40406 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1Section 4310(5) and (6) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 

7221i(5) and (6)) (www.congress.gov/114/plaws/ 

publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf). 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2022–OESE–0006] 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Expanding Opportunity Through 

Quality Charter Schools Program 

(CSP)—Grants to State Entities (State 

Entity Grants); Grants to Charter 

Management Organizations for the 

Replication and Expansion of HighQuality Charter Schools (CMO Grants); 

and Grants to Charter School 

Developers for the Opening of New 

Charter Schools and for the 

Replication and Expansion of HighQuality Charter Schools (Developer 

Grants) 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department or ED) announces 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for CSP State Entity 

Grants, Developer Grants, and CMO 

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. 

DATES: These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

effective August 5, 2022. 

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: charterschools@ed.gov. 

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability and wish to 

access telecommunications relay 

services, please dial 7–1–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

aimed at ensuring that all students have 

access to excellent schools that deliver 

the highest quality education. We take 

this action to ensure that Federal CSP 

funds support the creation, replication, 

and expansion of high-quality charter 

schools that promote positive student 

outcomes, educator and community 

empowerment, and promising practices; 

and to promote school diversity. We 

also seek to promote greater fiscal and 

operational transparency and 

accountability for CSP-funded charter 

schools. We believe the policies and 

strategies reflected in this regulatory 

action can serve as a model for all 

charter schools. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: Through this 

regulatory action, we establish two 

priorities, three application 

requirements, and two selection criteria 

for CMO Grants and Developer Grants; 

six application requirements and one 

selection criterion for State Entity 

Grants; and several assurances, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

applicable to CSP State Entity Grants, 

CMO Grants, and Developer Grants. 

These final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

supplement the provisions in Title IV, 

Part C of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended by 

the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA); 

and the 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 HighQuality Charter Schools (Developer 

NFP), published in the Federal Register 

on July 3, 2019 (84 FR 31726). 

Costs and Benefits: In accordance 

with Executive Order 12866, 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 the benefits of this 

regulatory action outweigh any 

associated implementation costs for 

State Entity Grant applicants and 

subgrant applicants, CMO Grant 

applicants, and Developer Grant 

applicants. We also believe this 

regulatory action will strengthen 

accountability for the use of Federal 

funds in the CSP by helping to ensure 

that CSP grants and subgrants are 

awarded to those entities most capable 

of successfully implementing their 

proposed projects and meeting the 

needs of the students and families they 

serve. 

Purposes of Programs: State Entity 

Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer 

Grants 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 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. 

State Entity Grants (ALN 84.282A) 

comprise the largest portion of CSP 

funds. These competitive grants are 

awarded to State entities (SEs) that, in 

turn, award subgrants to eligible 

applicants on a competitive basis for the 

purpose of opening and preparing for 

the operation of new charter schools 

and replicated high-quality charter 

schools 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 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. 

In addition to awarding subgrants to 

eligible applicants to enable them to 

open new charter schools and to 

replicate or expand high-quality charter 

schools, State entity grantees may use 

grant funds to provide technical 

assistance to eligible applicants and 

authorized public chartering agencies in 

opening and preparing for the operation 

of new charter schools and replicated 

high-quality charter schools, and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40407 

expanding high-quality charter schools; 

and to 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. State 

entities may also use up to 3 percent of 

grant funds for 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 

State Entity 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 and prepare for the 

operation of new charter schools and 

replicated high-quality charter schools, 

or to expand high-quality charter 

schools. 

Through CMO Grants (ALN 84.282M), 

the Department provides funds to 

nonprofit charter management 

organizations (CMOs) on a competitive 

basis to enable them to replicate or 

expand one or more high-quality charter 

schools. 

CSP State Entity Grants, Developer 

Grants, and CMO Grants are intended to 

support charter schools that serve 

elementary or secondary school 

students. Funds may also be used to 

serve students in early childhood 

education programs or postsecondary 

education programs. 

Section 4310 of the ESEA defines 

‘‘replicate’’ as opening a new charter 

school, or a new campus of a highquality charter school, based on the 

educational model of an existing highquality charter school; and ‘‘expand’’ as 

significantly increasing enrollment or 

adding one or more grades to a highquality 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)). 

Program Authority: Title IV, part C of 

the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221–7221j). 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for CSP State Entity 

Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer 

Grants in the Federal Register on March 

14, 2022 (NPP) (87 FR 14197). That 

document contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the particular priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. We also published an extension 

notice in the Federal Register on April 

12, 2022 (87 FR 21644), extending the 

deadline for interested parties to submit 

public comments on the NPP from April 

13, 2022, to April 18, 2022. 

There are important differences 

between the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria and the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria established in this NFP, as 

discussed in the Analysis of Comments 

and Changes section in this document. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 26,586 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. A large proportion of 

those comments appear to have been 

part of organized letter-writing 

campaigns and addressed the same 

issues and concerns. Approximately 

5,770 of the total comments received 

were unique comments. These 

comments also raised similar issues 

either in support of, or expressing 

concerns about, the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. We discuss other substantive 

issues under the title of the item to 

which they pertain. Generally, we do 

not address technical and other minor 

changes. In addition, we do not address 

general comments that raised concerns 

not directly related to any of the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, or selection criteria in the 

NPP. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and 

changes in the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria since 

publication of the NPP follows. 

General Comments 

Comments: A majority of commenters 

expressed general support for the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. Many 

of these commenters, however, but also 

recommended that the Department 

modify some of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria to strengthen their purpose and 

intent and to clarify the language. 

One commenter who expressed 

general support for the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, for example, stated 

that the Department should address 

teacher licensure requirements in 

charter schools. The commenter noted 

that some teachers in charter schools do 

not have appropriate State teaching 

licenses or credentials, despite 

extensive research indicating that highly 

qualified educators improve student 

achievement. The commenter 

encouraged the Department to issue 

regulations under the ESEA to reduce 

the reliance on what the commenter 

described as unqualified teachers in 

charter schools, which the commenter 

argued adversely impacts student 

achievement, undermines the teaching 

profession, and hinders union 

organization efforts in charter schools. 

Another commenter stated that the 

proposed actions are a positive 

development for America’s children 

and, if fully implemented, will advance 

equity and help restore charter schools 

to their original purpose by integrating 

them into the broader education 

community. This commenter also 

suggested that we require applicants to 

certify that they will remain neutral in 

any union organizing effort for the term 

of the grant award, noting that charterdistrict collaborations can benefit when 

charter school and district teachers 

belong to the same union. 

Discussion: We agree with the vast 

majority of commenters that these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will improve the 

overall quality of CSP-funded charter 

schools. We agree with the commenter 

that research shows that highly 

qualified educators improve student 

achievement and that all students 

should be taught by teachers who are 

fully certified in the area they are 

assigned to teach. As a general matter, 

however, State law governs the 

licensure and credentialing 

requirements for teachers in public 

schools, including public charter 

schools. Therefore, the Department 

believes the issue of teacher licensure 

should be addressed at the State level. 

Additionally, while we acknowledge 

that teacher unions can play an 

important role in charter schools as well 

as traditional public schools, we believe 

the issue of union organizing is outside 

the scope of this regulatory action. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: With respect to the peer 

review of CSP grants and subgrants, one 

commenter recommended that review 

teams include at least one reviewer 

representative of the district public 

school community. This commenter 

also recommended that a minimum 

point threshold be established for an 

award, and that applications be checked 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40408 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

2WestED, Data Collection Form, 2012. 

for factual accuracy and posted for 

public review and comment for a period 

of no less than 45 days before award 

decisions are made. 

Discussion: The Department considers 

a number of factors when selecting peer 

reviewers, including their knowledge 

and experience relevant to the 

competition for which they are 

reviewing applications, and any 

possible conflicts of interest that might 

affect their ability to be objective when 

reviewing grant applications. While 

some peer review panels may include 

district employees, it would be 

impractical, and possibly impede timely 

grant award decisions, to require each 

peer review team to include one 

representative from any particular 

school district community. In an effort 

to expand our peer reviewer pool, 

increase peer reviewer diversity, and 

ensure that grant applications are 

evaluated by individuals with up-todate and relevant knowledge in a variety 

of learning settings, we published a 

notice in the Federal Register on May 

20, 2022, inviting interested persons to 

apply to serve as peer reviewers for 

upcoming grant competitions in the 

Department’s Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, and Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services. A link to this notice in the 

Federal Register can be found here: 

https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2022/05/20/2022-10834/ 

peer-review-opportunities-with-the-usdepartment-of-educations-office-ofelementary-and-secondary. 

Further, while the Department checks 

all applications for accuracy prior to 

making a grant award, we believe it 

would be impractical and lead to 

unnecessary delays to require 

applications to be posted for at least 45 

days before award decisions are made. 

Currently, the Department posts on the 

CSP website copies of all CSP 

applications that are approved for 

funding as well as their overall scores 

and peer reviewers’ comments. Even 

after an award is made, projects must 

continue to meet program requirements 

and can be subject to administrative 

actions, including possible termination, 

if they do not comply with applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

and the terms of the approved 

application. 

Although State entity grantees must 

award subgrants on a competitive basis, 

State entity grantees generally establish 

their own procedures for reviewing 

subgrant applications, consistent with 

the program statute and applicable 

regulations. With respect to grants 

awarded by the Department, we believe 

it would be impractical to establish a 

minimum funding threshold, as such 

decisions are driven by several factors 

(e.g., total amount of funds available, 

number of applications received, overall 

quality of the applications received) that 

may vary from one competition to the 

next. We are confident that the statutory 

requirements concerning the peer 

review of CSP grants and subgrants, the 

notice we published in the Federal 

Register on May 20, 2022, and the 

actions taken in this NFP combined will 

lead to further improvements in the 

quality of our peer review processes. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed concern that the proposed 

regulations empower Federal and State 

peer reviewers to question decisions 

that are central to the charter school 

authorizing process, such as whether 

there is sufficient demand for a school 

to be financially viable. These 

commenters contend that charter school 

authorizers are best positioned to 

determine whether requirements under 

State law have been met and evaluate 

the data and analyses that applicants are 

required to produce. These commenters 

recommended that we remove the 

community impact analysis 

requirement. 

Discussion: We understand that the 

charter school authorizing process is 

governed by State law and agree with 

the commenters that charter school 

authorizers are better positioned than 

the Department to determine whether a 

particular proposed charter school 

meets State law requirements. On the 

other hand, the Department is 

responsible for administering the CSP 

and ensuring that CSP funds are used 

properly to support the highest quality 

applications that have the greatest 

likelihood of success. Given that peer 

reviews inform funding decisions 

involving the award of more than $400 

million annually under the CSP, we 

believe it is necessary for peer reviewers 

to have access to as much information 

as possible in order to assess the 

viability of proposed charter schools. 

This peer review process is not merely 

an academic exercise; since 2001, seven 

years after the CSP was first authorized 

in 1994, approximately 930 CSP-funded 

charter schools and proposed charter 

schools (approximately 14.5 percent) 

either never opened or closed prior to 

the end of the grant period. These 

charter school closures and failures to 

open cost more than $174 million in 

Federal resources provided through 

CSP; are disruptive for communities, 

particularly for students and families 

directly affected by school closures; and 

potentially undermine the effectiveness 

of charter schools.2 Moreover, assessing 

the need for Federal funding, including 

in the context of how well a particular 

proposal addresses local needs, is a 

standard consideration for peer 

reviewers in many Department 

discretionary grant programs, such as 

‘‘Promise Neighborhoods’’ and ‘‘FullService Community Schools.’’ 

Changes: See the discussion of 

changes we have made to the 

requirements related to a community 

impact analysis, including changing this 

requirement to a ‘‘needs analysis’’ to 

align with other Department programs, 

under the Requirements Applicable to 

CMO Grants and Developer Grants, 

Requirement 1 section of this Analysis 

of Comments and Changes. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed concern about specific charter 

school practices that may exclude 

certain students from charter schools. A 

few commenters stated that charter 

schools should be required to disclose 

information about their student 

application, selection, turnover, 

backfilling, and disciplinary practices. 

One commenter stated that applicants 

should certify that application materials 

are available in all languages spoken in 

the community, that charter schools do 

not cap for admission the number of 

students with disabilities (or students 

with a particular type of disability), and 

that charter schools do not charge an 

application fee. The commenter further 

recommended that we require 

applicants that currently operate charter 

schools to disclose annual student 

turnover figures for the past 5 years and 

whether they use admissions tests, 

consider students’ past academic or 

behavioral issues during admissions, 

and backfill student vacancies created 

as a result of withdrawals or expulsions 

during the school year. The commenter 

added that applicants should also be 

required to disclose how they have 

recruited students from diverse 

populations within their communities. 

Discussion: We agree that 

transparency regarding student 

recruitment and enrollment practices of 

charter schools is important, including 

ensuring that charter schools implement 

enrollment practices that attract 

students from all different backgrounds. 

Accordingly, under the Final 

Application Requirements, 

Requirements Applicable to CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants, 

Requirement 1 and Requirements 

Applicable to State Entity Grants, 

Requirement 1, grant and subgrant 

applicants must conduct a needs 

analysis that addresses the need for the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40409 

project and includes a robust family and 

community engagement plan that, 

among other things, describes how the 

charter school’s recruitment, 

enrollment, and retention processes will 

engage and accommodate families from 

various backgrounds. As part of the 

needs analysis, applicants must include 

details about the school’s common 

enrollment and retention practices that 

include, as part of the enrollment 

process, how it will disclose to families 

and community members policies or 

requirements (e.g., discipline policies, 

purchasing and wearing specific 

uniforms and other fees, or 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). Accordingly, we 

believe the needs analysis requirement 

is sufficient to obtain information from 

applicants necessary to address the 

commenters’ concerns, without being 

overly burdensome. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed general concern about how 

CSP funding is allocated to charter 

schools and recommended ways to 

strengthen accountability and oversight 

of the grants. For example, one 

commenter noted that the CSP 

authorizing statute has a provision that 

prohibits a State from having more than 

one active State Entity Grant at a time 

and suggested that the Department 

impose a similar restriction under the 

CMO Grant program. The commenter 

further suggested that the Department 

should not award a grant to any charter 

management organization with an active 

CMO Grant that exceeds $25 million, 

citing the potential misuse of grant 

funds by grantees as an example of why 

such a provision is needed. Two other 

commenters recommended that the 

Department require a forensic audit for 

any charter school applying for CSP 

funding. These commenters also stated 

that charter schools that do not operate 

as classroom-based entities or that are 

operated by for-profit entities should be 

barred from receiving CSP funds. 

Another commenter requested that we 

require all federally funded charter 

schools and charter school authorizers 

to comply with State freedom of 

information and open meetings laws. 

Discussion: We agree that 

transparency and accountability 

regarding the use of Federal funds are 

important and believe these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria will enhance transparency and 

accountability under the CSP. With 

respect to the State Entity Grant 

program, the commenter is correct that 

the CSP statute prohibits the 

Department from awarding a grant to a 

State entity in a State where there is 

already an active State Entity Grant. The 

commenter also is correct that the CSP 

statute does not impose a restriction on 

the number of CMO Grants that can be 

awarded in a specific State. Where there 

is interest from multiple State entities 

within a State to apply for a State Entity 

Grant and be responsible for awarding 

subgrants to eligible applicants, we 

believe the statutory limit of one active 

State Entity Grant per State can help 

encourage partnerships and, thereby, 

eliminate the need for State entities to 

compete against each other for a limited 

pool of prospective high-quality charter 

school subgrantees. This context does 

not exist for the CMO Grant program, as 

CMO grantees generally manage the 

charter schools that they fund and do 

not fund their charter schools through 

subgrants. Likewise, while we 

appreciate the commenter’s concerns 

about the possible misuse of CSP funds, 

we believe that imposing a blanket 

prohibition against CMOs with active 

CMO grants that exceed $25 million 

from receiving new CMO Grants would 

be counter-productive. For instance, 

large CMOs that manage multiple highquality charter schools and have 

demonstrated that they have the 

capacity and resources to administer 

their CMO grant effectively and 

efficiently could be prevented from 

receiving the funds they need to 

implement their projects successfully. 

Furthermore, prior to awarding a grant 

to any entity—particularly, an entity 

that has an existing grant—the 

Department takes appropriate steps to 

mitigate the risk of program funds being 

misspent, including conducting a risk 

analysis and ensuring that the applicant 

is in compliance with all program 

requirements and has the capacity and 

resources to administer the grant 

effectively and efficiently. 

Regarding State freedom of 

information and open meetings laws, 

under the CSP statute, applicants for 

State Entity Grants are required to 

describe how charter schools are 

addressed in the open meetings and 

open records laws in their State. In 

addition, this NFP requires applicants 

for Developer Grants to hold or 

participate in a public hearing to obtain 

information and feedback on the impact 

of the proposed project and, in the case 

of an applicant for a State Entity Grant 

or CMO Grant, each charter school that 

it funds must hold or participate in such 

a hearing. We do not address State 

freedom of information laws in these 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

because that issue is outside the scope 

of this regulatory action. Further, 

Assurance (c) of the Final Assurances, 

Assurances Applicable to State Entity 

Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer 

Grants requires applicants to provide an 

assurance that they will post on their 

websites information regarding any 

management contract between the 

charter school and a for-profit 

management organization, and the Final 

Assurance Applicable to State Entity 

Grants and CMO Grants requires 

applicants to post on their websites 

information regarding the charter 

schools slated to receive CSP funds. 

Regarding comments that charter 

schools that do not operate as 

classroom-based entities should be 

barred from receiving CSP funds, we 

presume that the commenters were 

referring to virtual charter schools. 

Although the CSP statute does not 

specifically prohibit virtual charter 

schools from receiving CSP funds, the 

Department typically awards direct 

grants to ‘‘brick and mortar’’ charter 

schools and not to virtual charter 

schools. Because virtual charter schools 

in a few states may have received CSP 

funds indirectly through State 

educational agency (SEA) or State entity 

grantees, however, the Department has 

issued nonregulatory guidance to ensure 

that SEA and State entity grantees 

understand the inherent risks associated 

with the use of CSP funds by virtual 

charter schools and implement 

appropriate safeguards to mitigate the 

risks, particularly in the areas of student 

attendance and assessments. Finally, 

for-profit entities are ineligible to 

receive direct grants or subgrants under 

the CSP, although CSP grantees and 

subgrantees may enter into contracts 

with for-profit entities for the provision 

of goods and services. A grantee or 

subgrantee that enters into a contract for 

goods or services with any entity, 

including a for-profit management 

organization, must comply with the 

Federal procurement standards at 2 CFR 

200.317–200.327, and applicable 

conflict of interest requirements. 

Further, Requirement 2 applicable to 

CMO Grants and Developer Grants and 

Requirement 2 applicable to State Entity 

Grants in the Final Application 

Requirements section of this notice 

require CSP grantees and subgrantees to 

provide detailed information about any 

management contracts they enter with 

for-profit management organizations, 

and Assurances (a) and (b) applicable to 

State Entity Grants, CMO Grants, and 

Developer Grants in the Final 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40410 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Assurances section of this notice require 

applicants to provide assurances that 

they will not relinquish full or 

substantial administrative control of 

their CSP grants or subgrants to a forprofit management organization and 

that any management contract with a 

for-profit management organization will 

contain specific provisions to mitigate 

the risks associated with such contracts. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Numerous commenters 

strongly recommended the continued 

use of the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

established in the CMO NFP published 

in the Federal Register on November 30, 

2018 (83 FR 61532), and the Developer 

NFP published in the Federal Register 

on July 3, 2019 (84 FR 31726). These 

commenters stated that these 

regulations are critical to the success of 

charter schools and the inclusion of all 

students in charter schools. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria established in the 

CMO NFP and Developer NFP should 

remain available for use in future 

competitions. Accordingly, as stated in 

the Executive Summary section of this 

notice and in the NPP, these regulations 

supplement, and do not supersede, the 

CMO NFP and the Developer NFP. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Some commenters 

requested that the Department delay 

publishing the NFP or withdraw the 

actions proposed in the NPP to allow 

additional time for the Department to 

engage in meaningful discussions with 

the charter school community about the 

proposed changes to the programs. 

Discussion: The Department received 

recommendations prior to the 

publication of the notice from numerous 

organizations and provided a public 

comment period to support further 

engagement with the field. As 

demonstrated by the significant number 

of comments, the Department has had 

the opportunity to hear directly from 

those who would be most impacted by 

this regulatory action. The Department 

carefully reviewed each of these 

comments. As stated in the Purpose of 

Regulatory Action section of this notice, 

we believe these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are critical to ensuring that CSP 

funds support the creation, replication, 

and expansion of high-quality charter 

schools that are fiscally and 

operationally transparent and 

accountable. Given the Biden-Harris 

Administration’s commitment to 

ensuring that all students attending 

charter schools have access to a highquality education, we decline to delay 

publishing the NFP or to withdraw the 

NPP. 

Changes: None. 

Priorities Applicable to CMO Grants 

and Developer Grants 

Priority 1—Promoting High-Quality 

Educator- and Community-Centered 

Charter Schools To Support 

Underserved Students 

Comments: A number of commenters 

expressed support for Priority 1 and its 

focus on creating community-centered 

charter schools and consideration of 

community assets. One commenter 

stated that there is value in having 

parents, educators, and community 

members take an active role in the 

creation and governance of charter 

schools, but recommended making the 

priority a competitive preference 

priority rather than an absolute priority. 

The commenter also recommended 

broadening the parameters for educator 

involvement and removing the 

requirement for a timetable with 

milestones to reflect that a communitycentered approach should be an ongoing 

effort. 

Discussion: We agree that community 

involvement in the creation and 

governance of charter schools should be 

considered a best practice and increases 

the likelihood of a charter school’s 

success. The priority is not intended to 

limit the ways educators can be 

involved in the development of highquality charter school models, and we 

are revising the priority to clarify this. 

We also are removing the requirement 

for a ‘‘timetable with milestones’’ to 

clarify that we do not believe efforts to 

engage the community should have an 

end date. Rather, we seek a timeline for 

the applicant’s plans to implement key 

activities under the priority. Further, 

when establishing a priority for use in 

a program, we generally do not identify 

the priority as absolute, competitive 

preference or invitational, to allow the 

Department flexibility to determine how 

the priority should be used in any future 

competition. 

Changes: In paragraph (a)(1) of 

Priority 1, we clarified that applicants 

may propose educator involvement in 

activities other than the enumerated 

activities. Additionally, in paragraph 

(b), we revised the requirement to 

require applicants to provide a timeline 

to clarify that while there should be 

milestones, a grantee’s community 

engagement efforts and communitycentered approach should be ongoing. 

We also made corresponding changes to 

the language in Requirement 6 

applicable to State Entity Grants to align 

with the changes to paragraph (a)(1) of 

Priority 1. 

Priority 2—Charter School and 

Traditional Public School or District 

Collaborations That Benefit Students 

and Families 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed support for Priority 2 given 

its goal to foster greater collaboration 

between traditional public schools and 

public charter schools. One commenter 

stated that it is important for 

organizations and stakeholders, 

particularly those responsible for 

ensuring school quality, to listen and 

learn from one another to develop 

improved practices for implementing 

community-responsive schooling. While 

supportive of the priority, the 

commenter recommended making 

Priority 2 an invitational priority as 

opposed to a competitive preference 

priority, noting that the proposed 

priority might discourage applications 

from charter schools that are not able to 

engage in such collaborations, such as 

rural charter schools. 

Another commenter expressed 

support for Priority 2 but requested that 

we require all applicants to certify that 

they will not use nondisclosure 

agreements or noncompete agreements 

at their schools and will void any such 

existing agreements during the grant 

period. The commenter asserted that 

nondisclosure agreements and 

noncompete agreements create barriers 

to fostering charter-district 

collaborations because such agreements 

prohibit teachers in charter schools from 

taking jobs in traditional public schools 

for a fixed period of time or within a 

specific geographic area that is close to 

the charter school following the 

termination of employment. 

Several commenters recommended 

making the priority less prescriptive by 

allowing applicants to determine the 

nature of their collaborations with 

traditional school districts rather than 

including a menu of activities. These 

commenters also recommended 

allowing applicants to provide evidence 

of an existing collaboration or an intent 

to collaborate with a traditional school 

district if such collaboration is not 

already underway. Another commenter 

suggested that the Department add 

services to meet the needs of students 

with disabilities and English learners to 

the list of services on which the 

applicant may propose to collaborate 

with a traditional public school or 

school district. 

One commenter recommended that 

we require grantees to provide evidence 

of the collaboration within 180 days of 

receiving a CSP grant award. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40411 

3See e.g., Putting Students First: Profiles of 

District-Charter Collaborations in the District of 

Columbia and Massachusetts, Mid-Atlantic 

Comprehensive Center, WestEd, Putting Students 

First: Profiles of District-Charter Collaboration in 

the District of Columbia and Massachusetts 

(wested.org), 2019; Passing Notes: Learning from 

Efforts to Share Instructional Practices Across 

District-Charter Lines, CRPE, Passing Notes: 

Learning from Efforts to Share Instructional 

Practices Across District-Charter Lines—Center on 

Reinventing Public Education (crpe.org), February 

2018. 

4 DC Public School and DC Public Charter School 

Collaboration, EdSight, EdSight Cross Sector 

Collaboration FINAL.pdf (dc.gov), October 2019. 

5 Improving Outcomes for Students with 

Disabilities: Negotiating Common Ground for 

District and Charter School Collaboration, Center 

for American Progress, Improving Outcomes for 

Students with Disabilities—Center for American 

Progress, January 2017. 

6A Secondary Analysis of the Most Recent Civil 

Rights Data Collection to Inform Policy and 

Practice, Center for Learner Equity, A Secondary 

Analysis of the Most Recent Civil Rights Data 

Collection to Inform Policy and Practice—The 

Center for Learner Equity, November 2021. 

A relatively large number of 

commenters opposed this priority for 

varying reasons. Some commenters 

noted that while they are generally 

supportive of school collaborations and 

the sharing of best practices between 

charter schools and traditional public 

schools, they are skeptical that this 

priority will lead to true partnerships 

between charter schools and traditional 

public schools and school districts 

because of the tensions that exist 

between charter schools and traditional 

public schools in some communities. 

Other commenters expressed concern 

that many eligible applicants may be 

blocked from receiving funding and 

opening new charter schools and, thus, 

may be discouraged from applying for a 

grant or subgrant if traditional public 

schools and school districts are 

unwilling to partner with charter 

schools; these commenters argued that 

traditional school districts often resist 

attempts to foster cooperation and 

collaboration with charter schools. One 

commenter stated that this priority has 

the potential to give traditional school 

districts additional leverage to reject the 

creation of new charter schools if the 

priority is implemented as an absolute 

priority or competitive preference 

priority. 

Another commenter stated that 

requiring the district to sign a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

could be labor-intensive, with 

significant legal fees, and noted that a 

newly elected school board could 

revoke the MOU in a subsequent year. 

Other commenters stated that 

requiring State entities to give priority 

to eligible applicants that propose 

charter-district collaborations would 

diminish the role of states in the 

development and administration of their 

charter school programs by forcing 

states to re-orient grant-awarding 

priorities in their subgrant application 

process for peer review. 

Discussion: We agree that charter 

schools and traditional public schools 

and school districts should listen and 

learn from one another to develop 

improved practices for implementing 

programs and services that are 

responsive to student, family, and 

community needs, which we believe 

can lead to improved academic 

outcomes for all students. We also agree 

that applicants should have flexibility 

regarding not only whether they 

respond to the priority, but also, how 

they respond to this priority, 

particularly if they have an existing 

collaboration with a traditional public 

school or school district. Likewise, we 

recognize that significant benefit could 

derive from collaborations between 

character schools and traditional public 

schools or school districts (also referred 

to as ‘‘charter-traditional collaborations’’ 

in this notice) focused on supporting 

students with disabilities and English 

learners. In response to these comments, 

we have revised the priority to clarify 

that applicants have flexibility to choose 

the collaborations they propose, 

modified elements of the description of 

the collaboration to reflect that 

collaborations may be proposed or 

existing, and added collaborations 

focused on serving students with 

disabilities and English learners to the 

list of examples of collaborations that 

applicants may choose to propose. We 

also acknowledge that it may take 

significant time for applicants to 

establish such collaborations, and that 

implementing the priority as an absolute 

priority could make it more difficult for 

some charter schools to qualify for CSP 

subgrants. To be clear, the purpose of 

this priority is to encourage, but not 

require, collaborations between charter 

schools and traditional public schools 

or school districts in ways that benefit 

students and families in charter schools 

and traditional public schools. Some of 

the most successful charter school 

networks have collaborated with 

traditional public schools and school 

districts, and there is evidence that 

these types of collaborations can 

improve the quality of educational 

opportunities and outcomes for students 

in charter schools and traditional public 

schools, including by sharing 

instructional materials, creating joint 

professional learning opportunities, 

developing principal pipeline programs, 

and more.3

For example, an analysis of 

collaborations between charter schools 

and traditional public schools in the 

District of Columbia identified over 60 

examples of how charter schools and 

traditional public schools were able to 

partner in mutually beneficial ways.4

These collaborations included shared 

professional development, scaling 

innovative practices, and research 

development. A similar collaboration 

exists in Boston, Massachusetts, where 

a compact among traditional public 

schools, charter schools, and Catholic 

schools was created to coordinate and 

share best practices. 

Perhaps more importantly, these types 

of partnerships can help improve 

services and supports for educationally 

disadvantaged students, including 

students with disabilities and English 

learners, enrolled in charter schools. For 

example, according to a report by the 

Center for American Progress (CAP),5

developing the expertise to successfully 

serve students with disabilities can be 

particularly challenging for charter 

schools that may not enroll many 

students with low-incidence disabilities 

and who require highly specialized 

services and supports. Collaboration 

with the district can help charter 

schools access expertise that would help 

improve student services and outcomes. 

CAP also published a report with the 

Center for Learner Equity (CLE) that 

profiled examples of districts and 

charter schools pursuing similar 

efforts.6 Such partnerships can provide 

charter schools with additional 

expertise and supports to help meet the 

needs of all students, particularly 

students with disabilities and English 

learners. 

The CAP report also found that these 

partnerships can improve economies of 

scale for small charter school operators, 

as many charter schools are not able to 

access the same pricing for curricula, 

supplies, support services, and 

technology as larger districts and 

networks. This frees up resources for 

charter schools to invest elsewhere in 

their programs to ensure that they are 

meeting the needs of their students. 

We also know that charter schools 

often foster innovation in public 

education, which is a major purpose of 

the CSP. These kinds of partnerships 

can provide opportunities for charter 

schools to share their best practices with 

traditional public schools that can learn 

from these efforts. 

This priority reflects the research on 

how these mutually beneficial 

partnerships can improve educational 

opportunities for students enrolled in 

charter schools as well as traditional 

public schools. We have seen successful 

outcomes for students and communities 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40412 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

when there is collaboration between 

charter schools and traditional public 

schools and hope to encourage more of 

it. Under no circumstances should this 

priority be implemented in a manner 

that creates barriers for eligible 

applicants seeking to obtain approval of 

a charter application or an application 

for CSP funding to support the creation, 

replication, or expansion of a highquality charter school. 

In response to the commenter’s 

concerns about the use of noncompete 

and nondisclosure agreements in charter 

schools, we agree that the use of such 

agreements could impede charterdistrict collaborations to the extent that 

they restrict a teacher’s ability to work 

at, or to share best practices with, 

another public school, and that noncompete agreements undermine the 

ability of all students to have access to 

qualified teachers. The issue of 

noncompete and nondisclosure 

agreements in charter schools, however, 

is outside the scope of this regulatory 

action. Nevertheless, the Department 

will explore options for collecting data 

in this area that might inform future 

activities. 

Finally, while the Department has 

discretion to designate the priority as 

invitational, competitive preference, or 

absolute in any given competition, for 

the reasons noted above, we do not 

intend to use this priority as an absolute 

or competitive preference priority in FY 

2022, and it is unlikely that we would 

use the priority as an absolute priority 

in future years. Therefore, in the FY 

2022 CSP CMO Grant and Developer 

Grant competitions, applicants will not 

be required to collaborate with a 

traditional public school or school 

district to be eligible for funding. 

Further, as discussed below, we have 

revised Priority 2 to clarify the 

Department’s intent and to help ensure 

that this priority is not implemented in 

a manner that would make it more 

difficult for eligible applicants to obtain 

charter approval or to qualify for CSP 

funding. Also, as discussed below, we 

have amended Requirement 6 

applicable to State Entity Grants to 

require State entity applicants to 

describe how they will ‘‘encourage, but 

not require,’’ eligible applicants to 

propose projects that include chartertraditional collaborations. 

We also acknowledge the 

commenter’s concern that requiring the 

district to sign an MOU could be laborintensive and result in significant legal 

fees, only to be revoked at a later date. 

Putting in place an MOU is not required 

in order for applicants to address this 

priority but is one example of the 

various types of information that may be 

provided. Nevertheless, to avoid 

confusion, we have removed the 

reference to an MOU in the priority. In 

addition, as discussed below, we have 

extended the time period within which 

an applicant must provide evidence of 

the existence of a collaboration. Having 

an MOU in place, or having a traditional 

public school or district ‘‘sign off’’ on 

the application, is not a requirement of 

this priority. 

Changes: We changed the name of 

this priority to Collaborations between 

Charter Schools and Traditional Public 

Schools or Districts that Benefit 

Students and Families across Schools. 

In paragraph (a) of Priority 2, we 

clarified that applicants can meet the 

priority not only by proposing a new 

collaboration, but also by proposing to 

continue an existing collaboration. We 

also revised the priority to provide more 

examples of the types of collaborations 

applicants may propose. We also 

clarified, in paragraph (a), that the 

collaboration must be designed to 

benefit students or families served by at 

least one member of the collaboration 

and lead to increased educational 

opportunities and improved academic 

outcomes for students served by at least 

one member of the collaboration. The 

proposed priority referred to improved 

student outcomes and required the 

activity to benefit ‘‘students and 

families served by each member of the 

collaboration.’’ Additionally, in 

paragraph (a)(1), we revised the priority 

to allow applicants to implement, 

among other examples, co-developed or 

shared curricular and instructional 

resources or academic course offerings. 

We moved the example describing 

‘‘policies and practices to create safe, 

supportive, and inclusive learning 

environments’’ to paragraph (a)(4) and 

replaced ‘‘including’’ with ‘‘such as’’ in 

reference to systems of positive 

behavioral intervention and support. We 

also added paragraph (a)(7) to include as 

an example of a charter-traditional 

collaboration any shared special 

education collaborative designed to 

address a significant barrier or challenge 

faced by participating charter schools 

and traditional public schools in 

improving academic and developmental 

outcomes and services for students with 

disabilities. Similarly, we added 

paragraph (a)(8), which allows 

applicants to describe implementation 

of this priority by including details of a 

shared English learner collaborative 

designed to address a significant barrier 

or challenge faced by participating 

charter schools or traditional public 

schools in improving student outcomes 

for English learners. We moved the 

reference to ‘‘other collaborations 

designed to address a significant barrier 

or challenge faced by charter schools 

and traditional public schools’’ to 

paragraph (a)(9), clarified that the 

collaboration must address a significant 

barrier or challenge faced by 

participating schools, and added as an 

example the sharing of innovative and 

best practices. In paragraph (b), we 

modified the priority to require 

applicants to describe the collaboration, 

and in paragraph (b)(1), we deleted the 

requirement to provide evidence of the 

collaboration at the time the application 

is submitted, and added that applicants 

must describe each member of the 

collaboration and indicate whether the 

collaboration would be a new or 

existing commitment. In paragraph 

(b)(3), we removed the requirement to 

identify key staff responsible for 

completing specific tasks and required 

applicants to describe the ‘‘anticipated’’ 

roles and responsibilities of each 

member of the collaboration. Lastly, we 

revised the priority to require applicants 

to provide evidence of the collaboration 

within 120 days of receiving a CSP grant 

or subgrant award, or within 120 days 

of the date the collaboration is 

scheduled to begin, whichever is later; 

and made it clear that an MOU is not 

required. We also made corresponding 

changes in Requirement 6 applicable to 

State Entity Grants to align with the 

changes in Priority 2, and revised 

Requirement 6 to require State entities 

to describe how they will encourage, but 

not require, eligible applicants to 

propose projects that include a new or 

existing collaboration with a traditional 

public school or school district. 

Requirements Applicable to CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants 

Requirement 1 for CMO Grants and 

Developer Grants 

Comments: A number of commenters 

expressed support for the community 

impact analysis requirement, noting 

various reasons why it is needed in the 

CSP. Some commenters suggested that 

low student enrollment in specific 

charter schools is one of the leading 

factors associated with a significant 

number of charter school closures. For 

this reason, these commenters expressed 

strong support for this requirement and 

the idea of bringing greater 

transparency, careful planning, and 

better judgment to the process of 

awarding CSP grants. 

One commenter expressed support for 

this requirement given its intent to 

ensure due diligence in the selection of 

qualified, well-meaning grantees, but 

recommended requiring applicants to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40413 

7 In December 2015, Congress enacted the Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorized 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act 

of 2001 (NCLB). The CSP SEA program was 

originally authorized under NCLB but was replaced 

with the CSP State Entity program under ESSA. 

include demographic information on 

students with disabilities and English 

learners in the community of the 

proposed project, along with an 

assurance that the applicant will 

provide the full range of services that 

meet the needs of such students. This 

commenter also recommended that 

applicants be required to provide a 

fiscal impact report and a signed 

affidavit provided by a district or State 

education department official attesting 

to the accuracy of the information 

provided in the grant application. 

Another commenter noted that this 

requirement is a move in the right 

direction, stating CSP programs have 

long ignored the economic reality of 

charter school growth and how such 

growth impacts the resources available 

to traditional public schools. This same 

commenter recommended that the 

Department require applicants to state, 

as part of the community impact 

analysis, whether a credit rating agency 

has identified charter school growth as 

a credit negative for the districts from 

which the proposed charter school 

intends to draw its students. 

Other commenters expressed strong 

support for the requirement given its 

emphasis on desegregation and 

diversity. One commenter stated that 

one of the most concerning features of 

urban charter schools is their potential 

to accelerate the concentration of the 

poorest and highest need students in the 

traditional public schools from which 

charter schools draw students, and that 

the community impact analysis would 

address this issue. 

Another commenter stated that the 

community impact analysis is necessary 

because charter schools have been 

‘‘magnets for white flight’’ from 

integrated traditional public schools, 

and some charter schools attract highachieving students while discouraging 

students with special needs from 

attending. This commenter noted 

further that the information requested 

by the Department under this 

requirement is reasonable and will help 

peer reviewers make sound decisions. 

Many commenters expressed 

significant concerns about this 

requirement and requested that the 

Department remove it, as they do not 

believe it is necessary. One commenter 

stated that the requirement will subject 

charter schools to a standard to which 

traditional public schools are not held 

accountable. This commenter, along 

with several others, cited concerns that 

paragraph 1(e) of the requirement 

implies that charter schools should only 

open in districts where the public 

schools are overcrowded, and that such 

a requirement does not take into 

consideration other factors, such as the 

number of seats in high-quality schools 

accessible to all students, possible shifts 

of students from private schools into 

charter schools, or the availability of 

enrollment data. One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

encourage the opening of charter 

schools in communities where children 

attend low-performing schools and do 

not have high-quality public school 

options, regardless of the traditional 

school district’s capacity. 

Another commenter opposed to this 

requirement contended that enrollment 

figures remain below pre-pandemic 

numbers in some of the Nation’s largest 

school districts and that the limited 

availability of enrollment data may 

hinder an applicant from providing a 

complete or accurate analysis. This 

same commenter also stated that 

requiring a community impact analysis 

would hold charter schools responsible 

for maintaining diverse student 

populations, without clearly defining 

the meaning of the term ‘‘diverse,’’ even 

in communities that are not ethnically 

diverse, such as those affected by 

historical neighborhood ‘‘red lining.’’ 

Relatedly, one commenter suggested 

that the requirement is intended to 

prioritize integrated school models 

exclusively. According to this 

commenter, the requirement may have a 

chilling effect on a community or 

families of color who may seek to open 

or enroll in a different mission-oriented 

school, such as a school offering a 

pedagogical model that is in high 

demand by families of color in the 

community but that may not attract a 

sufficient number of White students to 

satisfy paragraph 1(b). According to this 

commenter, an applicant seeking to 

serve these families and communities of 

color may be deterred from applying for 

CSP funds, even though these monies 

often provide supports essential to 

opening a successful charter school. The 

commenter stated further that, if such 

an applicant chose to apply for CSP 

funds, instead of having an equal 

chance at funding to support planning 

and opening the charter school, the 

applicant would be at a competitive 

disadvantage when its application is 

evaluated by peer reviewers. The 

commenter stated that the charter 

school would face heightened barriers to 

opening, and that the families and 

‘‘community of color’’ that the school 

intends to serve could be 

disproportionately negatively impacted. 

Two commenters recommended 

revising the name of the requirement to 

‘‘Community Benefit Analysis’’ to 

emphasize the available data and 

evidence regarding how a proposed 

project may benefit the community 

where it intends to locate. Additionally, 

one commenter stated that, if the 

Department keeps the requirement, 

grant and subgrant applicants should be 

allowed to decide what information to 

include in the analysis so that they can 

provide data and evidence that is 

applicable to their proposed project. 

Lastly, some commenters raised 

concerns that the proposed requirement 

would increase burden hours and 

administrative costs for applicants, 

claiming that hiring a firm to conduct a 

community impact analysis could cost a 

charter school operator $15,000 or 

more—funds a small charter school 

operator would not have access to 

without receiving a CSP grant or 

subgrant. 

Discussion: The goal of this 

requirement is to ensure that CSP 

applicants clearly address in their 

applications the need for their proposed 

projects and the anticipated benefits to 

the community in which the charter 

school is or would be located. As 

stewards of taxpayers’ dollars, we hold 

a fundamental belief that all applicants 

for Federal financial assistance should 

be able to articulate the need for their 

proposed project and its potential 

impact on the community that it would 

serve. The idea of requiring grant and 

subgrant applicants to address the need 

for the proposed project is not unique to 

the CSP. Many notices inviting 

applications for new awards under the 

Department’s discretionary grant 

programs require applicants to address 

project need and the potential impact of 

the project on the community, including 

several school choice and place-based 

discretionary grant programs, such as 

the Magnet Schools Assistance and FullService Community Schools programs. 

Furthermore, through this 

requirement, we ultimately seek to 

support the creation, expansion, and 

replication of high-quality charter 

schools that effectively meet the needs 

of their communities and that remain 

open. As noted above, data from the 

Department’s Charter School Programs 

Office show that 930 prospective charter 

schools and charter schools funded as 

subgrantees under the Department’s CSP 

State Educational Agency 7 (CSP SEA) 

and State Entity Grant programs from 

2001 to 2020, never opened or closed 

prior to the end of the grant period 

primarily due to low student 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40414 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

enrollment. We believe the proposed 

requirement can help reduce the 

number of CSP-funded charter schools 

that never open or close prematurely by 

directing Federal resources to highquality, well-planned charter schools. 

Contrary to concerns expressed by 

some commenters, the community 

impact analysis is not intended to 

require applicants to show evidence of 

over-enrollment in other public schools; 

nor is the requirement intended to 

restrict CSP-funded charter schools to 

opening only in districts whose 

traditional public schools are 

overcrowded. Therefore, the Department 

has revised the requirement to clarify 

that its intent is to require applicants to 

demonstrate need for the proposed 

project. District over-enrollment is one 

of several possible factors that an 

applicant may cite to evince the need 

for the proposed charter school. To be 

clear, applicants may use their 

discretion in identifying relevant 

information or data to demonstrate need 

for the project and that projected 

enrollment targets will be met. 

Applicants also may provide other 

information or data to demonstrate need 

and support estimates of projected 

enrollment, including, but not limited 

to, information on waiting lists for the 

proposed charter school or existing 

charter schools in the community; data 

on access to seats in high-quality 

schools in the community; and 

proposed specialized programs and 

student and family interest in those 

specialized programs. 

In response to commenters who 

expressed concern that conducting a 

community impact analysis will create 

additional burden hours and 

administrative costs for applicants, we 

acknowledge that it may take 

considerable time for an applicant to 

conduct a thoughtful and thorough 

needs analysis depending on the size 

and scale of the proposed project. 

However, we also believe the benefits of 

such analysis far outweigh any 

additional burden. Many high-quality 

charter school authorizers already 

require charter applicants to present 

data on academic achievement, 

demographics, and enrollment and 

retention rates of students in the 

surrounding public schools of a 

proposed project. We also note that 

consideration of need for the project is 

a common factor the Department 

considers when determining whether to 

fund a proposed project and to 

appropriately direct resources to 

communities that would derive the most 

benefit from program funds in 

alignment with the purposes of the 

program. Thus, requiring a needs 

analysis is a best practice that helps 

ensure that CSP grant and subgrant 

applicants are aware of, and prepared to 

address, issues related to need for a 

proposed charter school project, 

including providing evidence of 

thoughtful planning to support a 

student population that is racially and 

socio-economically diverse. 

We disagree with the comment that 

the community impact analysis 

requirement requires charter schools to 

maintain diverse student populations 

even in communities that are not 

ethnically diverse and, thus, fails to 

acknowledge that some communities are 

not ethnically diverse due to historical 

neighborhood redlining. To clarify the 

purpose of the requirement, we revised 

Requirement 1(b) now subpart (c) 

applicable to CMO Grants and 

Developer Grants (and Requirement 1(b) 

now subpart (c) applicable to State 

Entity Grants) to require the needs 

analysis to include an analyses of the 

proposed charter school’s projected 

student demographics and a description 

of the demographics of students 

attending public schools in the local 

community in which the charter school 

would be located and, how the 

applicant plans to establish and 

maintain a racially and socioeconomically diverse student body, 

including proposed strategies 

(consistent with applicable legal 

requirements) to recruit, admit, enroll, 

and retain a diverse student body. As 

revised, this requirement clarifies that 

an applicant that is unlikely to establish 

and maintain a racially or socioeconomically diverse student body due 

to its specific educational mission or 

because the proposed charter school 

would be located in a racially or 

socioeconomically segregated or 

isolated community would not be at a 

competitive disadvantage. The revised 

language requires such an applicant to 

describe (i) why it is unlikely to 

establish and maintain a racially and 

socio-economically diverse student 

body at the proposed charter school; (ii) 

how the anticipated racial and socioeconomic makeup of the student body 

would promote the purposes of the CSP, 

including to provide high-quality 

educational opportunities to 

underserved students, which may 

include a specialized educational 

program or mission; and (iii) the 

anticipated impact of the proposed 

charter school on the racial and socioeconomic diversity of the public schools 

and school districts from which 

students would be drawn to attend the 

charter school. For example, a proposed 

charter school that enrolls 90 percent 

Native American students—either 

because the student population of the 

public schools or school districts from 

which the charter school draws students 

is generally Native American, or 

because the charter school’s educational 

mission focuses on Native American 

languages and heritage would not be at 

a competitive disadvantage due to this 

requirement. 

To clarify, peer reviewers do not 

assign points to an application based on 

the quality of an applicant’s response to 

all application requirements. The 

overall quality of an application, and 

whether it is recommended for funding, 

is evaluated by peer reviewers based on 

an applicant’s responses to the specific 

selection criteria and any competitive 

preference priorities established for the 

competition. 

Likewise, an applicant that proposes 

to operate or manage a charter school in 

a racially or socio-economically 

segregated or isolated community would 

not be at a competitive disadvantage 

simply due to community 

demographics. This is true even if the 

proposed charter school itself would not 

have a racially or socio-economically 

diverse student body. For example, a 

proposed charter school in a community 

in which 95 percent of the students are 

Latino, and that draws students from 

school districts with roughly 95 percent 

Latino students both before and after the 

creation of the proposed charter school, 

would not be at a competitive 

disadvantage due to this requirement 

because the proposed charter school 

would not increase the racial or socioeconomic segregation or isolation in the 

schools from which the students are, or 

would be, drawn to attend the charter 

school. The Administration is 

committed to supporting State and local 

efforts to increase student diversity and 

reduce racial and socio-economic 

isolation, including preventing Federal 

funds from being used to support efforts 

counter to these purposes. Racially and 

socio-economically diverse schools have 

positive benefits for all students, 

including higher graduation rates, 

improved academic outcomes, and 

increased levels of college enrollment 

for students of all races. 

Lastly, we agree that the data 

provided by applicants should 

emphasize the main benefits that a 

proposed new, replicated, or expanded 

charter school may bring to the 

community it intends to serve. The 

community impact analysis requirement 

allows applicants flexibility to present 

relevant and applicable data most 

suitable for the types of projects they are 

proposing. For these reasons, we decline 

to require applicants to submit 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40415 

information regarding the demographics 

of students with disabilities and English 

learners, a fiscal impact report and a 

signed affidavit provided by the district 

or SEA attesting to the accuracy of the 

information submitted in the grant 

application, or evidence that a credit 

rating agency has identified charter 

school growth as a credit negative for 

the districts from which the charter 

school would likely draw students. 

Changes: We changed the requirement 

from a ‘‘community impact analysis’’ to 

a ‘‘needs analysis’’ to emphasize the 

main purpose of the requirement is to 

ensure that CSP applicants address the 

need for their proposed projects, 

including the anticipated benefits to the 

community. Referring to the analysis as 

a needs analysis also aligns with 

approaches used in other Department 

grant programs like the Full-Service 

Community Schools and Magnet 

Schools Assistance programs. We also 

added, in the lead-in sentence, that 

applicants must provide a needs 

analysis and describe the need for the 

proposed project, including how the 

proposed project would serve the 

interests and meet the needs of students 

and families in communities the charter 

school intends to serve. We also 

clarified that the needs analysis may 

consist of information and documents 

previously submitted to an authorized 

public chartering agency to address 

need. 

Additionally, we streamlined and 

simplified the requirement. We revised 

paragraph (a) to require that applicants 

include descriptions of the community 

support for the charter school, benefits 

to the community, and other evidence of 

demand for the charter school that 

demonstrates a strong likelihood that 

the charter school will achieve and 

maintain its enrollment projections. We 

clarified that such information may 

include information on waiting lists for 

the proposed charter school or 

traditional public schools, data on 

access to seats in high-quality public 

schools in the districts from which the 

charter school expects to draw students; 

or evidence of family interest in 

specialized instructional approaches 

proposed to be implement at the charter 

school. These changes make it clear that 

over-enrollment of schools in the 

districts or communities an applicant 

proposes to serve is not a requirement 

of the program. Applicants that propose 

to serve students in a district or 

community with declining enrollment 

are eligible to apply to participate in the 

program. 

We streamlined paragraph (b) to 

require applicants to provide 

information on the proposed charter 

school’s projected enrollment and 

evidence to support such projected 

enrollment based on the needs analysis 

and other relevant data and factors. We 

also moved the request for applicants to 

describe how they plan to establish and 

maintain racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies to 

paragraph (c) and eliminated the request 

for applicants to address diverse staff 

populations. 

In paragraph (c), we also ask 

applicants for an analyses of the 

proposed charter school’s projected 

student demographics and a description 

of the demographics of students 

attending public schools in the local 

community in which the proposed 

charter school would be located. We 

also added to this paragraph that an 

applicant that is unlikely to establish 

and maintain a racially and socioeconomically diverse student body at 

the proposed charter school because the 

charter school would be located in a 

racially or socio-economically 

segregated or isolated community, or 

because of the charter school’s specific 

educational mission (e.g., serving 

underserved students), must describe 

why it is unlikely to maintain a racially 

and socio-economically diverse student 

body, how the anticipated racial and 

socio-economic makeup of the student 

body would promote the purposes of the 

CSP to provide high-quality educational 

opportunities to underserved students, 

and the anticipated impact of the 

proposed charter school on the racial 

and socio-economic diversity of the 

public schools and school districts from 

which students would be drawn to 

attend the charter school. 

We also revise paragraph (c) so that it 

no longer requires applicants to include 

analyses of publicly available 

information and enrollment trends of 

students attending schools in the 

community in which the proposed 

charter school would be located and the 

school districts from which students 

are, or will be, drawn to attend the 

charter school. 

Finally, we have modified paragraph 

(f)(4) to require applicants to describe 

how the charter school’s recruitment, 

admissions, enrollment, and retention 

policies and practices will engage and 

accommodate families from diverse 

backgrounds. We also made 

corresponding changes to Requirement 

1 applicable to State Entity Grants to 

align with the changes in Requirement 

1 applicable to CMO Grants and 

Developer Grants. 

Requirement 2 for CMO Grants and 

Developer Grants 

Comments: The overwhelming 

majority of comments received 

regarding this requirement were 

supportive of the Department’s efforts to 

increase transparency for CSP 

applicants that enter into contracts with 

for-profit management organizations. 

One commenter expressed strong 

support for prohibiting charter schools 

operated by for-profit management 

organizations from receiving CSP grant 

or subgrant funds. Another commenter 

recommended that we add the phrase 

‘‘and its related entities’’ wherever 

references to for-profit organizations 

appear in the language to capture the 

caveat that many for-profit organizations 

operate by steering business to their 

nonprofit related entities. Another 

commenter expressed support for the 

requirement’s focus on increasing 

transparency but stated that the extent 

to which the proposed rules build on 

existing CSP guidance or set an entirely 

new standard is unclear. This 

commenter recommended that we 

remove ‘‘substantial’’ from the 

requirement where it suggests that 

arrangements under which a for-profit 

entity, including a nonprofit CMO 

operated by or on behalf of a for-profit 

entity, exercises full or ‘‘substantial’’ 

administrative control over the charter 

school because the commenter believes 

such a restriction is not permissible 

under CSP-funded projects. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that it is important for CSP 

grantees and subgrantees to exercise 

fiscal and operational transparency by 

disclosing their contractual 

relationships with for-profit 

management organizations. For this 

reason, the proposed requirements and 

assurances included the phrase, 

‘‘including a nonprofit management 

organization operated by or on behalf of 

a for-profit entity,’’ after references to 

for-profit management organization, 

where appropriate. In addition, we are 

adding the phrase, ‘‘or its related 

entities,’’ where appropriate, to ensure 

that this provision applies to those 

applicants with related for-profit arms 

that access CSP funds through their 

non-profit related entities. Furthermore, 

as stated in the NPP, this requirement is 

based, in part, on Federal regulations at 

34 CFR 75.701 and 76.701, which 

require grantees and subgrantees, 

respectively, to directly administer or 

supervise the administration of their 

projects. It builds on existing nonregulatory guidance and is not intended 

to establish a new standard but rather to 

further clarify an existing standard. The 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40416 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

term ‘‘substantial’’ refers to the 

management organization’s control over 

the charter school. We believe it is 

important to distinguish between 

control over the charter school and 

control over the CSP project, as a 

management organization could control 

certain aspects of the charter school 

without controlling the CSP grant or 

subgrant. The use of the term 

‘‘substantial’’ in this context is intended 

to put grantees and subgrantees on 

notice that, in most cases, a 

management organization that exercises 

‘‘substantial’’ control over a charter 

school would be considered to be 

exercising an impermissible amount of 

control over the CSP project. 

Changes: We changed the first 

paragraph of Requirement 2 applicable 

to CMO and Developer Grants to cover 

‘‘related entities’’ of for-profit 

management organizations as well as 

the management organizations 

themselves. Additionally, to ease the 

burden on applicants, we clarified that 

applicants can meet the requirement by 

providing equivalent information that 

they have submitted to the authorized 

public chartering agency. 

We modified paragraph (a) to require 

applicants either to submit a copy of the 

existing contract with a for-profit 

management organization or to describe 

the terms of such contract. We also 

streamlined the requirement by 

combining paragraphs (a) and (b), and 

paragraphs (d) and (e). Additionally, we 

revised the provision to require, in 

addition to the name and contact 

information for each member of the 

governing board of the charter school, a 

list of the management organization’s 

officers, chief administrator, other 

administrators, and any staff involved in 

approving or executing the management 

contract. Finally, we added paragraph 

(d) requiring applicants to describe how 

they will ensure that members of the 

governing board of the charter school 

are not selected, removed, controlled or 

employed by the management 

organization and that the charter 

school’s legal, accounting, and auditing 

services will be procured independently 

from the management organization. We 

also made corresponding changes to 

Requirement 2 applicable to State Entity 

Grants to align with the changes in 

Requirement 2 applicable to CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants. 

Requirement 3 for CMO Grants and 

Developer Grants 

Comments: We received minimal 

comments in response to this 

requirement, but the majority of 

commenters offered general support for 

requiring applicants to provide more 

information regarding the approval 

status of their charter application from 

an authorized public chartering agency. 

One commenter recommended changing 

the language to request the dates the 

charter application was submitted and 

approved by the authorized public 

chartering agency rather than requiring 

a signed copy of the school’s charter 

application. The commenter also 

recommended requiring applicants to 

identify the authorized public 

chartering agency to which they 

submitted the charter application and to 

provide proof that the application was 

submitted. Finally, the commenter 

recommended adding the leading 

phrase, ‘‘In its budget,’’ to paragraph (d), 

which requires applicants to submit 

documentation on planning costs. 

Discussion: Under section 4310(6) of 

the ESEA, an applicant that has applied 

(and provided adequate and timely 

notice of its CSP application) to an 

authorized public chartering agency is 

eligible to apply for and receive CSP 

planning funds, even if the charter 

application has not yet been approved. 

Given the Department’s interest in 

collecting more information regarding 

the status of grantees’ charter 

applications, particularly as it relates to 

applicants that receive funding before 

obtaining charter approval, we believe 

that requiring applicants to submit this 

information is warranted and have 

revised the requirement based on all the 

recommended changes previously 

noted. We hope to gain greater insight 

into the charter authorizing process 

from this data. 

Changes: We changed paragraph (a) to 

cover all applicants. We changed 

paragraph (a)(1) to request the name and 

address of the authorized public 

chartering agency that issued the 

applicant’s approved charter or, in the 

case of an applicant that has not yet 

received an approved charter, the 

authorized public chartering agency to 

which the applicant has applied. We 

removed the proposed requirement for 

an applicant to provide a timeline from 

the authorized public chartering agency 

for providing a final decision on the 

charter application, and changed 

paragraph (a)(2) to request the date on 

which an applicant that has not yet 

received an approved charter submitted 

its charter application to the authorized 

public chartering agency and an 

estimated date by which the authorized 

public chartering agency will issue its 

final decision on the charter 

application. Additionally, we changed 

paragraph (a)(3) to require applicants to 

provide documentation that they have 

provided notice to the authorized public 

chartering agency that they have applied 

for a CSP grant. Lastly, we changed 

paragraph (a)(4) to require applicants to 

include in their proposed budgets a 

description of any post-award planning 

costs, including planning costs expected 

to be incurred prior to the date the 

authorized public chartering agency 

issues a decision on the charter 

application. 

Requirements Applicable to State Entity 

Grants 

Requirements 1 and 2 for State Entity 

Grants 

For comments, discussion, and 

changes applicable to these 

requirements, see the above discussion 

for Requirement 1 for CMO Grants and 

Developer Grants and Requirement 2 for 

CMO Grants and Developer Grants, 

which include parallel requirements 

within the context of those programs. 

Requirement 3 for State Entity Grants 

Comments: While some commenters 

expressed general support for the 

requirement for State Entity applicants 

to provide a detailed description of how 

they will review applications from 

eligible applicants, slightly more 

commenters opposed the requirement. 

Some of the commenters who opposed 

the requirement questioned the 

Secretary’s authority to create the 

requirement given that the program 

statute provides flexibility for State 

Entity applicants to describe how they 

will review subgrant applications. One 

commenter said the requirement may 

inhibit the ability of developers to 

propose new high-quality charter 

schools by discouraging CSP grant 

applications for State Entity review. 

Another commenter stated that 

paperwork to process a subgrant for 

review would increase as a result of the 

proposed requirement, discouraging 

schools from applying, especially single 

site and community schools. Another 

commenter noted that some State 

statutes conflict with the proposed 

requirement. This commenter asserted 

that, given the likely timing of the 

release of the NFP, the Department 

would have very little time to provide 

guidance on reconciling subgrant 

application requirements with State law 

requirements, further narrowing the 

ability for charter school developers to 

apply for CSP grants and subgrants and 

to open schools. 

Discussion: We agree with some 

commenters that the program statute 

offers some flexibilities to State entity 

applicants regarding the development 

and implementation of their CSP 

subgrant programs, including the review 

of subgrant applications. Under the CSP, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40417 

State Entity grantees are given flexibility 

to design and implement their subgrant 

programs in a manner that enables them 

to achieve their policy goals and 

objectives, consistent with CSP 

requirements. Requirement 3 Applicable 

to State Entity Grants merely requires 

SE applicants to explain how they will 

review applications; it does not limit a 

State Entity’s flexibility in developing 

the review process or adhering to State 

statutes. Thus, while grantees and 

subgrantees must comply with the CSP 

authorizing statute, applicable 

regulations, and their approved 

applications, the Department believes 

State entities are in the best position to 

establish the standards and guardrails 

that are necessary for their subgrantees 

to create, replicate, and expand highquality charter schools that meet the 

educational needs of their students and 

comply with CSP requirements. 

Requirement 3 applicable to State Entity 

Grants holds State entities accountable 

for designing and implementing highquality subgrant programs and, we 

believe, enhances the overall quality of 

charter school subgrantees in the areas 

of transparency, oversight, and 

accountability. We also do not believe 

this requirement will inhibit or 

discourage charter school subgrantees 

from applying to the State entity for 

funding as the requirement does not add 

any burden to charter school subgrant 

applicants. Therefore, we decline to 

eliminate or change the requirement. 

Changes: None. 

Requirement 4 for State Entity Grants 

Comments: Commenters generally 

expressed support for this requirement 

for State Entity Grant applicants to 

provide a detailed description of how 

the SE will monitor and report on 

subgrant performance. One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

modify the language slightly to 

encourage collaboration between the 

State entity and authorized public 

chartering agency of a given school to 

eliminate unnecessary duplication of 

oversight activities. That commenter 

noted that high-quality charter school 

authorizers should already be 

conducting some level of operational 

and fiscal oversight of such entities. 

Two commenters suggested that the 

Department require subgrantee 

monitoring review teams to include at 

least one reviewer representative from 

the traditional school district in the 

community. 

Discussion: The purpose of this 

requirement is to ensure that CSP State 

entity grantees implement high-quality 

compliance monitoring reviews that 

address and mitigate subgrantee risk. 

We also recognize that, in many 

instances, charter school authorizers are 

required to monitor and oversee the 

charter schools they authorize for 

operational and fiscal management and 

agree that such monitoring and 

oversight should be conducted widely 

across all authorized public chartering 

agencies in tandem with State entity 

subgrantee monitoring. It should be 

noted, however, that charter school 

authorizers generally monitor their 

charter schools for compliance with the 

terms of the charter, which may include 

compliance with State and Federal laws, 

while State entity grantees are 

responsible for monitoring their 

subgrantees to ensure compliance with 

CSP requirements. Nevertheless, the 

Department agrees with this 

recommendation and deems such 

collaboration between charter school 

authorizers and State entity grantees to 

be a best practice for ensuring the 

quality and effectiveness of CSP grants 

and subgrants. We do not, however, 

agree with the recommendation to 

require State entity grantees to include 

at least one representative from a 

traditional school district on the 

monitoring review team for the charter 

school as the district representative 

would not necessarily have the 

expertise to ensure compliance with 

CSP requirements; therefore, we decline 

to make this change. 

Changes: We added a reference to 

‘‘subgrant activities’’ to the introductory 

paragraph and, to avoid duplication, 

removed the prior paragraph (d) 

regarding monitoring for progress and 

compliance. We added paragraph (h) 

that requires applicants for State Entity 

Grants to describe how they will work 

with authorized public chartering 

agencies to share information regarding 

the monitoring of subgrantees, including 

in areas related to fiscal protocols and 

organizational governance, for the 

purpose of reducing the reporting 

burden on charter schools. 

Requirement 5 for State Entity Grants 

Comments: None. 

Changes: None. 

Requirement 6 for State Entity Grants 

For comments, discussion, and 

changes applicable to this requirement, 

see the above discussions for Priority 

1—Promoting High-Quality Educatorand Community-Centered Charter 

Schools to Support Underserved 

Students and Priority 2—Charter School 

and Traditional Public School or 

District Collaborations that Benefit 

Students and Families, which establish 

priorities for CMO Grants and Developer 

Grants that are parallel to what a State 

entity prioritizes and encourages under 

this requirement when awarding 

subgrants. 

Assurances Applicable to State Entity 

Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer 

Grants 

Assurance (a) for State Entity Grants, 

CMO Grants, and Developer Grants 

Comments: None. 

Changes: We added a parenthetical to 

Assurance (a) to clarify that State entity 

and CMO grantees must ensure that 

charter schools that they fund meet the 

requirement. 

Assurance (b) for State Entity Grants, 

CMO Grants, and Developer Grants 

Comments: None. 

Changes: We added a parenthetical to 

Assurance (b) to clarify that State entity 

and CMO grantees must ensure that 

charter schools that they fund meet the 

requirement. 

Assurance (c) for State Entity Grants, 

CMO Grants, and Developer Grants 

For comments, discussion, and 

changes applicable to this assurance, see 

the above discussion for Requirement 2 

for CMO Grants and Developer Grants, 

which include parallel requirements 

within the context of those programs. 

Assurance (d) for State Entity Grants, 

CMO Grants, and Developer Grants 

Comments: None. 

Changes: We added a parenthetical to 

Assurance (d) to clarify that State entity 

and CMO grantees must ensure that 

charter schools that they fund meet the 

requirement. 

Assurance (e) for State Entity Grants, 

CMO Grants, and Developer Grants 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

support for Assurance (e), which 

requires CMO Grant and Developer 

Grant applicants, and subgrant 

applicants under the State Entity Grant 

program, to provide an assurance that 

they (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 

community where the charter school 

will be located to obtain information 

and feedback regarding the potential 

impact of the charter school, including 

the steps the applicant has taken or will 

take to ensure that the proposed charter 

school would not negatively affect any 

desegregation efforts in the public 

school districts from which students 

would be drawn to attend the charter 

school and to ensure that the proposed 

charter school would not otherwise 

increase racial or socioeconomic 

segregation or isolation in such schools. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40418 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

However, the commenter recommended 

that the Department modify the 

language to expand the focus of such 

public hearing to include multiple 

topics relevant to the affected 

community. The commenter expressed 

concern that the assurance language, as 

written, is too restrictive regarding the 

nature of the public hearings and the 

topics that must be covered. 

Discussion: The main purposes of 

Assurance (e) are to ensure transparency 

regarding the creation, replication, and 

expansion of proposed charter schools 

and to ensure that the applicant engages 

the community in the planning and 

implementation of CSP-funded charter 

schools. The assurance requires the 

applicant to obtain ‘‘information and 

feedback’’ from the community 

regarding the potential impact of the 

charter school. The applicant must also 

obtain information and feedback 

regarding the steps it has taken or will 

take to ensure that the proposed charter 

school does not negatively affect any 

desegregation efforts or otherwise 

increase racial or socioeconomic 

segregation or isolation in the public 

school districts from which students 

are, or would be, drawn to attend the 

charter school. We agree with the 

commenter that the hearing, which may 

take place as part of or concurrent with 

a public hearing in which the applicant 

participates or conducts for other 

purposes (e.g., as part of a pre-opening 

requirement of a charter school 

authorizer or under State-law), also 

should cover other topics related to the 

charter school project that are of interest 

to the community. 

Changes: We added a parenthetical to 

Assurance (e) to clarify that State entity 

and CMO grantees must ensure that 

charter schools that they fund meet the 

requirement. We also modified 

Assurance (e) to specify that the public 

hearing must include a discussion of 

how the proposed charter school will 

increase the availability of high-quality 

public school options for traditionally 

underserved students in the local 

community in which the charter school 

would be located; promote racial and 

socio-economic diversity in such 

community, be located in a racially or 

socio-economically segregated of 

isolated community, have a specific 

educational mission, for example, 

serving targeted underserved students; 

and not increase racial or socioeconomic segregation or isolation in the 

school districts from which students 

would be drawn to attend the charter 

school. 

Assurance (f) for State Entity Grants, 

CMO Grants, and Developer Grants 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed support for Assurance (f), 

which requires State Entity, CMO Grant, 

and Developer Grant applicants, and 

subgrant applicants under the State 

Entity Grant program, to provide an 

assurance that they will not use or 

provide CSP ‘‘implementation’’ funds 

for a charter school until after the 

charter school has received a charter 

from an authorized public chartering 

agency and has obtained a facility in 

which to operate. One commenter 

recommended that we keep the 

assurance but clarify its purpose. 

Another commenter noted the 

significance of the assurance to prevent 

waste, fraud, and abuse under the CSP 

and provided statistics regarding the 

percentage of previous recipients of CSP 

‘‘planning’’ funds between 2006 and 

2015 that never opened the proposed 

charter school and the number of 

charter schools that opened and 

received CSP funds but have since 

closed. Another commenter 

recommended imposing a spending cap 

on the use of implementation funds 

before a prospective new charter school 

is authorized or secures a facility, rather 

than prohibiting the use of CSP funds if 

these milestones are not met right away. 

Similarly, several other commenters 

recommended imposing a $10,000 cap 

on the amount of CSP funds an 

applicant may use for planning 

purposes and releasing the remaining 

planning funds when the charter is 

approved. Another commenter 

supported continuing to allow funds for 

planning and program design to be 

provided to applicants even if they have 

not yet secured a facility given the 

challenges many charter schools face 

when trying to obtain a new site in 

various communities. 

A number of commenters strongly 

opposed Assurance (f), citing concerns 

that the assurance will create a standard 

that is very difficult for CMO Grant 

applicants to meet. The commenters 

stated that research indicates that it 

sometimes takes up to 5 years for a new 

charter school to gain approval and, 

thus, a CMO Grant applicant might have 

to wait several years before they are 

eligible to apply for CSP funding. 

Discussion: Under section 4310(6) of 

the ESEA, a charter school developer 

that has applied to an authorized public 

chartering agency for approval to 

operate a charter school is eligible to 

apply for a CSP grant or subgrant, even 

if the developer has not yet received an 

approved charter or secured a facility. 

Under the CSP, planning funds may be 

used to cover post-award costs 

associated with planning and designing 

the educational program of the charter 

school before it opens, and 

implementation funds are used to cover 

costs associated with the initial 

implementation of the charter school 

after it opens. Planning funds can be 

used, for example, for hiring and 

compensating teachers, school leaders, 

and specialized instructional support 

personnel; providing training and 

professional development to staff; or 

other critical activities that need to 

occur prior to opening. The CSP statute 

limits grantees and subgrantees to no 

more than 18 months for planning 

activities. Assurance (f) requires State 

Entity Grant, CMO Grant, and Developer 

Grant applicants, and subgrant 

applicants under the State Entity Grant 

program, to provide an assurance that 

they will not use CSP ‘‘implementation’’ 

funds for a charter school until after the 

charter school has received a charter 

from an authorized public chartering 

agency and has obtained a facility in 

which to operate. Assurance (f) is 

consistent with how previous 

administrations have addressed this 

issue by distinguishing between 

planning funds and implementation 

funds and restricting the use of 

implementation funds to costs related to 

operating the charter school. As stated 

above, a CSP applicant may receive 

‘‘planning’’ funds before charter 

approval is obtained or a facility is 

secured. Assurance (f) does not restrict 

the use of planning funds beyond what 

is prescribed in the statute, but rather, 

is intended to clarify expectations for 

charter school developers to obtain 

charter approval and secure a facility 

during the 18-month planning period of 

the grant or subgrant. We also believe 

this assurance will help to mitigate the 

risk of CSP implementation funds being 

used to support charter schools that 

never open because the charter was not 

approved or the applicant was unable to 

secure a facility in a timely manner. The 

Department recognizes that the charter 

approval process may exceed the 18- 

month planning period for CSP grants 

and subgrants, as prescribed under 

section 4303(d)(1)(B) of the ESEA. In 

such a case, applicants may request 

approval from the Department or the 

State entity to amend their application 

to request an extension of the 18-month 

planning period. Under section 

4303(d)(5) of the ESEA, the Secretary, in 

his discretion, may waive any statutory 

or regulatory requirement over which he 

exercises administrative authority, 

except the requirements related to the 

definition of ‘‘charter school’’ in section 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40419 

4310(2), provided that the waiver is 

requested in an approved application 

and the Secretary determines that 

granting the waiver will promote the 

purposes of the CSP. It is also worth 

noting that a grantee may request 

approval from the Department, and a 

State entity subgrantee may request 

approval from the State entity, to amend 

its approved application and budget to 

cover additional planning costs that it 

may incur due to an unexpected delay 

in the charter approval process or for 

other reasons. 

Changes: We amended Assurance (f) 

to remove the requirement that 

applicants provide an assurance that 

they will not ‘‘use or provide’’ 

implementation funds for a charter 

school until after the eligible applicant 

has received an approved charter and 

secured a facility, so that applicants are 

required only to provide an assurance 

that they will not ‘‘use’’ implementation 

funds prior to receiving an approved 

charter and securing a facility. We also 

added a parenthetical to clarify that 

State entity and CMO grantees must 

ensure that charter schools that they 

fund meet the requirement. 

Additionally, we added language 

specifying some of the allowable uses of 

planning funds, stating that consistent 

with sections 4303(b)(1), 4303(h)(1)(B), 

and 4310(6) of the ESEA, an eligible 

applicant may use CSP planning funds 

for post-award planning and design of 

the educational program of a proposed 

new or replicated high-quality charter 

school that has not yet opened, which 

may include hiring and compensating 

teachers, school leaders, and specialized 

instructional support personnel; 

providing training and professional 

development to staff; and other critical 

planning activities that need to occur 

prior to the charter school opening 

when such costs cannot be met from 

other sources. 

Assurance Applicable to State Entity 

Grants and CMO Grants 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

support for the assurance that requires 

State entity and CMO grantees, and 

subgrantees under the State Entity Grant 

program, to post specific information 

regarding the proposed charter schools 

on their respective websites within 30 

days of receiving the grant or subgrant 

award notification. The commenter 

recommended changing the time limit 

to 120 days to align with the timing of 

grant administration activities by the 

Department and the multi-year way that 

CMO grantees make decisions about 

where to allocate funds to individual 

charter schools. The same commenter 

recommended revising the assurance to 

require State Entity Grant and CMO 

Grant applicants to assure that they will 

update annually the list of charter 

schools slated to receive CSP funds, 

including charter schools that have been 

approved to receive CSP planning funds 

but do not yet have a campus or facility 

identified. 

Discussion: We agree that a 120-day 

time limit would allow more efficient 

timing for award recipients to post the 

required information on their websites 

after making decisions about how to 

allocate their grant funds. We also agree 

that CMO grantees should update their 

lists of charter schools approved to 

receive CSP funding at least once per 

year. In addition, we believe CMO 

grantees should be transparent regarding 

the anticipated number of charter 

schools likely to receive CSP planning 

funds prior to having a facility or 

campus identified. Since the assurance 

requires State entity grantees to post 

information regarding the subgrants 

they award after each local subgrant 

competition, depending on the number 

of subgrant competitions a State entity 

holds during the year, the State entity 

could be required to post such 

information more frequently than once 

a year. 

Changes: We deleted the reference to 

‘‘subgrantee’’ so that only State entity 

and CMO grantees are required to post 

the required information regarding the 

charter schools funded under their 

grants, since subgrantees are unlikely to 

have access to the required information 

for all subgrants awarded by the State 

entity. We increased from 30 days to 

120 days after award notification the 

time period within which State Entity 

Grant and CMO Grant recipients must 

post the required information on their 

websites. We also added a paragraph (b) 

to this assurance that requires CMO 

applicants to assure that they will 

update their lists of charter schools that 

have been approved for funding at least 

annually and include on the list the 

charter schools that will receive CSP 

planning funds prior to securing a 

facility. Finally, in paragraph (a)(6), we 

added the phrase, ‘‘For State entity 

grantees,’’ and deleted ‘‘grant or’’ from 

the phrase, ‘‘grant or subgrant,’’ to 

clarify that only State entity grantees are 

required to post peer review materials 

on their website since CMO grantees do 

not hold local subgrant competitions. 

The Department posts such information 

regarding CMO Grants on the CSP 

website. 

Selection Criteria Applicable to CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants 

Comments: We received relatively few 

comments that addressed the selection 

criteria or that provided specific 

recommendations for changes; however, 

of the comments received, most offered 

general support for the proposed 

selection criteria. One commenter who 

expressed support for the selection 

criteria specifically noted the focus on 

requiring applicants for State Entity 

Grants to address how they will 

estimate the number of subgrants they 

intend to provide. 

Discussion: We agree with the one 

commenter that it is important to hold 

applicants accountable for providing 

realistic estimates of the number of 

subgrants they plan to award. The 

selection criteria are designed to 

provide peer reviewers with clear and 

measurable parameters to identify the 

best quality applications that are most 

likely to succeed in supporting the 

development and implementation of 

high-quality charter schools, and that 

are driven by the needs of families and 

their communities. We revise the 

Quality of Needs Analysis criterion to 

align with the revisions made to the 

needs analysis requirement and its 

emphasis on ensuring that an 

applicant’s needs analysis demonstrates 

a clear need for the proposed charter 

school. 

Changes: We changed the title of the 

Quality of the Community Impact 

Analysis criterion to Quality of Needs 

Analysis to align with corresponding 

changes to the Needs Analysis 

application requirements and assurance. 

We also revised the third subpart of 

Quality of Needs Analysis a(1), 

replacing ‘‘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’’ 

to ‘‘demonstrates sufficient demand for 

the charter school.’’ 

Definitions Applicable to State Entity 

Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer 

Grants 

Comments: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

establish definitions for ‘‘diverse,’’ 

‘‘racial isolation,’’ and ‘‘substantial.’’ 

Similarly, a commenter stated that 

because the term ‘‘racial isolation’’ is 

not defined in the notice, applicants 

may have difficulty determining 

whether a school is segregated under 

Requirement 1 applicable to CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants and 

Requirement 1 applicable to State Entity 

Grants. Some commenters also 

expressed support for providing a 

definition for ‘‘community asset,’’ 

noting that many stakeholders believe a 

community-centered approach is 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40420 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

necessary to ensure quality charter 

school authorizing. 

Discussion: We understand that the 

meanings of the terms ‘‘diverse,’’ ‘‘racial 

isolation,’’ and ‘‘substantial’’ are 

somewhat broad. Because of the 

universal nature of these terms, 

however, we do not believe it is 

necessary to define them. For these 

reasons, we decline to define ‘‘diverse,’’ 

‘‘racial isolation,’’ and ‘‘substantial.’’ 

The definition for the term ‘‘community 

assets’’ that was proposed in the NPP is 

included in the final Definitions 

applicable to State Entity Grants, CMO 

Grants, and Developer Grants. 

Changes: To simplify the definition of 

‘‘community assets’’ we removed the 

reference to ‘‘political assets’’. FINAL 

PRIORITIES, REQUIREMENTS, 

DEFINITIONS, AND SELECTION 

CRITERIA: The Department establishes 

the following priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for use 

in any future CSP grant competitions. 

Final Priorities 

Priorities Applicable to CMO Grants and 

Developer Grants 

Priority 1—Promoting High-Quality 

Educator- and Community-Centered 

Charter Schools to Support Underserved 

Students. 

(a) Under this priority, an applicant 

must propose to open a new charter 

school, or to replicate or expand a highquality charter school, that is developed 

and implemented— 

(1) With meaningful and ongoing 

engagement with current or former 

teachers and other educators; 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 timeline for key 

milestones that span the course of 

planning, development, and 

implementation of the charter school. 

Priority 2—Collaborations between 

Charter Schools and Traditional Public 

Schools or Districts that Benefit 

Students and Families across Schools. 

(a) Under this priority, an applicant 

must propose a new collaboration, or 

the continuation of an existing 

collaboration, with at least one 

traditional public school or traditional 

school district that is designed to benefit 

students or families served by at least 

one member of the collaboration, is 

designed to lead to increased or 

improved educational opportunities for 

students served by at least one member 

of the collaboration, and includes 

implementation of one or more of the 

following— 

(1) Co-developed or shared curricular 

and instructional resources or academic 

course offerings. 

(2) Professional development 

opportunities for teachers and other 

educators, 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. 

(3) Evidence-based (as defined in 

section 8101 of the ESEA) practices to 

improve academic performance for 

underserved students. 

(4) Policies and practices to create 

safe, supportive, and inclusive learning 

environments, such as systems of 

positive behavioral intervention and 

support. 

(5) Transparent enrollment and 

retention practices and processes that 

include clear and consistent disclosure 

to families of policies or requirements 

(e.g., discipline policies, purchasing and 

wearing specific uniforms and other 

fees, or family participation), and any 

services that are or are not provided, 

that could impact a family’s ability to 

enroll or remain enrolled in the school 

(e.g., transportation services or 

participation in the National School 

Lunch Program). 

(6) A shared transportation plan and 

system that reduces transportation costs 

for at least one member of 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. 

(7) A shared special education 

collaborative designed to address a 

significant barrier or challenge faced by 

participating charter schools or 

traditional public schools in improving 

academic and developmental outcomes 

and services for students with 

disabilities (as defined in section 8101 

of the ESEA); 

(8) A shared English learner (as 

defined in section 8101 of the ESEA) 

collaborative designed to address a 

significant barrier or challenge faced by 

participating charter schools or 

traditional public schools in providing 

educational programs to improve 

academic outcomes for English learners; 

(9) Other collaborations, such as the 

sharing of innovative and best practices, 

designed to address a significant barrier 

or challenge faced by participating 

charter schools or traditional public 

schools in providing educational 

programs to improve academic 

outcomes for all students served by 

members of the collaboration. 

(b) In its application, an applicant 

must provide a description of the 

collaboration that— 

(1) Describes each member of the 

collaboration and whether the 

collaboration would be a new or 

existing commitment; 

(2) States the purpose and duration of 

the collaboration; 

(3) Describes the anticipated roles and 

responsibilities of each member of the 

collaboration) ; 

(4) Describes how the collaboration 

will benefit one or more members of the 

collaboration, including how it will 

benefit students or families affiliated 

with a member and lead to increased 

educational opportunities for students, 

and meet specific and measurable, if 

applicable, goals; 

(5) Describes the resources members 

of the collaboration will contribute; and 

(6) Contains any other relevant 

information. 

(c) Within 120 days of receiving a 

grant award or within 120 days of the 

date the collaboration is scheduled to 

begin, whichever is later, provide 

evidence of participation in the 

collaboration (which may include, but is 

not required to include, an MOU). 

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)). Depending on the grant 

competition, applicants may have the 

option to choose one or more of several 

absolute priorities. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40421 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Application Requirements 

Requirements Applicable to CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants 

Requirement 1: 

Each applicant must provide a needs 

analysis and describe the need for the 

proposed project, including how the 

proposed project would serve the 

interests and meet the needs of students 

and families in the communities the 

charter school intends to serve. The 

needs analysis, which may consist of 

information and documents previously 

submitted to an authorized public 

chartering agency to address need, must 

include, but is not necessarily limited 

to, the following: 

(a) Descriptions of the local 

community support, including 

information that demonstrates interest 

in, and need for, the charter school; 

benefits to the community; and other 

evidence of demand for the charter 

school that demonstrates a strong 

likelihood the charter school will 

achieve and maintain its enrollment 

projections. Such information may 

include information on waiting lists for 

the proposed charter school or existing 

charter schools or traditional public 

schools; data on access to seats in highquality public schools in the districts 

from which the charter school expects 

to draw students; or evidence of family 

interest in specialized instructional 

approaches proposed to be implemented 

at the charter school. 

(b) Information on the proposed 

charter school’s projected student 

enrollment, and evidence to support the 

projected enrollment based on the needs 

analysis and other relevant data and 

factors, such as the methodology and 

calculations used. 

(c) An analysis of the proposed 

charter school’s projected student 

demographics and a description of the 

demographics of students attending 

public schools in the local community 

in which the proposed charter school 

would be located and the school 

districts from which students are, or 

would be, drawn to attend the charter 

school; a description of how the 

applicant plans to establish and 

maintain a racially and socioeconomically diverse student body, 

including proposed strategies (that are 

consistent with applicable legal 

requirements) to recruit, admit, enroll, 

and retain a diverse student body. An 

applicant that is unlikely to establish 

and maintain a racially and socioeconomically diverse student body at 

the proposed charter school because the 

charter school would be located in a 

racially or socio-economically 

segregated or isolated community, or 

due to the charter school’s specific 

educational mission, must describe— 

(i) why it is unlikely to establish and 

maintain a racially and socioeconomically diverse student body at 

the proposed charter school; 

(ii) how the anticipated racial and 

socio-economic makeup of the student 

body would promote the purposes of the 

CSP, including to provide high-quality 

educational opportunities to 

underserved students, which may 

include a specialized educational 

program or mission; and 

(iii) the anticipated impact of the 

proposed charter school on the racial 

and socio-economic diversity of the 

public schools and school districts from 

which students would be drawn to 

attend the charter school. 

(d) 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 

were, are, or will be engaged in 

determining the vision and design for 

the charter school, including specific 

examples of how families’ and the 

community’s input was, is, 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 ensuring their 

ongoing input in school decisionmaking. 

(4) How the charter school’s 

recruitment, admissions, enrollment, 

and retention policies and practices will 

engage and accommodate students and 

families from diverse backgrounds, 

including English learners, students 

with disabilities, and students of color, 

including holding enrollment and 

recruitment events on weekends or 

during non-standard work hours, 

making interpreters available, and 

providing enrollment and recruitment 

information in widely accessible 

formats (e.g., hard copy and online in 

multiple languages; as appropriate, large 

print or braille for visually-impaired 

individuals) through widely available 

and transparent means (e.g., online and 

at community locations). 

(5) How the charter school has 

engaged or will engage families and the 

community to develop an instructional 

model to best serve the targeted student 

population and their families, including 

students with disabilities and English 

learners. 

(e) How the plans for the operation of 

the charter school will support and 

reflect the needs of students and 

families in the community, including 

consideration of district or community 

assets and how the school’s location, or 

anticipated location if a facility has not 

been secured, will facilitate access for 

the targeted 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). 

(f) A description of the steps the 

applicant has taken or will take to 

ensure that the proposed charter school 

(1) would not hamper, delay, or 

negatively affect any desegregation 

efforts in the local community in which 

the charter school would be located or 

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 (2) to ensure that 

the proposed charter school would not 

otherwise increase racial or socioeconomic segregation or isolation in the 

schools from which the students are, or 

would be, drawn to attend the charter 

school. 

Requirement 2: 

For any existing or proposed contract 

with a for-profit management 

organization (including a nonprofit 

management organization operated by 

or on behalf of a for-profit entity), 

without regard to whether the 

management organization or its related 

entities exercise full or substantial 

administrative control over the charter 

school or the CSP project, the applicant 

must provide the following information 

or equivalent information that the 

applicant has submitted to the 

authorized public chartering agency— 

(a) A copy of the existing contract 

with the for-profit management 

organization or a description of the 

terms of the contract, including the 

name and contact information of the 

management organization; the cost (i.e., 

fixed costs and estimates of any ongoing 

costs), including the amount of CSP 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40422 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

funds proposed to be used toward such 

cost, and the percentage such cost 

represents of the school’s total funding; 

the 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; 

(b) 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; 

(c) The name and contact information 

for each member of the governing board 

of the charter school and list of the 

management organization’s officers, 

chief administrator, and other 

administrators, and any staff involved in 

approving or executing the management 

contract; and a description of any actual 

or perceived conflicts of interest, 

including financial interests, and how 

the applicant resolved or will resolve 

any actual or perceived conflicts of 

interest to ensure compliance with 2 

CFR 200.318(c); 

(d) A description of how the applicant 

will ensure that members of the 

governing board of the charter school 

are not selected, removed, controlled, or 

employed by the management 

organization and that the charter 

school’s legal, accounting, and auditing 

services will be procured independently 

from the management organization; 

(e) 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 

(f) 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 

of the charter school, in accordance 

with section 4308 of the ESEA. 

Requirement 3: 

(a) Each applicant must provide— 

(1) The name and address of the 

authorized public chartering agency that 

issued the applicant’s approved charter 

or, in the case of an applicant that has 

not yet received an approved charter, 

the authorized public chartering agency 

to which the applicant has applied; 

(2) A copy of the approved charter or, 

in the case of an applicant that has not 

yet received an approved charter, a copy 

of the charter application that was 

submitted to the authorized public 

chartering agency, including the date 

the application was submitted, and an 

estimated date by which the authorized 

public chartering agency will issue its 

final decision on the charter 

application; 

(3) Documentation that the applicant 

has provided notice to the authorized 

public chartering agency that it has 

applied for a CSP grant; and 

(4) A proposed budget, including a 

detailed description of any post-award 

planning costs and, for an applicant that 

does not yet have an approved charter, 

any planning costs expected to be 

incurred prior to the date the authorized 

public chartering agency issues a 

decision on the charter application. 

Requirements Applicable to State Entity 

Grants 

Requirement 1: 

Each applicant must certify that it 

will require each subgrant applicant to 

provide a needs analysis and describe in 

its subgrant application the need for the 

proposed project, including how the 

proposed project would serve the 

interests and meet the needs of students 

and families in the communities the 

charter school intends to serve. The 

needs analysis, which may consist of 

information and documents previously 

submitted to an authorized public 

chartering agency to address need, must 

include, but is not necessarily limited 

to, the following: 

(a) Descriptions of the local 

community support, including 

information that demonstrates interest 

in, and need for, the charter school; 

benefits to the community; and other 

evidence of demand for the charter 

school that demonstrates a strong 

likelihood the charter school will 

achieve and maintain its enrollment 

projections. Such information may 

include information on waiting lists for 

the proposed charter school or existing 

charter schools or traditional public 

schools; data on access to seats in highquality public schools in the districts 

from which the charter school expects 

to draw students; or evidence of family 

interest in specialized instructional 

approaches proposed to be implemented 

at the charter school. 

(b) Information on the proposed 

charter school’s projected student 

enrollment, and evidence to support the 

projected enrollment based on the needs 

analysis and other relevant data and 

factors, such as the methodology and 

calculations used. 

(c) An analysis of the proposed 

charter school’s projected student 

demographics and a description of the 

demographics of students attending 

public schools in the local community 

in which the proposed charter school 

would be located and the school 

districts from which students are, or 

would be, drawn to attend the charter 

school; a description of how the 

applicant plans to establish and 

maintain a racially and socioeconomically diverse student body, 

including proposed strategies (that are 

consistent with applicable legal 

requirements) to recruit, admit, enroll, 

and retain a diverse student body. An 

applicant that is unlikely to be able to 

establish and maintain a racially and 

socio-economically diverse student 

body at the proposed charter school 

because the charter school would be 

located in a racially or socioeconomically segregated or isolated 

community, or due to the charter 

school’s specific educational mission 

must describe— 

(i) why it is unlikely to establish and 

maintain a racially and socioeconomically diverse student body at 

the proposed charter school; 

(ii) How the anticipated racial and 

socio-economic makeup of the student 

body would promote the purposes of the 

CSP, including to provide high-quality 

educational opportunities to 

underserved students, which may 

include a specialized educational 

program or mission; and 

(iii) The anticipated impact of the 

proposed charter school on the racial 

and socio-economic diversity of the 

public schools and school districts from 

which students would be drawn to 

attend the charter school. 

(d) 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 

were, are, or will be engaged in 

determining the vision and design for 

the charter school, including specific 

examples of how families’ and the 

community’s input was, is, 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40423 

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 ensuring their 

ongoing input in school decisionmaking. 

(4) How the charter school’s 

recruitment, admissions, enrollment, 

and retention policies and practices will 

engage and accommodate students and 

families from diverse backgrounds, 

including English learners, students 

with disabilities, and students of color, 

including by holding enrollment and 

recruitment events on weekends or 

during nonstandard work hours, making 

interpreters available, and providing 

enrollment and recruitment information 

in widely accessible formats (e.g., hard 

copy and online in multiple languages; 

as appropriate, large print or braille for 

visually-impaired individuals) through 

widely available and transparent means 

(e.g., online and at community 

locations). 

(5) How the charter school has 

engaged or will engage families and the 

community to develop an instructional 

model to best serve the targeted student 

population and their families, including 

students with disabilities and English 

learners. 

(e) How the plans for the operation of 

the charter school will support and 

reflect the needs of students and 

families in the community, including 

consideration of district or community 

assets and how the school’s location, or 

anticipated location if a facility has not 

been secured, will facilitate access for 

the targeted 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). 

(f) A description of the steps the 

applicant has taken or will take to 

ensure that the proposed charter school 

would not hamper, delay, or 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. 

Requirement 2: 

For any existing or proposed contract 

between a charter school and a for-profit 

management organization (including a 

nonprofit management organization 

operated by or on behalf of a for-profit 

entity), without regard to whether the 

management organization or its related 

entities exercise full or substantial 

administrative control over the charter 

school or the CSP project, each 

applicant must certify that it will 

require subgrant applications to include 

the following information or equivalent 

information that the applicant has 

submitted to the authorized public 

chartering agency— 

(a) A copy of the existing contract 

with the for-profit management 

organization or a description of the 

terms of the contract, including the 

name and contact information of the 

management organization; the cost (i.e., 

fixed costs and estimates of any ongoing 

costs), including the amount of CSP 

funds proposed to be used toward such 

cost, and the percentage such cost 

represents of the school’s overall 

funding; the 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; 

(b) 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; 

(c) The name and contact information 

for each member of the governing board 

of the charter school and a list of the 

management organization’s officers, 

chief administrator, other 

administrators, and any staff involved in 

approving or executing the management 

contract; and a description of any actual 

or perceived conflicts of interest, 

including financial interests, and how 

the applicant resolved or will resolve 

any actual or perceived conflicts of 

interest to ensure compliance with 2 

CFR 200.318(c); 

(d) A description of how the applicant 

will ensure that members of the 

governing board of the charter school 

are not selected, removed, controlled, or 

employed by the management 

organization and that the charter 

school’s legal, accounting, and auditing 

services will be procured independently 

from the management organization; 

(e) 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 

(f) 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 

of the charter school, in accordance 

with section 4308 of the ESEA. 

Requirement 3: 

Each 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, and 

compliance); and 

(f) How funding decisions will be 

made. 

Requirement 4: 

Each applicant must provide a 

detailed description, including a 

timeline, of how the State entity will 

monitor subgrant activities 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 management 

organizations, 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 monitors will be trained; 

(e) How monitoring findings will be 

shared with subgrantees; 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40424 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(f) How corrective action plans will be 

used to resolve monitoring findings; 

(g) How the State entity will ensure 

transparency so that monitoring 

findings and corrective action plans are 

available to families and the public; and 

(h) How the State entity will work 

with authorized public chartering 

agencies to share information regarding 

the monitoring of subgrantees, including 

in areas related to fiscal protocols and 

organizational governance, for the 

purpose of reducing the reporting 

burden on charter schools. 

Requirement 5: 

Each applicant must provide evidence 

to support the requested funds and 

projected enrollment, such as 

explanations for the methodology and 

calculations. 

Requirement 6: 

Each applicant must describe how, in 

awarding subgrants to eligible 

applicants, the State entity will— 

(a)(1) Give priority to eligible 

applicants that propose projects that 

include the creation, replication, or 

expansion of a high-quality charter 

school that is developed and 

implemented— 

(i) With meaningful and ongoing 

engagement with current or former 

teachers and other educators; and 

(ii) 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. 

(2) In its application, an applicant 

must provide a high-quality plan that 

demonstrates how its proposed project 

would meet the requirements in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this priority, 

accompanied by a timeline for key 

milestones that span the course of 

planning, development, and 

implementation of the charter school. 

(b)(1) Encourage, but not require, 

eligible applicants to propose projects 

that include a new collaboration, or the 

continuation of an existing 

collaboration, with at least one 

traditional public school or traditional 

school district that is designed to benefit 

students or families served by at least 

one member of the collaboration, is 

designed to lead to increased and 

improved educational opportunities for 

students served by at least one member 

of the collaboration, and includes 

implementation of one or more of the 

following— 

(i) Co-developed or shared curricular 

and instructional resources or academic 

course offerings. 

(ii) Professional development 

opportunities for teachers and other 

educators, 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, such as systems of 

positive behavioral intervention and 

support. 

(v) Transparent enrollment and 

retention practices and processes that 

include clear and consistent disclosure 

to families of policies or requirements 

(e.g., discipline policies, purchasing and 

wearing specific uniforms and other 

fees, or 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). 

(vi) A shared transportation plan and 

system that reduces transportation costs 

for members of the collaboration and 

takes into consideration various 

transportation options, including public 

transportation and district-provided or 

shared transportation options, costsharing or free or reduced-cost fare 

options, and any distance 

considerations for prioritized bus 

services. 

(vii) A shared special education 

collaborative designed to address a 

significant barrier or challenge faced by 

participating charter schools and 

traditional public schools in improving 

academic or developmental outcomes 

and services for students with 

disabilities (as defined in section 8101 

of the ESEA); 

(viii) A shared English learner 

collaborative designed to address a 

significant barrier or challenge faced by 

participating charter schools or 

traditional public schools in improving 

academic outcomes for English learners 

(as defined in section 8101 of the 

ESEA); or 

(ix) Other collaborations, such as the 

sharing of innovative and best practices, 

designed to address a significant barrier 

or challenge faced by participating 

charter schools or traditional public 

schools and designed to improve 

academic outcomes for all students 

served by members of the collaboration. 

(2) The State entity must certify that 

it will ask each eligible applicant that 

proposes a project that includes such a 

collaboration to— 

(A) Provide in its subgrant application 

a description of the collaboration that— 

(i) Describes each member of the 

collaboration and whether the 

collaboration would be a new or 

existing commitment; 

(ii) States the purpose and duration of 

the collaboration; 

(iii) Describes the anticipated roles 

and responsibilities of each member of 

the collaboration; 

(iv) Describes how the collaboration 

will benefit one or more members of the 

collaboration, including how it will 

benefit students or families affiliated 

with a member and lead to increased or 

improved educational opportunities for 

students, and meet specific and 

measurable, if applicable, goals; 

(v) Describes the resources members 

of the collaboration will contribute; and 

(vi) Contains any other relevant 

information; and 

(B) Within 120 days of receiving a 

subgrant award or within 120 days of 

the date the collaboration is scheduled 

to begin, whichever is later, provide 

evidence of participation in the 

collaboration (which may include, but is 

not required to include, an MOU). 

Final Assurances 

Assurances Applicable to State Entity 

Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer 

Grants: 

(a) Each applicant for a State Entity 

Grant, CMO Grant, or Developer Grant 

must provide an assurance that it (or, in 

the case of an applicant for a State 

Entity Grant or CMO Grant, each charter 

school that it funds) has not and will 

not enter into a contract with a for-profit 

management organization, including a 

nonprofit management organization 

operated by or on behalf of a for-profit 

entity, under which the management 

organization, or its related entities, 

exercises full or substantial 

administrative control over the charter 

school and, thereby, the CSP project. 

(b) Each applicant for a State Entity 

Grant, CMO Grant, or Developer Grant 

must provide an assurance that any 

management contract between the 

charter school (or, in the case of an 

applicant for a State Entity Grant or 

CMO Grant, each charter school that it 

funds) and a for-profit management 

organization, including a nonprofit 

CMO operated by or on behalf of a forprofit entity, guarantees or will 

guarantee that— 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40425 

(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 

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 

management organization, 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 applicant for a State Entity 

Grant, CMO Grant, or Developer Grant 

must provide an assurance that it (or, in 

the case of an applicant for a State 

Entity Grant or CMO Grant, each charter 

school that it funds) 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 

nonprofit management organization 

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 a State Entity 

Grant, to the State Entity), including— 

(1) A copy of the existing contract 

with the for-profit management 

organization or description of the terms 

of the contract, including the name and 

contact information of the management 

organization, the cost (i.e., fixed costs 

and estimates of any ongoing costs), 

including the amount of CSP funds 

proposed to be used toward such costs, 

and the percentage such cost represents 

of the charter school’s total funding, the 

duration, roles and responsibilities of 

the management organization, the steps 

the charter will take to ensure that it 

pays fair market value for any services 

or other items purchased or leased from 

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; 

(2) 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; 

(3) The names and contact 

information for each member of the 

governing boards of the charter school, 

and a list of management organization’s 

officers, chief administrator, and other 

administrators, and any staff involved in 

approving or executing the management 

contract; and a description of any actual 

or perceived conflicts of interest, 

including financial interests, and how 

the applicant resolved or will resolve 

any actual or perceived conflicts of 

interest to ensure compliance with 2 

CFR 200.318(c); and 

(4) 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 applicant for a State Entity 

Grant, CMO Grant, or Developer Grant 

must provide an assurance that it (or, in 

the case of an applicant for a State 

Entity Grant or CMO Grant, each charter 

school that it funds) will disclose, as 

part of the enrollment process, any 

policies and 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 in 

the school (e.g., transportation services 

or participation in the National School 

Lunch Program). 

(e) Each applicant for a State Entity 

Grant, CMO Grant, or Developer Grant 

must provide an assurance that it (or, in 

the case of an applicant for a State 

Entity Grant or CMO Grant, each charter 

school that it funds) will hold or 

participate in a public hearing in the 

local community in which the proposed 

charter school would be located to 

obtain information and feedback 

regarding the potential benefit of the 

charter school, which shall at least 

include how the proposed charter 

school will increase the availability of 

high-quality public school options for 

underserved students, promote racial 

and socio-economic diversity in such 

community or have an educational 

mission to serve primarily underserved 

students, and not increase racial or 

socio-economic segregation or isolation 

in the school districts from which 

students would be drawn to attend the 

charter school (consistent with 

applicable laws). 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 or 

provide virtual participation options), 

and submit a summary of the comments 

received as part of the application. The 

hearing may be conducted as part of the 

charter authorizing process, provided it 

meets the requirements above. 

(f) Each applicant for a State Entity 

Grant, CMO Grant, or Developer Grant 

must provide an assurance that it (or, in 

the case of an applicant for a State 

Entity Grant or CMO Grant, any charter 

school that it funds) will not use any 

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. Consistent 

with sections 4303(b)(1), 4303(h)(1)(B), 

and 4310(6) of the ESEA, an eligible 

applicant may use CSP planning funds 

for post-award planning and design of 

the educational program of a proposed 

new or replicated high-quality charter 

school that has not yet opened, which 

may include hiring and compensating 

teachers, school leaders, and specialized 

instructional support personnel; 

providing training and professional 

development to staff; and other critical 

planning activities that need to occur 

prior to the charter school opening 

when such costs cannot be met from 

other sources. 

Assurance Applicable to State Entity 

Grants and CMO Grants: 

Each applicant must provide an 

assurance that, within 120 days of the 

date of the grant award notification 

(GAN), or the date of any subgrant 

award notifications for State Entity 

Grants, the grantee will post on its 

website: 

(a) A list of the charter schools slated 

to receive CSP funds, including the 

following for each school: 

(1) The name, address, and grades 

served. 

(2) A description of the educational 

model. 

(3) If the charter school has contracted 

with a for-profit management 

organization, the name of the 

management organization, the amount 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40426 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

of CSP funding the management 

organization will receive from the 

school, and a description of the services 

to be provided. 

(4) The 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. 

(5) The grant or subgrant application 

(redacted as necessary). 

(6) For State entity grantees, the peer 

review materials, including reviewer 

comments and scores (redacted as 

necessary) from the subgrant 

competition. 

(b) As applicable for CMO grants, 

such a list must be updated at least 

annually and provide the anticipated 

number of charter schools that will 

receive CSP planning funds before 

securing a facility. 

Final Definitions 

Definitions Applicable to State Entity 

Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer 

Grants: 

Community assets means resources 

that can be identified and mobilized to 

improve conditions in the charter 

school and local community. These 

assets may include— 

(1) Human assets, including 

capacities, skills, knowledge base, and 

abilities of individuals within a 

community; and 

(2) Social assets, including networks, 

organizations, businesses, and 

institutions that exist among and within 

groups and communities. 

Disconnected youth means an 

individual, between the ages of 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 or district 

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: 

(1) A student who is living in poverty 

or is served by schools with high 

concentrations of students living in 

poverty. 

(2) A student of color. 

(3) A student who is a member of a 

federally recognized Indian Tribe. 

(4) An English learner (as defined in 

section 8101 of the ESEA). 

(5) A child or student with a disability 

(as defined in section 8101 of the 

ESEA). 

(6) A disconnected youth. 

(7) A migrant student. 

(8) A student experiencing 

homelessness or housing insecurity. 

(9) A student who is in foster care. 

(10) A pregnant, parenting, or 

caregiving student. 

(11) A student impacted by the justice 

system, including a formerly 

incarcerated student. 

(12) A student performing 

significantly below grade level. 

Definitions Applicable to State Entity 

Grants: 

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. 

Final Selection Criteria 

Selection Criteria Applicable to CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants: 

(a) Quality of the Needs Analysis. The 

Secretary considers the quality of the 

needs analysis for the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the needs 

analysis, the Secretary considers one or 

more of the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the needs 

analysis demonstrates that the proposed 

charter school will address the needs of 

all students served by the charter 

school, including underserved students; 

will ensure equitable access to highquality learning opportunities; and 

demonstrates sufficient demand for the 

charter school. 

(2) The extent to which the needs 

analysis demonstrates that the proposed 

charter school has considered and 

mitigated, whenever possible, potential 

barriers to application, enrollment, and 

retention of underserved students and 

their families. 

(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, 

including in the academic, financial, 

organizational, and operational 

performance of the charter school. 

(b) Quality of the Charter School’s 

Management Plan. The Secretary 

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, including 

maintaining management and oversight 

responsibilities over the grant. 

Selection Criterion Applicable to State 

Entity 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 

State Entity’s process for awarding 

subgrants, including— 

(1) The extent to which the projected 

number of subgrant awards 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. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we 

choose to use one or more of these 

priorities, requirements, definitions and 

selection criteria, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) must determine whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866 and subject to 

review by 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; 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40427 

(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. 

OMB has determined that this final 

regulatory action is a significant 

regulatory action subject to review by 

OMB under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

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 estimate 

funding for new awards in FY 2022 will 

be approximately $81,000,000 for State 

Entity Grants, $4,000,000 for Developer 

Grants, and $94,000,000 for CMO 

Grants. The total cost to the Department 

for this collection is estimated to be 

$179,000,000. 

While this action would impose costbearing application requirements on 

participating State Entity Grant, 

Developer Grant, and CMO Grant 

applicants and on State Entity 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 will strengthen 

accountability for the use of Federal 

funds, and benefit students, 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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this regulatory action does 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 regulatory 

action would affect are charter school 

developers. We believe that the costs 

imposed on an applicant by the 

priorities, requirements, definitions and 

selection criteria would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

these priorities, requirements, 

definitions and selection criteria would 

outweigh any costs incurred by the 

applicant. For these reasons these 

priorities, requirements, definitions and 

selection criteria would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

The CSP, including these final 

priorities, requirements, definitions and 

selection criteria, contain information 

collection requirements. These are new 

requirements for applicants to conduct 

a needs analysis and to submit detailed 

information on their management 

contracts with for-profit entities, 

including non-profit charter 

management organizations operated by 

or on behalf of for-profit entities. 

Consistent with prior information 

collection requirements for the CSP, the 

new package also requires applicants to 

describe the project for which funding 

is requested, identify the objectives, 

activities, and timelines for the funding 

period requested; describe the 

qualifications of key personnel; and 

provide a detailed budget and 

description of resources. 

The Department has developed the 

following burden estimates for the 

information collection requirements 

associated with this NFP. For the years 

that the Department holds State Entity 

Grant, CMO Grant, and Developer Grant 

competitions and that State entities hold 

subgrant competitions, we estimate that 

365 applicants will apply and submit 

applications. 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. 

The Department requested and 

obtained a six month emergency 

approval from OMB for a new 

information collection request, which 

includes the requirements associated 

with this NFP. A separate notice 

requesting public comment for this 

information collection is being 

published in this issue of the Federal 

Register for emergency processing. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

notice also provides a 30-day public 

comment period to solicit feedback on 

the estimated paperwork burden and to 

obtain a standard three year approval for 

the ICR. An assigned control number 

notifies the public that OMB has 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
40428 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

approved these information collection 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

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 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 other 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 Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Ruth E. Ryder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Programs, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14445 Filed 7–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2