Proposed Rule2022-00453
Proposed Priorities, Requirement, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Full-Service Community Schools Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 12, 2022
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) proposes priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection criteria under the Full-Service Community Schools (FSCS) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.215J. The Department is taking this action to support the successful implementation of this critical program and build additional evidence to share with the field. The Department may use these priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in FY 2022 and later years.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1709-1714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00453]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0152]
Proposed Priorities, Requirement, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Full-Service Community Schools Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes priorities,
requirement, definitions, and selection criteria under the Full-Service
Community Schools (FSCS) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.215J.
The Department is taking this action to support the successful
implementation of this critical program and build additional evidence
to share with the field. The Department may use these priorities,
requirement, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in FY
2022 and later years.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before February 11, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``FAQ.''
<bullet> Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priorities,
requirement, selection criteria, and definitions, address them to Elson
Nash, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E246,
Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only
[[Page 1710]]
information that they wish to make publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elson Nash, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E246, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 260-2655. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44021707170421206a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="175144544457727339707861">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: Community schools serve as centers of the
community, connecting students and families to vital resources that can
help them thrive. Importantly, community schools expand learning and
enrichment opportunities for both students and parents alike, and
promote family and community engagement in education, which ultimately
can bolster students' success.
This document reflects full-service community schools program
improvements based on lessons learned over the last decade, including
addressing the increased mental and behavioral health needs among
school community members, to improve program implementation and
evaluation.
The community schools field has been successful over the years
expanding community schools.\1\ Practitioners and policy makers at the
local, state, and national levels have embraced the community schools
approach to address critical needs of children, recognizing that
academic opportunities and success can be impacted by factors such as
neighborhood poverty, access to health and social services, including
mental and behavioral health services and supports, and family
stressors. Evidence-based community school approaches can help mitigate
the impact of these factors in ways that support student success.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Harkavy, I. (2017). John Dewey and the Community School
Idea. In L. Benson. Knowledge for Social Change: Bacon, Dewey and
the Revolutionary Transformation of Research Universities in the
Twenty-First Century (pp.42-67), Philadelphia, Temple University
Press.
\2\ Brookings Institution's Task Force for the Next Generation
Community Schools (2021). Addressing inequality in education with a
next generation of community schools: A blueprint for mayors,
states, and the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through proposed priorities and an enhanced application
requirement, the Department hopes to encourage applications to include
a plan to successfully implement the ``pillars of a full-service
community school'' (as defined in this document). In addition, the
Department seeks to continuously improve program implementation quality
at the site level. The Department also seeks to codify and enhance the
definitions, and selection criteria to coincide with improvements to
the overall purpose and structure of the FSCS program. Lastly, to
continue to build the evidence to support program quality and
improvement, we propose to include a priority that allows for a
national evaluation of the program.
We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities,
requirement, definitions, and selection criteria. To ensure that your
comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final
priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge
you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement,
definition, or selection criterion that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Department buildings are currently not open to
the public. However, upon reopening, you may also inspect the comments
in person at 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E246, Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for the proposed priorities, requirement,
definitions, and selection criteria. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The FSCS program provides support for the
planning, implementation, and operation of full-service community
schools that improve the coordination, integration, accessibility, and
effectiveness of services for children and families, particularly for
children attending schools with concentrated poverty, including rural
schools. The FSCS program is authorized under Title IV through
Community Support for School Success, sections 4621-4623 and 4625(a) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA).
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7271-7273, 7275.
Proposed Priorities
This document contains the following five proposed priorities:
Proposed Priority 1--Capacity Building and Development Grants;
Proposed Priority 2--Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants;
Proposed Priority 3--State Scaling Grants;
Proposed Priority 4--Participation in the National Evaluation; and
Proposed Priority 5--Evidence-Based Integrated Student Supports.
Background: Over the last five years, the FSCS program experienced
rapid growth as grantees expanded program implementation to multiple
schools and districts. Grantees adopted varied approaches to size and
scope, with a range of experiences and outcomes. Those grantees with
the most success provided clear guidance to the schools and partners on
program implementation, staff training, support for teachers, and
continuous improvement. This was particularly true with the 2016 study
by the Gardner Center \3\ on the implementation of the community school
approach by the 2014 FSCS grantee Oakland Unified School District. In
Oakland, across 33 schools, school staff, school leadership, and
community partners focused on four competencies when addressing the
needs of students: Comprehensiveness, collaboration, coherence, and
commitment. The results included reductions in suspensions and chronic
absenteeism and improved academic engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fehrer, K., & Leos-Urbel, J. (2016). ``We're One Team'':
Examining Community School Implementation Strategies in Oakland.
Education Sciences, 6(4), 26. MDPI AG. Retrieved from <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci6030026">https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci6030026</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed priorities 1 through 3 would allow the Department to award
grants to projects at different stages of development, from capacity-
building to scaling full- service community schools approaches where
the community and education leadership are ready to scale. These stages
represent points of entry at
[[Page 1711]]
the local, district, region, and state level to strategically scale the
community school approach based on the readiness of the consortium
applying for the grant.
Although scaling the approach is important, equally important is
retaining high quality implementation and fidelity to the approach
which includes the pillars of full-service community schools. The four
pillars of full- service community schools (as defined in this notice)
are integrated student supports, expanded learning opportunities,
active family and community engagements, and collaborative leadership
and practices.
There is some evidence that implementing all pillars of full-
service community schools is associated with a range of positive
outcomes for students and families.\4\ As the field continues to
evolve, it is important to expand this body of evidence with
additional, rigorously designed evaluations. Of the studies that assess
the effects of community schools using a randomized controlled trial or
quasi-experimental design, all examined the effects of a single
community school, the effects of multiple community schools within a
single city/metropolitan area, or the effects within 1-2 states.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Maier, A., J. Daniel, J. Oakes, and L. Lam. ``Community
Schools as an Effective School Improvement Strategy: A Review of the
Evidence.'' Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute, 2017.
\5\ For example, see:
Adams, C. (2010). ``Improving Conditions for Learning in High
Poverty Elementary Schools: Evidence from the Tulsa Area Community
Schools Initiative (TACSI).'' Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.
Durham, R.E., and Connoly, F.(2016). ``Baltimore Community
Schools: Promise & Progress.'' Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education
Research Consortium, 2016.
Somers, M., and Haider, Z. (2017). ``Using Integrated Student
Support to Keep Kids in School. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of
Communities In Schools, New York, NY: MDRC.
Johnston, W., Engberg, J., Opper, I., Sontag-Padilla, L. and
Xenakis, L. (2020). ``Illustrating the Promise of Community Schools:
An Assessment of the Impact of the New York City Community Schools
Initiative.'' Sponsored by the New York Mayor's Office of Economic
Opportunity. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Olson, L.S.(2014). ``A First Look at Community Schools in
Baltimore.'' Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education Research Consortium.
Somers, M.A, and Haider, Z.(2017). ``Using Integrated Student
Supports to Keep Kids in School: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of
Communities in Schools.'' New York: MDRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key opportunities for next steps include rigorous evaluation of
community schools across a wide range of cities and states. The
Department proposes Priority 4 to provide the option to institute the
first ever national evaluation of the FSCS program.
The Department proposes Priority 5 to support high quality
initiative design and implementation. A body of research demonstrates
that evidence-based integrated student support models positively impact
students' school progress, attendance, and mathematics achievement.\6\
These models offer a process for connecting students to personalized,
comprehensive services in a systematic manner. Incorporation of a
proven integrated student support model would enhance the impact of the
FSCS program on students. Under this proposed priority, we include the
four tiers of evidence outlined in ESEA, and the Department may choose
which tier or tiers to use in a notice inviting applications for FSCS
grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Moore, K.A., Lantos, H., Jones, R., Schindler, A., Belford,
J., & Sacks, V. (2017). Making the Grade: A Progress Report and Next
Steps for Integrated Student Supports. Child Trends.
(<a href="http://childtrends.org">childtrends.org</a>). Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., and Lam, L.
(2017). Community Schools as an Effective School Improvement
Strategy: A Review of the Evidence. (<a href="http://learningpolicyinstitute.org">learningpolicyinstitute.org</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priority 1--Capacity Building and Development Grants.
Projects that propose to conduct initial development and coordination
activities that leverage the findings of their needs assessment to
develop the infrastructure, activities, and partnerships to implement
and sustain full- service community schools in two or more schools
through extensive community engagement and gathering data on initial
outcomes.
Proposed Priority 2--Multi-Local Educational Agency (LEA) Grants.
Projects that propose to implement full-service community schools in
two or more LEAs within the same state.
Proposed Priority 3--FSCS State Scaling Grants.<SUP>7</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ DC, HI, and PR may apply for Statewide grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects in partnership with an SEA that propose to initiate,
support, and expand full-service community schools in six or more LEAs
across the state where there is a commitment to sustain the program
beyond two years after the term of the grant.
Proposed Priority 4--Participation in the National Evaluation.
Projects in which the applicant agrees to:
(1) Carry out the FSCS grant in a manner consistent with a
randomized controlled trial evaluation design developed by the
Department and its national evaluator;
(2) Propose at least four schools to potentially receive grant
funding in the national evaluation. The proposed schools can be
elementary, middle, and/or high schools.
Note: From among the proposed schools, applicants may designate one
group of two or more schools that serve the same grade levels as
``highest need,'' and if the applicant receives a grant, the national
evaluation will ensure that at least one of the schools in the group
receives FSCS funding.
(3) Not currently be fully implementing all four pillars of full-
service community schools (as defined in this notice) in any of the
schools proposed for the grant;
(4) Consent to the evaluator's random assignment of approximately
one-half of the schools proposed by the applicant to receive funding
and begin implementing the FSCS approach; and the other half of schools
to not receive funding from any FSCS grant for three years following
random assignment;
(5) Not promote or begin using grant funds for the implementation
of the FSCS approach in any proposed schools until the grantee receives
notification from the national evaluator about the random assignment of
its schools to receive FSCS grant funding or not; and
(6) Cooperate, consistent with applicable privacy requirements,
with evaluation data collection activities, including: Surveys of
grantee directors, principals of both groups of proposed schools (those
randomly assigned to receive grant funding and schools assigned to not
receive grant funding), and a representative sample of parents/
guardians of students attending the two groups of grantee schools; and
provision of district administrative records on educators (e.g.,
credentials, experience) and students (e.g., academic assessment
scores, course taking and credit accumulation, attendance) in the two
groups of grantee schools. These data collections will be carried out
at multiple points over the grant period.
Proposed Priority 5--Evidence-Based Integrated Student Supports.
Projects that propose adoption of an evidence-based model to
provide integrated student supports in their implementation at one or
more of the following tiers:
(a) Demonstrates a rationale;
(b) Promising evidence;
(c) Moderate evidence; or
(d) Strong evidence.
Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition
using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in
the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an
[[Page 1712]]
application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent
to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i));
or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an
application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirement
Background: To enhance the quality of implementation of full-
service community schools the Department proposes that each application
address the four pillars of full-service community schools. The four
pillars are: (1) Integrated student supports that address out-of-school
barriers to learning through partnerships with social and health
service agencies and providers; (2) expanded and enriched learning time
and opportunities; (3) active family and community engagement; and (4)
collaborative leadership and practices that build a culture of
professional learning, collective trust, and shared responsibility.
The Department proposes this application requirement to be used in
conjunction with those set out in Section 4625(a) of the ESEA. The
proposed application requirement is intended to: (1) Assist applicants
with creating and clearly presenting elements of high-quality full-
service community schools; (2) emphasize the critical role and direct
involvement of school partners, including community based
organizations, families, educators, and staff, in identifying and
implementing solutions needed to improve educational opportunities and
academic outcomes; (3) ensure that applicants have a clear knowledge of
the assets and needs in the schools and communities to be served as
demonstrated by the applicant's initial needs assessment and plan; and
(4) communicate to families that the combination of supports, rich
learning environment and collaboration with school leadership will
create the best conditions to meet the needs of their child. The
Department expects that the proposed requirement will not only improve
the application and review process but also improve program outcomes.
Through each of the FSCS competitions over the last ten years, the
program recognized the need for applications to more clearly represent
information such as presentation of services, demonstration of needs,
and connection to the classroom. These improvements will help increase
the likelihood that the proposed project addresses all identified needs
and connects the services and community assets to the schools. It will
also help peer reviewers' evaluation of services, partners, and
collaborations with school leadership.
Proposed Application Requirement
The Department proposes the following application requirement for
this program. We may apply this requirement in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Proposed Application Requirement: An applicant must, in addition to
providing the information and assurances required by Section 4625(a) of
the ESEA, provide the following:
In addressing the application requirements set out in Section
4625(a) of the ESEA, applicants must address the essential pillars of
full-service community schools (as defined in this notice).
Projects must describe the pillars of full-service community
schools that they have in place or how they will establish these
pillars, or how they will implement these supports with partners,
including community-based organization, and collaborating with school
leadership and staff.
Proposed Definitions
Background: To ensure a common understanding of the proposed
priorities, requirement, and selection criteria, we propose the
following definitions that are critical to the policy and statutory
purposes of the FSCS program. We propose these definitions to clarify
expectations for eligible entities applying for FSCS program grants and
to ensure that the review process for applications for FSCS grants
remains as transparent as possible.
Proposed Definitions: The Department proposes the following
definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools means all of the
following:
(A) Integrated student supports at a community school that provide
in- and out-of-school support for students, address well-being, and
address out-of-school barriers to learning through partnerships with
social and health service agencies, including mental and behavioral
health agencies and providers, and coordinated by a community school
coordinator, which may include--
(i) Medical, dental, vision care, and mental and behavioral health
services, including mental health literacy for students and staff; and
(ii) Individuals to assist with housing, transportation, nutrition,
citizenship preparation, or criminal justice issues and other services.
(B) Expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities, through
evidence-based strategies, including before-school, after-school,
during-school, weekend, and summer programs that provide additional
academic instruction, individualized academic support, enrichment
activities, or learning opportunities, for students at a community
school that--
(i) May emphasize real-world project based learning in which
students can apply their learning to contexts that are relevant and
engaging; and
(ii) May include art, music, drama, creative writing, hands-on
experience with engineering or science (including computer science),
career and technical education, tutoring that is aligned with classroom
success and homework help, and recreational programs that enhance and
are consistent with the school's curriculum.
(C) Active family and community engagement that--
(i) Brings parents and families of students at the community school
and in the community into the school as partners in students'
education, including meaningfully involving parents and families in the
community school's decision-making processes;
(ii) Makes the community school a hub for services, activities, and
programs, for students, families, and members of the neighborhood that
the community school serves;
(iii) Provides adults with desired educational opportunities; and
(iv) Provides centralized supports for families and communities in
community schools, which may include English as a second language
classes, citizenship preparation, computer skills, art, housing
assistance, child abuse and neglect prevention supports, health and
mental health literacy programs, digital literacy training, or other
programs that bring community members into a school building for
meetings, events, or programming.
(D) Collaborative leadership and practices that build a culture of
professional learning, collective trust, and shared responsibility for
each community school using strategies that--
(i) Shall, at a minimum, include a school-based leadership team, a
community school coordinator, and a community-wide leadership team; and
[[Page 1713]]
(ii) May include other leadership or governance teams, community
school steering committees, or other community coalitions, educator
learning communities, and other staff to manage the multiple, complex
joint work of school and community organizations.
Broadly representative consortium means stakeholders representing
broad groups of people working together for the best interest of
children; such stakeholders may include, but are not limited to
schools, nonprofits, government, philanthropy, and the business
community.
History of effectiveness means an eligible entity demonstrating the
ability to successfully implement programs and policies. Such programs
and policies must include but shall not be limited to successfully
implementing with other organizations grants, policies, and programs
for students from high need schools (as defined in ESEA section 2221).
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background: Since the original FSCS grant competition in FY 2008,
the Department has held four additional competitions (FY 2010, 2014,
2018, and 2019). Our experience with administering these competitions,
including feedback from peer reviewers, applicants, funded grantees,
and experts, demonstrates the need to use program-specific selection
criteria to evaluate specific program elements.
Proposed Selection Criteria: The Department proposes the following
selection criteria for evaluating an application under this program. We
may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which this
program is in effect. In the notice inviting applications or the
application package or both we will announce the maximum possible
points assigned to each criterion.
(a) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects
relevant and evidence-based findings from existing literature, and
includes a high-quality plan for project implementation integrating the
four pillars of full-service community schools and the use of
appropriate evaluation methods to ensure successful achievement of
project objectives.
(b) The extent to which the applicant will ensure that a diversity
of perspectives is brought to bear in the design and operation of the
proposed project, including those of families, educators and staff,
beneficiaries of services, school leadership, and community leadership.
(c) The extent to which the grantee has plans for a full-time
coordinator at each school, includes a plan to sustain the position
beyond the grant period, and a description of how this position will
serve to integrate, coordinate, and deliver pipeline services at each
school.
(d) The extent to which the grantee has a consortium broadly
representative of community stakeholders and needs.
(e) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a history of
effectiveness.
Final Priority, Requirement, Definitions and Selection Criteria: We
will announce the final priorities, requirement, definitions, and
selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection
criteria after considering responses to this document and other
information available to the Department. This document does not
preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these priorities, requirement, 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 Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to the requirements
of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule).
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify).
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations.
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the proposed priorities, requirement, 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 would maximize net
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes
that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the
[[Page 1714]]
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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection
criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved
by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006; the proposed priorities,
requirement, definitions, and selection criteria do not affect the
currently approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government
overseeing a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would
affect are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under
State law; institutions of higher education; public or private
nonprofit organizations; and Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations. We
believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the proposed
priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection criteria would be
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and
that the benefits of these proposed priorities, requirement,
definitions, and selection criteria would outweigh any costs incurred
by the applicant.
Participation in the FSCS program is voluntary. For this reason,
the proposed priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection
criteria would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied
for funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to
apply for FSCS program funds, an eligible entity would evaluate the
requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and
weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving an
FSCS program grant. An eligible entity will probably apply only if it
determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an
application.
We believe that the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria would not impose any additional burden on a
small entity applying for a grant than the entity would face in the
absence of the proposed action. That is, the length of the applications
those entities would submit in the absence of the proposed regulatory
action and the time needed to prepare an application would likely be
the same.
This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided
under this program. We invite comments from small eligible entities as
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to
support that belief.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc, or another accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at
<a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site you can view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you
must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Ian Rosenblum,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, delegated the
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2022-00453 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 12, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.