that the proposed charter school would not hamper, 
delay, or in any manner negatively affect any desegregation efforts in 
the public school districts from which students are, or would be, drawn 
to attend the charter school, including efforts to comply with a court 
order, statutory obligation, or voluntary efforts to create and 
maintain desegregated public schools, and that it would not otherwise 
increase racial or socio-economic segregation or isolation in the 
schools from which the students are, or would be, drawn to attend the 
charter school. Applicants must ensure that the hearing (and notice 
thereof) is accessible to individuals with disabilities and limited 
English proficient individuals as required by law, actively solicit 
participation in the hearing (i.e., provide widespread and timely 
notice of the hearing), make good faith efforts to accommodate as many 
people as possible (e.g., hold the hearing at a convenient time for 
families and provide virtual participation options), and submit a 
summary of the comments received as part of the application.
    (f) Each applicant for an SE Grant or subgrant, CMO Grant, or 
Developer Grant must provide an assurance that it will not use or 
provide implementation funds for a charter school until after the 
charter school has received a charter from an authorized public 
chartering agency and has a contract, lease, mortgage, or other 
documentation indicating that it has a facility in which to operate.
    Proposed Assurances Applicable to CSP SE Grants and CMO Grants:
    Each applicant must provide an assurance that, within 30 days of 
the date of the grant award notification (GAN), or the date of the 
subgrant award notification for SE Grants, the grantee or subgrantee 
will post on its website a list of the charter schools slated to 
receive CSP funds, including the following for each school:
    (a) The name, address, and grades served.
    (b) A description of the educational model.
    (c) If the charter school has contracted with a for-profit 
management organization, the name of the

[[Page 14207]]

management organization, the amount of CSP funding the management 
organization will receive from the school, and a description of the 
services to be provided.
    (d) The grant or subgrant award amount, including any funding that 
has been approved for the current year and any additional years of the 
CSP grant for which the school will receive support.
    (e) The grant or subgrant application (redacted as necessary).
    (f) The peer review materials, including reviewer comments and 
scores (redacted as necessary) from the grant or subgrant competition.

Proposed Definitions

    In addition to the definitions in section 4310 of the ESEA, the CMO 
NFP, and the Developer NFP, we propose the following definitions for 
CSP SE Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer Grants. We may apply one or 
more of these definitions in any year in which a competition for new 
awards is held under one of these programs.
    Background: In order to ensure a common understanding of the 
proposed priorities and requirements, we propose definitions that are 
critical to the policies and statutory purposes of the CSP SE Grant, 
Developer Grant, and CMO Grant programs, including proposed definitions 
for ``disconnected youth,'' ``educator,'' and ``underserved student'' 
that are based on definitions of those terms from the Secretary's 
Supplemental Priorities published in the Federal Register on December 
10, 2021 (86 FR 70612). We propose these definitions to clarify 
expectations for eligible entities applying for SE Grants, Developer 
Grants, and CMO Grants, and to ensure that the review process for 
applications for such grants is as transparent as possible.
    Proposed Definitions Applicable to SE Grants, CMO Grants, and 
Developer Grants:
    Community assets means resources that can be identified and 
mobilized to improve conditions in the charter school and community. 
These assets may include--
    (1) Human assets, including capacities, skills, knowledge base, and 
abilities of individuals within a community;
    (2) Social assets, including networks, organizations, businesses, 
and institutions that exist among and within groups and communities; 
and
    (3) Political assets, such as a group's ability to influence the 
distribution of resources, financial and otherwise.
    Disconnected youth means an individual, between the ages 14 and 24, 
who may be from a low-income background, experiences homelessness, is 
in foster care, is involved in the justice system, or is not working or 
not enrolled in (or at risk of dropping out of) an educational 
institution.
    Educator means an individual who is an early learning educator, 
teacher, principal or other school leader, specialized instructional 
support personnel (e.g., school psychologist, counselor, school social 
worker, early intervention service personnel), paraprofessional, or 
faculty.
    Underserved student means a student in one or more of the following 
subgroups:
    (a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with 
high concentrations of students living in poverty.
    (b) A student of color.
    (c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian 
Tribe.
    (d) An English learner (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA).
    (e) A child or student with a disability (as defined in section 
8101 of the ESEA).
    (f) A disconnected youth.
    (g) A migrant student.
    (h) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.
    (i) A student who is in foster care.
    (j) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.
    (k) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly 
incarcerated student.
    (l) A student performing significantly below grade level.
    Proposed Definition Applicable to SE Grants:
    Background: In addition to the proposed definitions for SE Grants, 
CMO Grants, and Developer Grants, we propose the following definition 
for CSP SE Grants only. We may apply this definition in any year in 
which a competition for new awards is held under the SE Grant program.
    We are proposing to adopt the definition of ``educationally 
disadvantaged student'' established in the CMO NFP and Developer NFP 
for use in the CSP SE Grants program. The proposed definition for 
``educationally disadvantaged student'' is based on section 1115(c)(2) 
of the ESEA.
    Proposed Definition:
    Educationally disadvantaged student means a student in one or more 
of the categories described in section 1115(c)(2) of the ESEA, which 
include children who are economically disadvantaged, children with 
disabilities, migrant students, English learners, neglected or 
delinquent students, homeless students, and students who are in foster 
care.

Proposed Selection Criteria

    Background: We propose selection criteria that align with the 
proposed requirements and assurances, identify for peer reviewers the 
factors considered to be essential to conducting a high-quality peer 
review, and are designed to aid in identifying the applicants most 
likely to succeed with implementing high-quality charter schools that 
are driven by the needs of families and their communities. These 
selection criteria would be used in addition to selection criteria in 
sections 4303(g)(1) and 4305(b)(4) of the ESEA, the CMO NFP, the 
Developer NFP, and 34 CFR 75.210, as appropriate. We may apply one or 
more of these proposed selection criteria to applicable grant 
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years. In the notices 
inviting applications we will announce the maximum possible points 
assigned to each criterion.
    Proposed Selection Criteria for CMO Grants and Developer Grants:
    (a) Quality of the Community Impact Analysis. The Secretary 
considers the quality of the community impact analysis for the proposed 
project. In determining the quality of the community impact analysis, 
the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the community impact analysis demonstrates 
that the proposed charter school will address the needs of all students 
and families in the community, including underserved students; will 
ensure equitable access to diverse learning opportunities; and will not 
otherwise increase racial or socio-economic segregation or isolation in 
the schools from which the students are, or would be, drawn to attend 
the charter school.
    (2) The extent to which the community impact analysis demonstrates 
that the proposed charter school has considered and mitigated, whenever 
possible, potential barriers to application, enrollment, and retention 
of students and families from diverse backgrounds.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed charter school is supported by 
families and the community, including the extent to which parents and 
other members of the community were engaged in determining the need and 
vision for the school and will continue to be engaged on an ongoing 
basis in school decision-making, including the academic, financial, 
organizational, and operational performance of the charter school.
    (b) Quality of the Charter School's Management Plan. The Secretary

[[Page 14208]]

considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. 
In determining the quality of the management plan, the Secretary 
considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The adequacy of the applicant's plan to maintain control over 
all CSP grant funds.
    (2) The adequacy of the applicant's plan to make all programmatic 
decisions.
    (3) The adequacy of the applicant's plan to administer or supervise 
the administration of the grant and maintain significant management or 
oversight responsibilities over the grant.
    Proposed Selection Criterion for SE Grants:
    (a) Quality of the Project Design. The Secretary considers the 
quality of the project design for the proposed project. In determining 
the quality of the project design for the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the quality of the SE's process for awarding 
subgrants, including--
    (1) The extent to which the number of subgrant awards anticipated 
for each grant project year is supported by evidence of demand and 
need; and
    (2) The extent to which the proposed average subgrant award amount 
is supported by evidence of the need of applicants.
    Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria:
    We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria in a document in the Federal Register. We will 
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria after considering responses to this document and 
other information available to the Department. This document does not 
preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, 
definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable 
rulemaking requirements.

    Note:  This document does not solicit applications. In any year 
in which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that 
would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the 
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the 
principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    We believe that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any 
associated costs, which we believe would generally be minimal. While 
this action would impose cost-bearing application requirements on 
participating SE Grant, Developer Grant, and CMO Grant applicants and 
on SE subgrant applicants, we expect that applicants would include 
requests for funds to cover such costs in their proposed project 
budgets. We believe this regulatory action would strengthen 
accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that 
CSP grants and subgrants are awarded to the entities that are most 
capable of expanding the number of high-quality charter schools 
available to our Nation's students.
    We estimate costs associated with information collection 
requirements in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this document.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections 
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: the public 
understands the Department's collection instructions,

[[Page 14209]]

respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, 
reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, 
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can 
properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.
    The proposed application requirements and selection criteria 
relating to a community impact analysis, management contracts, and 
management plans contain information collection requirements. The 
Department is requesting paperwork clearance on the OMB 1810-NEW data 
collection associated with these proposed application requirements and 
selection criteria. That request will account for all burden hours and 
costs discussed within this section. Under the PRA, the Department has 
submitted these requirements to OMB for its review.
    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the 
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection 
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    In the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria we will display the control numbers assigned by OMB 
to any information collection requirements proposed in this NPP and 
adopted in the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria.
    For the years that the Department holds SE Grant, CMO Grant, and 
Developer Grant competitions and that SEs hold subgrant competitions, 
we estimate that 365 applicants will apply and submit an application. 
We estimate that it will take each applicant 60 hours to complete and 
submit the application, including time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The 
total burden hour estimate for this collection is 21,900 hours. At 
$97.28 per hour (using mean wages for Education and Childcare 
Administrators \13\ and assuming the total cost of labor, including 
benefits and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the mean wage rate), 
the total estimated cost for 365 applicants to complete a SE grant 
application, CMO grant application, Developer grant application, or SE 
subgrant application is approximately $2,130,432.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the Department is soliciting 
comments on the information collection through this document. Between 
30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register, OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections 
of information contained in these proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria. Therefore, to ensure that OMB 
gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB 
receives your comments on these Information Collection Requests by 
April 13, 2022. Comments related to the information collection 
requirements for these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria must be submitted electronically through the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov by selecting the 
Docket ID number ED-2022-OESE-0006 or via postal mail, commercial 
delivery, or hand delivery by referencing the docket ID number and the 
title of the information collection request at the top of your comment. 
Comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to 
the PRA Coordinator of the Strategic Collections and Clearance 
Governance and Strategy Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 
Maryland Ave. SW, LBJ, Room 6W208D, Washington, DC 20202-8240.
    Note: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB and 
the Department review all comments related to the information 
collections requirements posted at www.regulations.gov.

Collection of Information

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Estimated                           Total        Estimated cost
       Information collection activity           number of        Hours per        estimated       at an hourly
                                                 responses         response       burden hours    rate of $97.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application.................................             365               60           21,900       $2,130,432
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We consider your comments on these proposed collections of 
information in--
    <bullet> Deciding whether the proposed collections are necessary 
for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the 
information will have practical use;
    <bullet> Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collections, including the validity of our methodology and 
assumptions;
    <bullet> Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information we collect; and
    <bullet> Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This 
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification:
    The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define 
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently 
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and 
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are 
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated 
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are 
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government 
overseeing a population below 50,000.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are charter schools, including charter schools that operate as 
LEAs under State law; and public or private nonprofit organizations. We 
believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the proposed 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would be 
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and 
that the benefits of these proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria would outweigh any costs incurred 
by the applicant.
    Participation in the CSP is voluntary. For this reason, the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for 
funding under the program. We expect

[[Page 14210]]

that in determining whether to apply for CSP funds, an eligible entity 
would evaluate the requirements of preparing an application and any 
associated costs and weigh them against the benefits likely to be 
achieved by receiving CSP grant. An eligible entity will probably apply 
only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of 
preparing an application.
    The proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria would impose some additional burden on a small entity applying 
for a grant relative to the burden the entity would face in the absence 
of the proposed action.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it 
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided 
under this program. We invite comments from small entities as to 
whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a 
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to 
support that belief.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or another accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or 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.

Ruth E. Ryder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2022-05463 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>