[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40406-40428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14445]



[[Page 40405]]

Vol. 87

Wednesday,

No. 128

July 6, 2022

Part III





Department of Education





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





34 CFR Chapter II





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 High-
Quality Charter Schools (CMO Grants); and Grants to Charter School 
Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the 
Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Developer 
Grants); Final Rule

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

[[Page 40406]]


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

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 
High-Quality Charter Schools (CMO Grants); and Grants to Charter School 
Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the 
Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Developer 
Grants)

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

ACTION: 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dab9b2bba8aebfa8a9b9b2b5b5b6a99abfbef4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="492a21283b3d2c3b3a2a212626253a092c2d672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 High-
Quality 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4310(5) and (6) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(5) and 
(6)) (www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 high-quality charter school, based 
on the educational model of an existing high-quality charter school; 
and ``expand'' as significantly increasing enrollment or adding one or 
more grades to a high-quality charter school (20 U.S.C. 7221i(9) and 
(7)). Section 4310 defines ``high-quality charter school,'' in 
pertinent part, as a charter school that shows evidence of strong 
academic results, which may include strong student academic growth, as 
determined by a State; has no significant issues in the areas of 
student safety, financial and operational management, or statutory or 
regulatory compliance; and has demonstrated success in significantly 
increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates 
where applicable, for all students served by the charter school and for 
each of the subgroups of students defined in section 1111(c)(2) of the 
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(8)).
    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 charter-district 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

[[Page 40408]]

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-to-date 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-us-department-of-educations-office-of-elementary-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 
``Full-Service Community Schools.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ WestED, Data Collection Form, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 high-quality 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

[[Page 40410]]

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 for-profit 
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 high-quality 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 
community-centered 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 high-quality 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 community-centered 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.

[[Page 40411]]

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DC Public School and DC Public Charter School Collaboration, 
EdSight, EdSight Cross Sector Collaboration FINAL.pdf (dc.gov), 
October 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \6\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 40412]]

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 high-quality 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 charter-district 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 non-compete 
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 charter-
traditional collaborations.
    We also acknowledge the commenter's concern that requiring the 
district to sign an MOU could be labor-intensive 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

[[Page 40413]]

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 high-achieving 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 Full-Service 
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

[[Page 40414]]

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 high-quality, well-
planned charter schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 socio-economically 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 socio-
economically 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 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. 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 socio-economic 
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

[[Page 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 socio-economically 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 socio-economically 
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 
non-regulatory guidance and is not intended to establish a new standard 
but rather to further clarify an existing standard. The

[[Page 40416]]

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,

[[Page 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 high-
quality 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 high-quality 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 Educator- and 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.

[[Page 40418]]

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 socio-economic 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 40420]]

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 high-quality 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

[[Page 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 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 
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 socio-economically 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 socio-economically 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 
socio-economically 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 decision-making.
    (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 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 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

[[Page 40422]]

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 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 
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 socio-economically 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 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 
socio-economically 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

[[Page 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 decision-making.
    (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;

[[Page 40424]]

    (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, 
cost-sharing 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 for-profit entity, guarantees or will guarantee 
that--

[[Page 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

[[Page 40426]]

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 high-quality 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;

[[Page 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 cost-bearing 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

[[Page 40428]]

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


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