Notice2022-15090
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Full-Service Community Schools
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
July 13, 2022
Effective
August 12, 2022
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Full- Service Community Schools (FSCS) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.215J. The Department may use these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and in later years.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41675-41688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15090]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0152]
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Full-Service Community Schools
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Full-
Service Community Schools (FSCS) program, Assistance Listing Number
84.215J. The Department may use these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year
(FY) 2022 and in later years.
DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are effective August 12, 2022
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Hodgdon. U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E346, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-6620. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96d0c5d5c5d6f3f2b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5f3e6f6e6f5d0d19bd2dac3">[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: The Department intends these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to support
competitions under the FSCS program for the purpose of awarding grants
to projects in 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 the local, district, regional, and State
levels to strategically scale the community school approach based on
the readiness of the consortium applying for the grant.
Purpose of Program: The FSCS program, established under sections
4621-4625 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended
(ESEA), 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.
Program Authority: Sections 4621-4625 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 1771-
7273, 7275.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for this program in the Federal
Register on January 12, 2022 (87 FR 1709) (the NPP). That document
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 43
parties submitted comments pertinent to the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. We discuss
substantive issues under each priority, requirement, definition, or
selection criteria to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes or suggested changes the law does not
authorize us to make. In addition, we do not address comments that are
outside the scope of the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.
Proposed Priority 1--Capacity Building and Development Grants.
Comments: Among the 15 comments related to Proposed Priority 1, all
expressed overall support for the importance of and need for the
priority.
Six commenters recommended revisions to Proposed Priority 1,
including striking the word ``sustain'' to better reflect that this
priority is focused on building grantee capacity and the initial
development of full-service community schools. Six commenters suggested
that the Department clarify that the needs assessment could be done
during, rather than before, the grant period. Two commenters
recommended that we designate Priority 1 as an absolute priority, and
three suggested that we set the grant period at 3 years. One commenter
recommended that the Department reduce the funding available for
Priority 1 grantees, which in FY 2019 was established at $500,000 per
year for 5 years, at total of up to $2.5 million for the full grant
period. One commenter requested that we clarify that a grantee can
scale beyond the two schools required in Priority 1. One commenter
suggested that Priority 1 should emphasize civic learning and
development of civic knowledge and skills. Another commenter suggested
that the Department require asset mapping as part of the needs
assessment, as well as a clear plan for how the grantee will engage and
collaborate with families. Another commenter suggested the Department
encourage projects that approach
[[Page 41676]]
capacity building and development of programs holistically, including
through collaboration and integration with early childhood education
providers such as Head Start.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the proposed
priority and concurs that the purpose of Priority 1 is to encourage
grantees to begin the work to develop full-service community schools.
As such, the Department clarifies that the needs assessment can be
completed during the grant period and will eliminate the word
``sustain'' from the description.
The Department acknowledges the importance of a comprehensive,
collaborative, equitable, accessible, culturally competent, and
inclusive approach to completing a holistic and individualized needs
assessment that considers community assets and engages a wide and
representative range of participants, including families and early
childhood educators such as Head Start providers. We are revising the
language of the priority to include extensive community engagement as
part of the development and coordination activities in Priority 1. The
Department declines to require applicants to conduct asset mapping
because the term is not used in section 4625(a)(4) of the ESEA and we
want to maintain maximum flexibility for applicants. Additionally,
nothing in the priority prevents an applicant from conducting asset
mapping. Pillar 3 of the FSCS requirements includes active family and
community engagement, and we are revising the definition of a broadly
representative consortium to include student, family, and community
voices. The Department thinks that the activities outlined in Pillar 3,
which specifies that the school provides centralized supports for
families and communities, which may include citizenship preparation,
allows for a wide variety of activities. We appreciate the specific
ideas about the organizations, individuals, and activities an applicant
or grantee might engage in their plans to develop a full-service
community school; maintaining the broad language in the priority,
however, will allow for additional ideas.
The Department appreciates the interest in distinguishing Priority
1 as an absolute priority that is focused on development and capacity
building, including the recommendation to rename the priority to
reflect that focus, reduce the grant period to 3 years, and reduce the
level of funding for awards. Regarding the duration of FSCS grants,
section 4623(b) of the ESEA establishes that ``a grant awarded under
this subpart shall be for a period of not more than 5 years, and may be
extended for an additional 2 years.'' Applicants may propose shorter
project periods, but the Department thinks it is important to allow
applicants, including applicants that are building capacity and
developing a full-service community school, with sufficient time to
plan, develop and implement their project. A longer period of
performance will also reduce the administrative burden on applicants by
reducing the frequency of applications. As such, we decline the
suggestion to shorten the length of the grant. The designation as an
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority is
established through the notice inviting applications (NIA).
Section 4625(e) of the ESEA requires that FSCS grantees use their
awards to coordinate three or more existing pipeline services and
provide a minimum of two additional services at two or more public
elementary or secondary schools. Given the statutory requirement that
grantees coordinate existing services and provide additional services
during their grant period, all FSCS grantees are required to implement
a minimal number of full-service community schools' activities. The
Department intends to reflect this requirement in the NIA and by
maintaining the current title of the priority, Capacity Building and
Development Grants. The priority allows for applications that propose
to serve more than two schools, but we think the language that a
grantee implement a full-service community school in ``two or more
schools'' is sufficiently clear.
Changes: We have revised Priority 1 by eliminating the word
``sustain'' and clarifying that the needs assessment can be completed
during the grant period. We have added that initial development and
coordination activities include extensive community engagement. We
discuss below our changes to definitions, including the change to the
definition of the Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools to ensure
that student, family, and community voice are included.
Priority 2--Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants.
Comments: Many commenters strongly supported a priority that
expands implementation of full-service community schools beyond two
school sites and into local educational agencies (LEAs). Seven
commenters recommended that the Department retitle the priority to use
the term ``Implementation Grants'' and include the expectation that
grants awarded under this priority would be sustained beyond Federal
funding. Further, one commenter requested that the Department clarify
that funding under Priority 2 expand and sustain community schools
within an LEA. An additional commenter proposed that the Department
clarify that a grantee can expand to additional schools beyond the two
required by section 4625(a)(3) of the ESEA.
Four commenters recommended that Priority 2 require no more than
one LEA, while three other commenters offered support for the inclusion
of two or more LEAs, noting that the requirement that two or more LEAs
work together benefits small and rural LEAs. Eight commenters requested
that the Department revise the requirement that the LEAs be located in
the same State, noting that in many places, including rural, remote and
Tribal places, community identity is not limited by the legal
boundaries of a State.
One commenter requested that the Department clarify that the
eligible applicants under this priority include those outlined in
section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA--which is a consortium of one or more
LEAs or the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and one or more community-
based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public
entities--and that funds be reserved or designated for primary
applicants that are not LEAs. One commenter suggested that the
Department provide a comprehensive list of expanded learning
professionals for all LEAs and allow for local flexibility for each
school to choose those that best meet the needs of their community. One
commenter did not support Priority 2 because unitary systems, such as
Hawaii and Puerto Rico, would be ineligible under this priority.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for Priority 2
and the design to scale development of full-service community schools
into further implementation across two or more LEAs. Because Priority 1
also requires that grantees develop and begin implementation of the
full-service community school model, including an allowance for use of
funds for planning in year one, we decline the suggestion to retitle
Priority 2; however, although no revisions to the priority are
required, we agree that grantees should plan how they will sustain
their work in additional schools and LEAs. In response to the concern
that applicants and grantees can expand support to additional schools
beyond the statutorily required two schools, the Department is adding
language requiring eligible entities to ``coordinate and provide
services at two or more full-
[[Page 41677]]
service community schools.'' The Department agrees that it is important
to clarify that, under Priority 2, two or more community schools would
be implemented in each LEA.
We appreciate the considerations of several commenters that
implementing a community school approach across a single system, such
as a single LEA, is sufficiently complex. However, we think that the
distinction of working in no fewer than two LEAs is an important
indicator of scaling the model. We also appreciate the considerations
of small and rural LEAs who expressed that working in partnership with
one or more additional LEAs supports their implementation of the model.
The Department acknowledges that community identity often transcends
official State boundaries and that, in some places, including rural and
Tribal areas, it may be appropriate for the two or more LEAs to be
located in different States, and thus, we are eliminating that
requirement from Priority 2.
Regarding the request that the Department consider reserving funds
under Priority 2 for nonprofit-led consortia, we think individual
communities and applicants are best positioned to determine the makeup
of their consortium. As such, we decline to require Priority 2
applications to be led by nonprofits or that a portion of funding be
reserved for nonprofit-led consortia; however, we are adding language
to clarify that eligible applicants are consortia that include LEAs or
the BIE and nonprofit organizations. The Department appreciates the
suggestion that each LEA be provided with a list of expanded learning
professionals, but we know that individual communities are best
positioned to assess the resources and potential partners that can
address the needs and supplement the assets identified in the
development of their full-service community schools. As such, we will
not provide a list of expanded learning professionals to LEAs. While
unitary systems where the State Educational Agency (SEA) is also the
LEA would not be eligible to apply under Priority 2, those entities
would be able to apply under Priorities 1 and 3. Further, the NPP
included a citation within Proposed Priority 3, which stated that the
District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico may apply for Statewide
grants, as does the text of Final Priority 3 included in this NFP. This
clarification is also included in the NIA.
Changes: The Department has revised Priority 2 to require that an
applicant implement and sustain the model in two or more schools and in
two or more LEAs. The language of the priority clarifies that eligible
applicants are consortia that include, and may be led by, community-
based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or public or private
entities. The Department has eliminated the language in the priority
that the two or more LEAs are located in the same State. Upon our
internal review, we also added an exception for LEAs that oversee a
single school--to the requirement to coordinate and provide services at
two or more full-service community schools in each LEA--in recognition
that some small, rural or charter school LEAs may only serve a single
school.
Priority 3--State Scaling Grants.
Comments: The Department received numerous comments that support
Priority 3's focus on scaling the full-service community school at the
statewide level. Three commenters requested that the Department clarify
that eligible applicants under Priority 3 are those outlined in section
4622(1)(B) of the ESEA. Four commenters proposed that the Department
require that the SEA apply as part of the required consortium, or that
the consortium include documentation from the SEA, in the form of a
letter of support, outlining the SEA's commitment to and partnership
with the consortium.
Two commenters proposed that the Department require, as a condition
of eligibility, that States identify or establish a State steering
committee that represents community schools stakeholders, including
educators and other school staff, community school initiative leaders,
education union or association designees, family leaders participating
in community school programs, community partners, and community school
coordinators from schools already implementing community schools in
that State and that, in addition to serving as an advisory committee,
also has the authority to make decisions about the design,
implementation, and evaluation of State efforts for the grant. One
commenter suggested that the Department require each grantee under
Priority 3 to provide clear and consistent guidance for identifying
LEAs, including the establishment of a minimum set of criteria so that
the LEAs most in need are considered.
Five commenters requested that the Department remove the
requirement that six or more LEAs participate in a grant under Priority
3; two commenters suggested that the Department require a percentage of
the State's LEAs to participate, making the requirement more consistent
across States with large and small numbers of LEAs. Several commenters
recommended that funding available be commensurate with the number of
LEAs included in a grant.
Two commenters requested that the Department clarify that an
applicant's receipt of a grant in partnership with an SEA does not
preclude other applicants in the State from receiving an award under a
separate priority. Two commenters shared that they do not support
Priority 3, including one commenter who declined to support the
priority because, in their reading, unitary systems such as Hawaii and
Puerto Rico would be ineligible.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for scaling
full-service community schools to the State level, as well as the
suggestions commenters provided. In response to the request that the
Department reaffirm the eligible applicants under the FSCS program, we
recognize that the eligible applicants are established in section
4622(1)(B) of the ESEA; therefore, the Department cannot make changes
that would allow or require the SEA to be a lead applicant. The
Department further agrees that the State scaling envisioned in Priority
3 makes SEA involvement and commitment critical to successful
implementation and scaling; SEA commitment must be demonstrated through
the FSCS-required memorandum of understanding (MOU). The Department
appreciates the insights of commenters regarding the need for and
benefit of a statewide steering committee that can support
implementation and scaling, including selection of participating LEAs.
However, the Department thinks that applicants and grantees, working
with their partners, including Tribal partners, the broadly
representative consortium (as defined in this notice) and the statewide
steering committee are best positioned to determine the process for
selecting LEAs under Priority 3. Regarding the concern that selected
LEAs have demonstrated need, section 4625(b) of the ESEA prioritizes
schools eligible for a schoolwide program under section 114(b) of ESEA.
The Department acknowledges the concerns that Priority 3 not set a
minimum of participating LEAs and recognizes that there is wide
variation in the number of LEAs and the number of schools within LEAs,
across States. We agree that requiring a percentage of LEAs in the
State would be a more equitable approach to scaling the model. However,
the Department is interested in funding applications that propose to
work with their partners to develop, implement, evaluate, and sustain
full-service community schools at a level, and in a percentage of LEAs
and
[[Page 41678]]
schools, across the State that will effectively scale the model
statewide and are addressing this through revisions to the selection
criteria. The Department will take into consideration the request that
funding be made commensurate with the number of LEAs, and number of
schools within those LEAs, that will be served, but funding levels are
established in the NIA.
The Department also recognizes the concern that a grant awarded
under Priority 3 might inhibit submission of additional applications in
that State under other priorities, and we will clarify through pre-
application technical assistance that multiple awards can be made in a
State provided that funded activities do not overlap. The Department
also understands the concern of unitary systems where the SEA is also
the LEA; however, the NPP included a citation under Proposed Priority 3
with the clarification that ``DC, HI, and PR may apply for Statewide
grants.'' The final priority includes the same clarification.
Changes: The Department has revised Priority 3 to require that the
SEA document its commitment to the consortia and implementation of the
grant, if awarded, through the required MOU. Additionally, the
Department is requiring, under Priority 3, that the applicant commit to
establishing a State steering committee. Finally, the Department has
revised the requirement from six or more LEAs to a requirement that the
applicant, in partnership with the SEA, determine the percentage of
LEAs in the State that will develop, support, and expand full-service
community schools over the 5-year grant performance period. We have
included a selection criterion that will be used to assess the
applicant's proposal to scale the FSCS model at the statewide level,
including recommendations for considering the percentage of LEAs
proposed when awarding points. Upon our internal review, we also added
language recognizing that some small, rural, tribal, or charter school
LEAs may only serve a single school.
Proposed Priority 4--Participation in a National Evaluation.
Comments: Of the 19 comments received related to Priority 4, most
expressed concern about use of a randomized controlled trial evaluation
design for the program. Two commenters supported the model.
Six commenters objected to the national evaluation's randomized
controlled study design. Five commenters encouraged the Department to
use a different study design (such as various quasi-experimental
designs) rather than a randomized controlled trial. One commenter
expressed doubt that the national evaluation could control what was
happening in the group of schools that would not receive funding.
Six commenters objected to the Department not funding every
interested and eligible school under the randomized controlled trial
study design.
There were six comments related to the data collected by the
national evaluation. Four commenters recommended that the national
evaluation require collection of specific quantitative and qualitative
data aligned with the Full-Service Community Schools theory of action
and its intended outcomes. One commenter asked how the Department will
ensure that the outcomes measured go beyond test scores and include
outcomes such as student physical and mental health and a range of key
non-cognitive competencies, such as social and emotional learning and
increased sense of safety and well-being. One commenter encouraged the
Department to consider the baseline attributes and inputs of the
community and include the experiences and perspectives of students,
families, teachers, community partners, and stakeholders.
Six commenters encouraged the Department to establish a technical
advisory group to advise on the best approach to the national
evaluation. One commenter suggested specific candidates to participate
in such a group. There were four comments related to implementation of
full-service community schools looking different across schools because
the strategy is specific to the needs and assets of individual
communities and schools.
Two commenters indicated concern about how the lack of consistent
services and activities could be captured in a randomized controlled
trial. One commenter believed that it would be difficult to ascertain
common practices across grantees that are most helpful for
practitioners and policymakers to understand and advance. One commenter
asked how the national evaluation will account for schools placing
varying levels of emphasis on specific outcomes based on the
characteristics of the student populations and communities they serve.
Two commenters encouraged the Department to make participation in
the national evaluation mandatory through the use of an absolute
priority, stating that it would ensure that the sample size is
sufficiently large and representative of grantees. One commenter
pointed out that if only some of the grantees participate in the
evaluation process, findings are limited and may not be representative
or inclusive, and the opportunity to learn about the impacts of the
program in different communities may be missed.
Two commenters objected to the proposed requirement that applicants
nominate four schools to receive program funding. In particular, this
requirement could exclude smaller districts, which would limit the
generalizability of the findings. It could also exclude larger
districts that do not have at least four schools that are not fully
implementing the four pillars of the community schools model.
One commenter asked for clarification on how the data collected
under the national evaluation would be used. One commenter asked what
the national evaluation will assess and how the results will be shared.
One commenter encouraged the Department to adopt an equity-based
approach to the national evaluation, in partnership with community
members.
Seven commenters recommended that the Department require each
grantee to conduct a third-party local evaluation. Those commenters
encouraged the Department to require both quantitative and qualitative
data that may include, but not be limited to, student chronic
absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including suspensions and
expulsions; school climate information, which may come from student,
parent, or teacher surveys; provision of integrated student supports
and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and
opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact;
information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school
staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers,
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and rates of teacher turnover;
graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative
leadership and practice strategies, which may include building the
capacity of educators, principals, other school leaders, and other
staff to lead collaborative school improvement structures, such as
professional learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all
initiative-level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county
officials, children and youth cabinets, nonprofit service providers,
public housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program
quality and progress through individual student data, participant
feedback, and aggregate
[[Page 41679]]
outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and organizing school
personnel and community partners into working teams focused on specific
issues identified in the needs and assets assessment.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments, concerns, and
support shared by the field regarding a national evaluation of the FSCS
program and we are committed to working with grantees and other
stakeholders to design and implement the national evaluation required
under section 4625(f) of the ESEA. To allow more time to conduct
outreach with the field, the Department is not going to begin the
national evaluation with the FY 2022 grant competition.
The Department recognizes the potential benefit of requiring each
grantee to partner with a local independent evaluator to study each
grant award separately and support ongoing program improvements during
the grant period. Such a local evaluation would not be in place of a
national evaluation. As noted above, the authorizing legislation for
the FSCS program requires a separate national evaluation that examines
the effects of the grant program as a whole.
The Department has not included the Participation in the National
Evaluation priority in these final priorities but will continue to
consider the national evaluation priority and the related comments. We
will also conduct additional outreach to the field to gather and
discuss recommendations for developing a robust national evaluation of
the program and its grantees and to address some of the concerns
raised. If we decide to finalize the national evaluation priority, the
Department will summarize and respond to the comments in a separate NFP
for that priority.
Additionally, the Department will build upon the ESEA requirement
that grantees conduct annual evaluations, use those evaluations to
refine and improve activities carried out, and make results of such
evaluations publicly available, by adding a requirement that grantees
contract for a third-party independent evaluation to meet the FSCS
local evaluation requirements.
Changes: The Department has not included the Participation in the
National Evaluation priority in these final priorities but will
continue to consider the national evaluation priority and the related
comments. Additionally, the Department will build upon the ESEA
requirement that grantees conduct annual evaluations, use those
evaluations to refine and improve activities carried out, and make
results of such evaluations publicly available, by including a
requirement that grantees contract for a third-party, external
independent evaluation to meet the FSCS local evaluation requirements.
Proposed Priority 5--Evidence-Based Integrated Student Supports.
Comments: Four commenters expressed that they do not support
Proposed Priority 5 and requested that it be eliminated. Commenters
expressed concern that the priority is duplicative of the requirement
that applicants address integrated student supports under the pillars
of community schools. Many of those same commenters also noted that the
proposed selection criteria evaluate applications on 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 pillars of
full-service community schools.'' Two commenters supported the
inclusion of the priority because they agree with the importance of
strong evidence to ensure effective programs; one of those commenters
noted the importance of clarifying that the term ``evidence-based'' has
the meaning provided in the ESEA. Two commenters recommended that the
Department clarify what is meant by integrated student supports. Three
commenters expressed support for this priority, including one commenter
who recommended it be used as a competitive preference priority.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and suggestions
provided, which make evident that the intention behind the priority, to
encourage applicants and grantees to incorporate evidence-based models
of integrated supports that identify and address the comprehensive
needs of individual students into their community school initiatives,
was not clearly communicated. We recognize that the use of the term
``integrated student supports'' in Proposed Priority 5, as well as the
proposed requirement and definition of the four pillars of community
schools, may be confusing for applicants. In response to comments
supporting the use of evidence-based activities and requests for
confirmation that the definition is consistent with ESEA, the
Department acknowledges that Section 4625(b)(2) of the ESEA prioritizes
evidence-based activities in the FSCS program and cites the definition
included in the ESEA.
In order to encourage applicants and grantees to incorporate
evidence-based models of integrated supports that identify and address
the comprehensive needs of individual students into their community
school initiatives, the Department will consider inclusion of
applicable priorities from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities
published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612)
(Supplemental Priorities).
Changes: In recognition of the potential for confusion in using the
term ``integrated student supports'' in Proposed Priority 5 and
Requirement 1, and that the information may appear to be duplicative,
the Department has not included Proposed Priority 5--Evidence-Based
Integrated Student Supports in these final priorities.
Additional Priorities
Comments: A number of commenters suggested additional priorities
for the FY 2022 FSCS program. Of those commenters, four requested that
the Department include a competitive preference priority for applicants
serving rural communities or schools. One of these commenters requested
a priority for Tribal partners or applicants from rural or remote
areas.
A number of commenters expressed concern that grant resources and
activities may not be focused on schools, students, and communities of
greatest need. Of the 12 comments related to directing services and
grants to those of greatest need, 10 recommended that the Department
add selection criteria related to need and one proposed that the
Department add a priority for providing services to low-income
families.
Six commenters encouraged the Department to more explicitly connect
community school supports to classroom instruction and learning. Two
commenters referenced the science of learning and development and
recommended the FSCS program emphasize a whole child or whole learner
approach. One commenter suggested that the FSCS program include a focus
on schoolwide culture, including use of trauma-informed practices and
adoption of disciplinary procedures and practices that are holistic and
nondiscriminatory.
One commenter recommended that the Department develop a competitive
priority for applicants who have made structural changes to support
community schools, applicants who have plans to develop and utilize
shared data systems, and previous or current Promise Neighborhoods
grantees.
Two commenters suggested that, because the success of a full-
service community school relies on strong cross-agency collaboration,
the Department consider using as a competitive preference priority the
Secretary's Supplemental Priority 6--
[[Page 41680]]
Strengthening Cross-Agency Coordination and Community Engagement to
Advance Systemic Change.
Discussion: The purpose of the FSCS program is to provide support
for the planning, implementation, and operation of full-service
community schools, particularly for children attending schools,
including rural and tribal schools, with high rates of poverty.
Additionally, the authorizing legislation requires that not less than
15 percent of grant funds be awarded to eligible entities that propose
to carry out activities in rural areas.
The legislation that authorizes FSCS requires the Department to
prioritize both high-poverty and rural schools. Section 4625(b) of the
ESEA requires the Department to give priority to eligible entities that
(A) will serve a minimum of two or more full-service community schools
eligible for a schoolwide program under section 1114(b), as part of a
community- or district-wide strategy; or (B) include an LEA that
satisfies the requirements of section 5211(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C); or
section 5221(b)(1)(A) and (B). The Department will ensure that all
statutory requirements for the program are met.
The Department recognizes that delivery of integrated, accessible,
and effective supports in full-service community schools are intended
to improve student outcomes, including academic achievement. We agree
that full-service community schools should support the whole child and
their classroom experience, including support and professional
development for educators to ensure the classroom is an environment
that allows students to thrive. FSCS schools should also support school
leadership, and adoption of practices and frameworks that meet the
needs of all learners. The Department has taken these suggestions into
consideration as it develops the NIA, which may include related
priorities from the Supplemental Priorities. We think the Supplemental
Priorities include a number of topics proposed by the commenters, and
therefore do not think it necessary to rule-make on program-specific
priorities when the Supplemental Priorities are available.
The Department agrees with the comment that organizations that have
successfully implemented Promise Neighborhoods grants have revised
their school and community structures to improve interagency and cross-
sector implementation of shared goals and activities. These
organizations use a shared data system to track and measure individual
and program progress and are well positioned to successfully implement
a FSCS grant. We decline, however, to include these as additional
priorities because FSCS is designed to support schools and communities
across a continuum of capacity to develop and implement full-service
community schools.
The Department concurs that cross-agency coordination at the local
level is critical to successful full-service community schools.
Further, the Biden-Harris Administration is committed to providing
support for comprehensive evidence-based community violence initiatives
that bring a cross-agency approach to community violence prevention and
intervention. The Department will take these suggestions into
consideration as it develops the NIA, which may include related
priorities from the Supplemental Priorities.
Changes: None.
Requirements
Requirement 1--Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools
Comments: Among the comments received related to the proposed
requirement that projects must describe the pillars of full-service
community schools that they have in place or how they will establish
these pillars, six expressed overall support for the pillars. Four
commenters recommended that the Department provide applicants with
examples of the pillars. Another commenter noted that any examples of
the pillars should be evidence-based. One commenter suggested the
Department provide applicants with workshops on the pillars. One
commenter noted that the Department should add that the pillars of
community schools must be underpinned by a strong instructional program
that incorporates the science of learning and development.
One commenter recommended that the Department clarify that an
applicant that is implementing an evidence-based integrated student
supports model is meeting the requirement as long as it is working in a
school that is addressing all four pillars of a community school.
One commenter recommended that the Department require that schools
and districts make an adequate effort to reach students who will most
benefit from the supports and require applicants to describe the
strategies they will use to ensure the most vulnerable students and
families are being reached. A similar comment recommended that the
Department explicitly require that applicants collaborate with
families.
One commenter recommended that, instead of requiring applicants to
describe their work using the framework of the four pillars, they
should be required to describe their approach to strategic growth and
address how community schools' strategies involve teaching and
curriculum in order to reach the ultimate goal of impacting student
learning.
Discussion: The Department appreciates that applicants benefit from
technical assistance and support throughout the application period and
during program implementation. The Department has provided applicants
information about the FY 2022 competition in the NIA, published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, and will provide
support through pre-application webinars and frequently asked
questions.
While the Department is not revising the pillars to include a
requirement that schools and districts describe how they will focus on
the most vulnerable students and families, the NIA for the FY 2022
competition uses a Supplemental Priority in Competitive Preference
Priority 2, to encourage applicants to consider using multi-tiered
systems of support that can identify and serve students and families of
greatest need.
The Department acknowledges that, while there are a variety of ways
to address and frame community schools' practices, we are interested in
maintaining a common structure that the pillars provide. The background
section of the NPP cites evidence that implementation of the four
pillars is associated with a range of positive outcomes for students.
Additionally, the background section of the NIA for the FY 2022
competition recognizes that the four pillars are supported by evidence
from the science of learning and development and can be used to address
the needs of the whole child, including those that the school and
community partners determine to be most vulnerable. Use of this common
structure allows applicants to develop programs with more fidelity to
what has been shown to be effective and prepares the FSCS program and
its grantees for a future national evaluation. Applicants are invited
to share additional information that can supplement their response to
the requirement and discussion of the four pillars, including the
applicant's work with families, which is required in the third pillar
(Active family and community engagement), use of evidence-based
integrated student supports, how those supports address adverse
childhood experiences (ACEs), and the applicant's approach to strategic
growth. The Department declines to make any changes to the requirement
that
[[Page 41681]]
applicants describe the pillars of full-service community schools.
Changes: None.
Other Requirements
Comments: Several commenters suggested FSCS program requirements in
addition to the proposed requirements.
As discussed in connection with Proposed Priority 4, numerous
commenters recommended that the Department establish a requirement that
grantees work with an external evaluator and adopt a set of recommended
measures of success, including student chronic absenteeism rates;
student discipline rates, including suspensions and expulsions; school
climate information; provision of integrated student supports and
stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and
opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact;
information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school
staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers,
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and rates of teacher turnover;
graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative
leadership and practice strategies, including building the capacity of
educators, principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead
collaborative school improvement structures, such as professional
learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-
level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials,
children's cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public housing
agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality and
progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and
aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and
organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams
focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets
assessment.
The Department received five comments requesting that we clarify
the roles and responsibilities of consortium partners. Several comments
were directed toward proposed selection criteria (d) and evaluation of
roles and responsibilities of the broadly representative consortium.
One commenter requested that the Department not consider
applications from for-profit charter schools or charter schools within
a 25-mile radius of a traditional public school, and that any school
receiving funds be subject to the same operational and transparency
rules as schools within the district in which it is located.
Discussion: The Department concurs with recommendations to require
an independent evaluation of the evaluation activities outlined in
section 4625(g) of the ESEA. The Department is also adding a set of
indicators recommended through comments that the independent evaluation
must use to assess program success. These indicators are aligned with
the annual measurable performance objectives included in section
4625(a)(4)(C) of the ESEA.
The Department agrees that it is important to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of the eligible entity, defined in section 4622(1)(B)
as a consortium of one or more LEAs or the BIE and one or more
community-based organization, nonprofit organization, or other public
or private entities, as well as the broadly representative consortium,
which includes, but is not limited to, the eligible entity submitting
the application. Under section 4625(a)(2), an application must include
an MOU among all partner entities in the eligible entity that will
assist the eligible entity to coordinate and provide pipeline services
and that describes the roles the partner entities will assume.
Recognizing that the FY 2022 FSCS competition includes priorities for
building capacity and developing, implementing, and scaling full-
service community schools, and recognizing that section 4625(c) allows
grantees to use up to 10 percent of their total award for planning
purposes in the first year, the Department thinks it is most
appropriate for the application to include a preliminary MOU that
establishes the roles and responsibilities of the eligible entity,
additional partners, and the broadly representative consortium. At the
end of the first year of the grant, FSCS grantees will be required to
submit a final MOU.
The Department does not have the authority to revise or refine the
eligible applicants specified in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, which
means we cannot limit applications from certain charter schools,
provided the charter school is an eligible applicant or in partnership
with an eligible applicant. All applicants and grantees, including any
charter schools, will be required to meet the Federal regulations cited
in the NIA.
Changes: The Department has added Requirement 2, which requires
applicants to include an independent evaluation to address the
evaluation requirements in section 4625(g)) of the ESEA. Within
Requirement 2, the Department also established a set of indicators that
the independent evaluation must use to assess program success and that
are aligned with the required performance measures in section
4625(a)(4)(C).
The Department has added Requirement 3, which requires applicants
to submit a preliminary MOU as part of their application. Within
Requirement 3, the Department established the content that the
preliminary MOU must include, which is aligned with the requirements in
section 4625(a)(2). At the end of the first year of the grant, grantees
are required to submit a final MOU, which must also align with the
requirements in section 4625(a)(2).
Definition--Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools
Comments: The Department received sixteen comments in support of
the definition of the Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools.
Within the definition, one commenter recommended the Department
provide more clarity regarding research-based elements of effective
practices for implementing integrated student supports in pillar (A),
Integrated student supports.
Three commenters suggested that we revise pillar (C), Active family
and community engagement, to include additional activities for ensuring
community and family engagement. One commenter recommended that, in the
definition, we address citizenship preparation to reflect the civic
mission of schools and leverage their unique role in engaging families
and communities.
Ten commenters recommended that the Department revise pillar (D),
Collaborative leadership, to expressly include student, family, and
community voice. Another commenter recommended that we specify that
``expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities'' must be
culturally rooted and sustaining.
One commenter suggested that we specify in the pillars that
providers, teachers, and community school personnel should be
representative of the students and communities they serve and that
representation should be a focus throughout the program because this
enhances staff and leadership understanding of local community context.
One commenter suggested that we include in the definition
references to whole learner and trauma-informed approaches.
Discussion: We think the activities outlined in the first pillar,
(A) Integrated student supports, are sufficiently broad to allow for
applicants and grantees to address the issues of greatest relevance to
their community and that there is no need to establish a separate
definition of
[[Page 41682]]
``integrated student supports.'' The Department agrees that use of
evidence-based practices is critical across all pillars, which is
reflected in the language of the second pillar, (B) Expanded and
enriched learning time and opportunities, through evidence-based
strategies. This notice also includes selection criteria that will
assess extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects
relevant and evidence-based findings.
We decline to include specific examples of citizenship preparation
because we think that, as written, the priority would allow such a
focus, and we think it is better to give applicants and schools
flexibility to address community-specific needs. However, we agree that
the definition of the third pillar, Active family and community
engagement, should be expanded to include employment opportunities and
other supportive services for adults.
Activities implemented under the second pillar, Expanded and
enriched learning time and opportunities, may be culturally rooted and
sustaining. The Department thinks that, as written, the priority would
allow such a culturally competent focus, and we think it is better to
allow applicants and schools flexibility to address community-specific
needs.
Regarding recommendations related to the third pillar, (C) Active
family and community engagement, the Department agrees that students
and families benefit from working with leaders and service providers
who have shared backgrounds and experiences. The Department also
appreciates the need to have community members participate in the
development of the program at all levels, including through
participation in the broadly representative consortium to enhance
cultural competency. While this is an important goal, it may not be
practical for a grantee to ensure all staff and service providers are
from or representative of the community. Rather, the FSCS program
places emphasis on family and community inclusion in decision-making
processes, including decisions related to selection of evidence-based,
expanded, and enriched learning time and opportunities. The Department
agrees that schools, and community schools in particular, can serve as
resources for parents and communities to advance personal and communal
goals, which may include civic engagement.
The Department agrees with the suggestions for including student,
family, and community voice in the fourth pillar, (D) Collaborative
leadership.
The Department recognizes the benefit of bringing a whole learner-
and trauma-informed approach to working with students and families in a
holistic way in order to prevent, intervene, and mitigate ACEs. We have
incorporated those terms in the definitions of pillars of community
schools; applicants may consider inclusion of those approaches in their
development and implementation of full-service community schools,
including through responding to any Secretary's Supplemental Priority
included in the NIA.
Changes: The Department has revised the language of the definition
of Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools to include trauma-informed
services to prevent, intervene and mitigate ACEs as part of integrated
student supports. The Department has included adult employment
opportunities and other supportive services in the third pillar, (C)
Active family and community engagement; and student, family, and
community voice is included in the fourth pillar (D) Collaborative
leadership practices.
Definition--Broadly Representative Consortium
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department revise
selection criteria (d) to include family leadership in the broadly
representative consortium.
Discussion: The Department thinks including organizations that can
represent family leadership is a critical addition to the broadly
representative consortium; however, we think the change is more
appropriate for the definition of the term rather than the selection
criteria.
Changes: The Department has revised the definition of ``broadly
representative consortium'' to include organizations that represent
families and family leadership.
Other Definitions
Comments: A few commenters suggested other terms for the Department
to define. One commenter noted that there are many definitions of
``community'' and recommended that the Department include a definition
for a ``full-service community school.''
Two commenters recommended that the Department define ``full-
service community school coordinator,'' a term used in the proposed
selection criteria.
One commenter requested that the Department include a definition
for ``student success coaches,'' an evidence-based model for working
with and providing comprehensive supports for students.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges that there are many
definitions of ``community.'' For the purposes of the FSCS program,
section 4622(2) of the ESEA defines a ``full-service community school''
as a public elementary or secondary school that (A) participates in a
community-based effort to coordinate and integrate educational,
developmental, family, health, and other comprehensive services through
community-based organizations and public and private partnerships; and
(B) provides access to such services in school to students, families,
and the community, such as access during the school year (including
before- and after-school hours and weekends), as well as during the
summer. The Department will include this definition of a full-service
community school in the NIA.
Although proposed selection criteria (d) indirectly described the
role of the full-service community school coordinator, the Department
agrees that it would be helpful to expressly define ``full-service
community school coordinator,'' and we are adding a definition that
describes this role in a manner consistent with selection criteria (d).
While the Department appreciates the positive outcomes that have
been documented with the use of student success coaches, we do not
include definitions for specific activities or approaches that a
grantee might choose to include in their application because we want
grantees to have the flexibility to choose the best evidence-based
approaches to meet student and community needs.
Changes: The Department has defined ``full-service community school
coordinator.''
Selection Criteria--(c) Ensure Diversity of Perspectives
Comments: Commenters offered broad support for this selection
criterion. Two commenters requested that the Department include
children and youth in the list of constituencies referenced. An
additional commenter suggested the Department revise the selection
criterion to include the perspectives of racially diverse families and
traditionally marginalized families.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support of those who
offered comments. The Department considers children, students, and
youth as beneficiaries of services, but we recognize that other
intended beneficiaries are included in the list of constituencies and
are adding students and youth. The Department further agrees that it is
important for an applicant to include, or have a plan to include, the
perspectives of racially diverse families, those that have been
marginalized, and other underserved
[[Page 41683]]
individuals in the community; however, we think that the broad nature
of the selection criterion allows applicants to include racially and
otherwise diverse families in their design and operation of the
proposed project. Additionally, the Department thinks that grantees may
use the allowable planning time during year one of the grant to engage
with families and other groups who have not been consistently
represented in assessments of needs and assets as well as leadership.
Changes: We have renumbered selection criterion (b) as selection
criterion (c) and revised to include students and youth as constituents
whose perspectives should be brought to bear in the design and
operation of the projects.
Selection Criteria--(d) Plans for Full-service Coordinator
Comments: Commenters supported inclusion of a selection criterion
to assess grantee plans for a full-service community schools
coordinator. Because a full-service community school coordinator is not
responsible for the delivery of the pipeline of services offered, four
commenters recommended that we clarify the language of the criterion by
removing ``deliver pipeline services'' and replacing it with
``facilitate programs and partnerships.'' Several commenters also
recommended including that the full-service community school
coordinator ``lead a comprehensive needs and asset assessment that
includes students, school staff, families, community members and
partners.''
Four commenters noted that the requirement for a full-time full-
service community school coordinator does not reflect the diverse
communities that may apply or receive a grant, including some rural
communities where a full-time coordinator is not needed.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and
recommendations. We agree with the clarification offered and are
revising selection criterion (d) to better reflect a full-service
community school coordinator's responsibilities to facilitate programs
and partnerships. While the full-service community school coordinator
may, in some cases, lead the needs assessment, the Department
recognizes that not all communities will expect the coordinator to lead
that work. As such, we decline to include that edit.
The Department appreciates that each community and its needs are
unique; however, section 4625(a)(4)(E) of the ESEA requires that each
full-service community school site has a full-time coordinator.
Changes: The Department has renumbered proposed selection criteria
(c) to final selection criteria (d) and revised selection criteria (d)
to replace ``deliver pipeline services'' with ``facilitate programs and
partnerships.''
Selection Criteria--(e) Consortium Broadly Representative of
Community
Comments: While commenters support the inclusion of proposed
selection criterion (e), two commenters noted that some applicants may
not yet have a consortium in place and should not be penalized. Those
commenters recommended that the Department revise the language to say,
``the extent to which the grantee has, or demonstrates a strong plan to
have, a consortium broadly representative of community stakeholders and
needs.''
One commenter proposed that the broadly representative consortium
representative of community stakeholders and needs should also have a
role in the oversight and management of the program, including the
selection of schools. The commenter suggested the selection criteria be
revised to say, ``the extent to which the grantee has a consortium
broadly representative of community stakeholders and needs that informs
the school selection process, operations and continued oversight of the
project.''
One commenter recommended that applications be assessed on the
extent to which they have planned for open, consistent, and actionable
communication among their consortia.
Discussion: The Department will make FSCS awards to some applicants
who will engage in capacity building and development of full-service
community schools. As such, we concur that not all applicants will have
an established broadly representative consortium and are editing the
selection criterion.
The Department concurs that applications and grant programs are
strengthened through defined roles and responsibilities of leadership
groups, such as the broadly representative consortium. Section
4625(a)(2) of the ESEA requires an MOU among all partner entities in
the eligible entity that will assist the eligible entity to coordinate
and provide pipeline services and that describes the roles the partner
entities will assume, which includes the broadly representative
consortium and, for applications submitted under Priority 3, the
statewide steering committee. The Department thinks that inclusion of a
preliminary MOU with the application can further delineate
communication and decision-making processes, such as school selection.
The Department declines to include school selection as a role of the
broadly representative consortium in the final selection criteria
because we want to maintain maximum flexibility for applicants.
Additionally, nothing in the NFP prevents an applicant from including
school selection as a responsibility of the broadly based consortium.
Changes: The Department has renumbered proposed selection criterion
(d) to final selection criteria (e) and revised selection criterion (e)
to allow for an applicant to demonstrate a plan to develop and put into
place a broadly representative consortium and included language that
the roles and responsibilities of the consortium are outlined in the
required preliminary MOU. For applications submitted under Priority 3,
the Department revised selection criterion (e) to allow for an
applicant to demonstrate a plan to develop and put into place a broadly
representative consortium and a statewide steering committee, and
included language that the roles and responsibilities of the consortium
and statewide steering committee are outlined in the preliminary MOU.
Selection Criteria--(f) Demonstrates History of Effectiveness
Comments: One commenter suggested the selection criteria be
expanded to include a description of the applicant's history of working
with a wide range of stakeholders--including students and families--in
inclusive and equitable ways.
One commenter recommended that we expand this selection criterion
to consider the applicant's history of effectiveness in serving both
current and past students in addition to the wider community.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important that an
applicant's history of effectiveness (as defined in this notice)
includes effectively working with a wide and diverse range of
stakeholders, including students and families.
Changes: The Department has renumbered proposed selection criterion
(e) as final selection criterion (f) and revised selection criterion
(f) to include working with diverse stakeholders, including students
and families.
Other Selection Criteria
Comments: The Department received a significant number of comments
related to ensuring that grants and services are focused on schools,
communities, students, and families of greatest need. Ten commenters
recommended that the Department include selection criteria related to
need.
[[Page 41684]]
Three commenters recommended that the FSCS program use selection
criteria from the FY 2021 Promise Neighborhoods NIA. One commenter
requested that the Department reinstate previous FSCS selection
criteria for evaluation.
One commenter requested that the Department include selection
criteria that allows an applicant to propose using up to 6 months for
planning and capacity building activities.
Discussion: The FSCS program is intended to focus on children and
youth attending schools with concentrated poverty, including rural and
tribal schools. In addition to inclusion of a priority related to
schoolwide poverty levels, the Department is adding selection criterion
(a) to assess the extent to which the proposed project will provide
support, resources, and services, close gaps in educational
opportunity, or otherwise address the needs of the targeted population,
including addressing the needs of underserved populations most impacted
by the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed
project.
The Department appreciates the suggestions related to aligning the
FSCS need criteria with that of the FY 2021 Promise Neighborhood
program. However, the FSCS program is designed to allow grantees to use
the first year of their grant to conduct a robust assessment of needs
and assets, while the Promise Neighborhood program requires the
applicant to include an analysis of needs and corresponding activities
to address those needs. Therefore, the Department declines to use the
FY 2021 Promise Neighborhood selection criteria.
Related to selection criteria for the required evaluation, for the
FY 2022 competition, the Department is using criteria from 34 CFR
75.210 to assess the applicant's proposal to evaluate their FSCS
project. For the FY 2022 competition, two of the three criteria are
from previous FSCS competitions. The evaluation criteria are included
in the NIA, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
The Department agrees that building a successful full-service
community school requires significant planning and capacity building,
including time to strengthen partnerships. Section 4625(c) of the ESEA
allows a grantee to use up to 10 percent of the total grant award for
planning purposes during the first year of the award. This applies to
all applicants and grantees, and, as such, the Department will not make
any changes to the time that grantees can allocate to planning.
In accordance with 34 CFR 75.209, the Department included in the
NIA selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210 that assesses the quality of
an applicant's proposed local evaluation for the FY 2022 competition.
As discussed in Priority 3, the Department agrees that requiring a
percentage of LEAs in the State would be a more equitable approach to
scaling the model. However, the Department is interested in funding
applications that propose to work with their partners to develop,
implement, evaluate, and sustain full-service community schools at a
level, and in a percentage of LEAs and schools, across the State that
will effectively scale the model statewide and are addressing this
through revisions to the selection criteria.
Changes: The Department added selection criterion (a) to assess the
extent to which a proposed project will provide support, resources, and
services; close gaps in educational opportunity; or otherwise address
the needs of the targeted population, including addressing the needs of
underserved populations most impacted by the issue, challenge, or
opportunity to be addressed by the project. The Department also added
selection criteria (g) to assess the extent to which the applicant
demonstrates its commitment and strategy to scale full-service
community schools at the statewide level. In determining the
applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary
considers the number and percentage of LEAs, and the number and
percentage of schools within each LEA, the applicant, the SEA, and
other partners propose to serve; the applicant's capacity (e.g., in
terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management
capacity) to further develop, implement, bring to scale and sustain
additional full-service community schools in multiple LEAs; and the
applicant's capacity to work with others, including the broadly
representative consortium and the statewide steering committee, to
ensure that the proposed process, products, strategies, or practices
can be further developed and brought to scale, based on the regular
findings of the proposed project and its independent evaluation.
Final Priorities:
This document contains four final priorities.
Priority 1--Capacity Building and Development Grants.
Projects that propose to (a) conduct initial development and
coordination activities, including extensive community engagement, that
leverage the findings of their needs assessment--which may be completed
during or before the grant period--to develop the infrastructure,
activities, and partnerships to implement full-service community
schools in two or more schools, and (b) gather data on performance
indicators.
Priority 2--Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants.
Projects that propose to implement and sustain full-service
community schools in two or more LEAs. As outlined in section
4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, an eligible entity for any FSCS grant is a
consortium of one or more LEAs or the BIE and one or more community-
based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public or
private entities. The project must, with the exception of LEAs that
oversee a single school, coordinate and provide services at two or more
full-service community schools in each LEA.
Priority 3--FSCS State Scaling Grants \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unitary systems, such as the District of Columbia, Hawaii,
and Puerto Rico, may apply for Absolute Priority 4 FSCS State
Scaling Grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications submitted under Priority 3 must include a written
commitment of the SEA to participate in the partnership and to sustain
the program beyond 2 years after the term of the grant, which can be
submitted in the required preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU)
that includes the roles and responsibilities of the SEA and other
partners identified at the time of the application. The applicant, in
partnership with the SEA, determines the number and percentage of State
LEAs, and the number and percentage of schools across those LEAs, that
will develop, support, and expand full-service community schools over
the 5-year grant performance period.
Applications under Priority 3 must also identify or establish a
State steering committee (which may be a previously existing body) that
represents relevant community schools' stakeholders, including
educators and other school staff, community school initiative leaders,
education union or association designees, family leaders participating
in community school programs, community partners such as service
providers, early childhood education providers such as Head Start, and
community school coordinators from schools already implementing full-
service community schools in the State. In addition to serving as an
advisory committee, the steering committee also has the authority to
make decisions about the design, implementation, and evaluation for the
grant, which may include identification or selection of LEAs that will
partner in the
[[Page 41685]]
development and implementation of two or more community schools in each
LEA, with the exception of LEAs that oversee a single school. The roles
and responsibilities of the steering committee must be included in the
required preliminary MOU.
As outlined in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, an eligible entity
for any FSCS grant is a consortium of one or more LEAs or the BIE and
one or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or
other public or private entities.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Final Requirements:
This document contains three final requirements.
Requirement 1--Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools.
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 pillars with partners,
including community-based organizations and collaborating with school
leadership and staff.
Requirement 2--Independent Evaluation.
An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and
assurances required by section 4625(g) of the ESEA, commit to an
independent evaluation that includes a design and implementation
evaluation that will, at a minimum, (1) include annual evaluations of
progress achieved with the grant; (2) be used to refine and improve
activities carried out through the grant; (3) collect and report data
that includes, but is not limited to, the following indicators: student
chronic absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including
suspensions and expulsions; school climate information, which may come
from student, parent, or teacher surveys; provision of integrated
student supports and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched
learning time and opportunities; family and community engagement
efforts and impact; information on the number, qualifications, and
retention of school staff, including the number and percentage of fully
certified teachers, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, rates of
teacher turnover, and teacher experience; graduation rates; changes in
school spending information; collaborative leadership and practice
strategies, which may include building the capacity of educators,
principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead collaborative
school improvement structures, such as professional learning
communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-level
partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials,
children's and youth's cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public
housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality
and progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and
aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and
organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams
focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets
assessment; and (4) make results of the evaluation publicly available.
Requirement 3--Preliminary and Final Memoranda of Understanding.
An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and
assurances required in Section 4625(a)(2) of the ESEA, provide the
following:
In addressing the application requirements set out in Section
4625(a)(2) of the ESEA, applicants must include a preliminary MOU among
all partner entities of the eligible entity, identified at the time of
the application, that will assist the eligible entity to plan, develop,
coordinate, provide, and evaluate pipeline services and that describes
the roles and responsibilities that the partners, including the broadly
representative consortium, will assume. Applications submitted under
Priority 3 FSCS State Scaling Grants must also include in the
preliminary MOU a description of the State steering committee and the
SEA's commitment to and partnership in the consortium, including the
roles, responsibilities, and commitment of the SEA to the partnership
and the scaling of full-service community schools to a percentage of
State LEAs implementing schoolwide Title IA programs and where there is
a commitment to sustain the program beyond two years after the term of
the grant.
Grantees must submit a final MOU at the end of their first year of
the grant.
Final Definitions:
This document includes four final definitions. We may apply these
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect. We also
intend to use definitions from sections 4622 and 8101 of the ESEA.
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,
families and family leadership, schools, nonprofits, government,
philanthropy, and the business community.
Full-service community school coordinator means an individual in a
full-time position at each community school who serves to plan,
integrate, coordinate, and facilitate the delivery of pipeline services
at each school. The coordinator may also lead the school and community
assessment of needs and assets and identify ways to sustain the
services and partnerships beyond the duration of the grant.
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).
[[Page 41686]]
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
trauma-informed services to prevent, intervene, and mitigate adverse
childhood experiences (ACEs); 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 (such as evidence-
based tutoring, post-secondary transition support, student success
coaches and mentoring programs), enrichment activities, or learning
opportunities, for students at a community school that--
(i) May emphasize real-world project-based learning where 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 community members and leaders 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 and employment
opportunities and other supportive services; 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) At a minimum, include a school-based leadership team with
representation of student, parent, and family leaders and a community
voice; a community school coordinator; and a community-wide leadership
team; and
(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.
Final Selection Criteria
The Department may apply one or more of the following final
selection criteria in any year in which the program is in effect. We
will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion in
the NIA. The Department may include additional selection criteria from
34 CFR 75.210.
(a) The extent to which the proposed project will provide support,
resources, and services; close gaps in educational opportunity; or
otherwise address the needs of the targeted population, including
addressing the needs of underserved populations most impacted by the
issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed
project.
(b) 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.
(c) 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 students, youth, families,
educators and staff, beneficiaries of services, school leadership, and
community leadership.
(d) The extent to which the grantee has plans for a full-time
coordinator at each school, including a plan to sustain the position
beyond the grant period, and a description of how this position will
serve to plan, integrate, coordinate, and facilitate programs and
services at each school.
(e) The extent to which the grantee has, or demonstrates a strong
plan to have, a broadly representative consortium that reflects the
needs of the community and its stakeholders, and a description of the
roles and responsibilities of the broadly representative consortium
outlined in the required preliminary MOU.
(f) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a history of
effectiveness in working with a diverse range of stakeholders,
including students and families.
(g) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates its commitment
and strategy to scale full-service community schools at the statewide
level. In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the number and percentage of LEAs, and
the number and percentage of schools within each LEA, the applicant,
the SEA, and other partners propose to serve; the applicant's capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or
management capacity) to further develop, implement, bring to scale and
sustain additional full-service community schools in multiple LEAs; and
the applicant's capacity to work with others, including the broadly
representative consortium and the State steering committee, to ensure
that the proposed process, products, strategies, or practices can be
further developed and brought to scale, based on the regular findings
of the proposed project and its independent evaluation.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order 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);
[[Page 41687]]
(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 final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as
not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 the
benefits justify the 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 these 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.
Summary of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that these
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
will not impose significant costs on the entities eligible to apply for
FSCS. We also believe that the benefits of implementing the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria justify
any associated costs.
The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements
and those we have determined as necessary for administering the
Department's programs and activities.
Priority 1 gives the Department the opportunity to offer applicants
time and resources to build the capacity required to develop two or
more successful full-service community schools.
Priority 2 gives the Department the opportunity to offer applicants
funding to implement and sustain full-service community schools in two
or more LEAs, with a minimum of two full-service community schools in
each LEA.
Priority 3 gives the Department the opportunity to offer applicants
funding to scale the implementation of full-service community schools
at the State level, in a percentage of LEAs in the State as determined
by the applicant, the SEA, and other partners, with a minimum of two
full-service-community schools in each LEA. Implementation of community
schools at this scale offers the opportunity for States to enact
legislation and develop funding streams to support the expansion and
sustainability of full-service community schools in their State.
Priority 4 gives the Department the opportunity to ensure that
funds are targeted to reach the schools and communities of greatest
need.
Because these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would neither expand nor restrict the universe of
eligible entities for any Department grant program, and since
application submission and participation in our discretionary grant
programs is voluntary, there are no costs associated with these
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small
Business Administration Size Standards define ``small entities'' as
for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts),
with a population of less than 50,000.
The small entities that this regulatory action will affect are
public or private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including
institutions of higher education, that may apply. We believe that the
costs imposed on an applicant by the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria will be limited to paperwork burden
related to preparing an application and that the benefits of
implementing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
Therefore, we do not believe that the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria will significantly impact small
entities beyond the potential for receiving additional support should
the small entity receive a competitive grant from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
of information, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can
provide the requested
[[Page 41688]]
data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial
resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood,
and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection
requirements on respondents.
The final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved
by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006.
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 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, 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 <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.
Ruth E. Ryder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2022-15090 Filed 7-12-22; 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 July 13, 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.