Notice2023-12144
Final Priority and Requirements-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
June 7, 2023
Effective
July 7, 2023
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority and requirements under the Full-Service Community Schools (FSCS) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.215J. The Department may use the priority and requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and in later years. The Department intends for the priority and requirements to support competitions under the FSCS program for the purpose of conducting national evaluations of the program's implementation and effectiveness.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37218-37222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12144]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0152]
Final Priority and Requirements--Full-Service Community Schools
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority
and requirements under the Full-Service Community Schools (FSCS)
program, Assistance Listing Number 84.215J. The Department may use the
priority and requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and
in later years. The Department intends for the priority and
requirements to support competitions under the FSCS program for the
purpose of conducting national evaluations of the program's
implementation and effectiveness.
DATES: The priority and requirements are effective July 7, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Hodgdon. U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, room 3E346, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: 202-245-6057. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d1b0e1e0e1d3839733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90d6c3d3c3d0f5f4bef7ffe6">[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:
Purpose of Program: The FSCS program, established under sections
4621-4623 and 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 4621-4623 and 4625 of the ESEA, 20
U.S.C. 7271-7273, 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 rationale for proposing the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria,
including a priority for participation in a national evaluation of the
program's effectiveness using a randomized controlled trial (i.e.,
experimental) design. We then published a notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program in
the Federal Register on July 13, 2022 (87 FR 41675) (the 2022 FSCS
NFP). In the 2022 FSCS NFP, we discussed a plan to conduct additional
outreach before finalizing a priority on a national evaluation.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 19
parties submitted comments pertinent to the proposed national
evaluation priority, which were addressed in the 2022 FSCS NFP. In the
2022 FSCS NFP, the Department communicated our appreciation for the
comments, concerns, and support shared by the field regarding a
national evaluation of the FSCS program. We committed to working with
grantees and other stakeholders to design and conduct the national
evaluation required under section 4625(f) of the ESEA. To allow more
time to conduct outreach with the field, the Department delayed
launching the national evaluation.
We discuss substantive issues under each priority or requirement 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 priority and requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority and requirements related to the proposed
national evaluation priority follows.
Proposed Priority 4--Participation in a National Evaluation.
Comments: We summarized the 19 comments received related to
Priority 4 in the 2022 FSCS NFP.
Discussion: As discussed in the 2022 FSCS NFP, 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, which requires the Department's Institute of Education Sciences
(IES) to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the FSCS program
grants. To allow more time to conduct outreach with the field, the
Department did not begin the national evaluation with the FY 2022 grant
competition.
In response to comments expressing concern about the design of the
national evaluation, section 4625(f) of the ESEA requires a national
evaluation that assesses the effectiveness of the grants. Section
4625(g) of the ESEA requires that grantees conduct local evaluations to
assess annual progress achieved, refine and improve activities, and
make the results publicly available. The local and national evaluations
are separate but complementary, and one cannot be used in place of the
other. The alternative designs suggested by commenters for a national
evaluation would not meet the requirements in section 4625(f). While a
national evaluation of the program's implementation would be useful and
is included in the randomized controlled trial design described in the
national evaluation priority, a national evaluation of implementation
alone would not fulfill the mandate for evaluating the program's
effectiveness. While two of the 19 comments received supported
conducting a randomized controlled trial evaluation beginning in 2022,
the majority of commenters and stakeholders that provided input through
subsequent outreach shared that it would be useful to the field to
learn about the implementation of FSCS grants prior to assessing their
effectiveness. We have decided to first conduct a national evaluation
of program implementation and will share those implementation findings
with the field. We will use the interim implementation findings to
inform and enhance the design and execution of a subsequent national
evaluation of the program's effectiveness using a randomized controlled
trial.
Another commenter suggested that an alternative design, a quasi-
experimental study, would be very challenging to execute with
sufficient scientific rigor at a national level. A quasi-experimental
design would require the identification of a comparison group of non-
FSCS funded schools that are very similar at baseline to the schools
receiving grant funds. It would likely be very difficult to find
schools not implementing community schools strategies that are similar
enough to schools receiving FSCS grant funds and willing to provide the
detailed data required for the evaluation. While such a quasi-
experimental design approach has been used in evaluating community
schools within more limited contexts, such as a single city or one or
two States, it would be much more difficult to identify
[[Page 37219]]
credible comparison schools for each FSCS-funded school given the
diverse and widespread distribution of schools receiving FSCS grant
funds. Even if an ostensibly suitable comparison group at baseline
could be identified, it would not be possible to fully determine
whether there are factors in the comparison schools that make them more
or less likely to have better outcomes over time and to disentangle
those factors from the effects of the FSCS grant funds.
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. Using a national evaluation of implementation
to inform the national evaluation of effectiveness required under
section 4625(f) of the ESEA provides the Department with an opportunity
to better understand what can be measured, including outcomes related
to health, social emotional learning, safety, and well-being. Further,
the 13 program indicators that were included in the 2022 FSCS NFP
include measures related to attendance, school climate, discipline,
expanded learning time, and family engagement, among others.
The Department agrees with commenters that requiring applicants to
propose at least four schools to receive grant funding could exclude
some districts. Therefore, in the priority for a national evaluation of
effectiveness using a randomized controlled trial, we are reducing the
minimum number of proposed schools from four to two.
In response to comments that a randomized controlled trial would be
unfair, the Department disagrees. In all FSCS competitions, there is
not sufficient funding for every interested and eligible school.
Whatever total grant funds are available in any year, under a
randomized controlled trial design, more applicants and localities
would receive FSCS grants, though not every one of their interested
schools could participate or benefit from that funding. Without a
randomized controlled trial, fewer localities receive grants, though
all interested schools can participate in FSCS funding. Therefore,
whether there is a randomized controlled trial or not, there will be
schools that will not receive grant funds or participate under a funded
grant. In either case, the Department would be awarding the same total
amount of money to support FSCS nationally.
Regarding comments related to data collection, the Department
agrees that it is vital to engage stakeholders in a variety of ways, in
part to ensure that any national evaluation plans are well-informed and
reflect the reality of grantee variation. Since receiving feedback on
the national evaluation priority, we interviewed key community schools
researchers and practitioners. We synthesized the interview findings
and shared updated evaluation plans in a webinar with the field in
February 2023. We will continue to seek stakeholder input and
incorporate multiple perspectives, as feasible and aligned with the
theory of action, in all national evaluations.
Regarding recommendations that the Department engage a technical
advisory group, we also agree there is substantial value in obtaining
multiple perspectives on any national evaluation of FSCS. The
evaluation currently has a Technical Working Group comprised of
community schools researchers and practitioners. This group met in
October 2020 to advise on initial evaluation plans. We will continue to
consult these experts, or experts with similar expertise, as the design
and execution of a national evaluation of FSCS implementation and
effectiveness moves forward. The Department agrees that mandatory
participation in any national evaluation is essential for the results
to reflect the diversity of grantees and their efforts.
Following the publication of the 2022 FSCS NFP and after
discussions with FSCS grantees and other stakeholders, the Department
has determined that a robust national evaluation of FSCS grantee
implementation, as recommended in comments received on the NPP, will
help the field learn about implementation, provide information to the
Department to help us target supports for applicants and grantees, and
inform a subsequent national evaluation of effectiveness that meets the
statutory requirement. Accordingly, and as discussed in more detail
below, we are establishing requirements that applicants include an
assurance to participate in the national evaluation assessing the
implementation of the FSCS program and that grantees participate in the
national evaluation assessing the implementation of the FSCS program.
To meet the statutory requirement, the Department will use
information learned about implementation of FSCS grants to develop a
rigorous national evaluation of effectiveness. In order to conduct a
subsequent effectiveness study, we are establishing a priority for
participation in a future national evaluation of effectiveness using a
randomized controlled trial design.
Changes: The Department has finalized a priority for participation
in a national evaluation of effectiveness of the FSCS program using a
randomized controlled trial design that requires applicants to propose
at least two, rather than four, schools to potentially receive grant
funding.
Other Requirements
Comments: We summarized comments received related to FSCS program
requirements in the 2022 FSCS NFP.
As discussed in connection with the national evaluation proposed
priority from the 2022 FSCS NPP, numerous commenters recommended that
the Department conduct an evaluation using a design other than a
randomized controlled trial design. There were four comments related to
differences in implementation of full-service community schools across
schools because the strategy is specific to the needs and assets of
individual communities and schools.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to study how grantees are
implementing their FSCS grants. In order to ensure that FSCS applicants
are fully prepared to participate in a national evaluation of the
implementation of the FSCS program, the Department is establishing an
application requirement and a program requirement that grantees must
work with IES during the assessment of implementation of the FSCS
program.
Changes: The Department has added an application requirement that
applicants include an assurance that the eligible entity and its
partner entities will participate in a national evaluation assessing
the implementation of the FSCS program and a program requirement that
grantees will work with IES during the assessment of implementation of
the FSCS program.
Final Priority
This document contains one final priority.
Participation in a National Evaluation of Effectiveness Using a
Randomized Controlled Trial Design.
Projects in which the applicant agrees to--
(a) Carry out the FSCS grant in a manner consistent with a
randomized controlled trial evaluation design developed by the
Department and its national evaluator;
(b) Propose at least two schools to potentially receive grant
funding in the national evaluation of effectiveness. The
[[Page 37220]]
proposed schools can be elementary, middle, and/or high schools;
(c) Not currently be fully implementing all four pillars of full-
service community schools (as defined in the 2022 FSCS NFP) in any of
the schools proposed for the grant;
(d) Consent to the evaluator's random assignment of approximately
one-half of the schools proposed by the applicant to receive funding
and begin implementing the FSCS approach; and the other half of schools
to not receive funding from any FSCS grant for 3 years following random
assignment;
(e) Not promote or begin using grant funds for the implementation
of the FSCS approach in any proposed schools until the grantee receives
notification from the national evaluator about the random assignment of
its schools to receive FSCS grant funding or not; and
(f) Cooperate, consistent with applicable privacy requirements,
with evaluation data collection activities, including: surveys of
grantee directors, principals of both groups of proposed schools (those
randomly assigned to receive grant funding and schools assigned to not
receive grant funding), and a representative sample of parents/
guardians of students attending the two groups of grantee schools; and
provision of district administrative records on educators (e.g.,
credentials, experience) and students (e.g., academic assessment
scores, course taking and credit accumulation, attendance) in the two
groups of grantee schools. These data collections will be carried out
at multiple points over the grant period.
Note: From among the proposed schools, applicants may designate one
group of two or more schools that serve the same grade levels as
``highest need.'' If the applicant receives a grant, the national
evaluation of effectiveness will ensure that at least one of the
schools in the group receives FSCS funding.
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 75.105C(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 two final requirements.
Assurance of Participation in a National Evaluation Assessing the
Implementation of the FSCS Program.
Each applicant must include an assurance that the eligible entity
and its partner entities will participate in a national evaluation
assessing the implementation of the FSCS program, which may include,
but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Completing surveys of grantee organizations (which may include
service provider partners), grantee schools (which may include multiple
individuals within each school such as the principal and the service
coordinator), and potentially a sample of teachers within grantee
schools;
(b) Participating in interviews of grantee organizations, grantee
schools, and/or a sample of teachers within grantee schools;
(c) Providing administrative data, such as student absenteeism
rates and high school graduation rates;
(d) Cooperating with data collection at several points during the
grant period, such as shortly after grant award (baseline round of data
collection), during the middle of the grant period (interim round of
data collection), and toward the end of the grant period (final round
of data collection); and
(e) Assisting in facilitating connections between each grantee's
local evaluator and the national evaluation of implementation to ensure
efficiency and coordination between the evaluation efforts.
Participate in a National Evaluation Assessing the Implementation
of the FSCS Program.
Each grantee must participate in a national evaluation assessing
the implementation of the FSCS program, which may include, but is not
limited to, the following:
(a) Completing surveys of grantee organizations (which may include
service provider partners), grantee schools (which may include multiple
individuals within each school such as the principal and the service
coordinator), and potentially a sample of teachers within grantee
schools;
(b) Participating in interviews of grantee organizations, grantee
schools, and/or a sample of teachers within grantee schools;
(c) Providing administrative data, such as student absenteeism
rates and high school graduation rates;
(d) Cooperating with data collection at several points during the
grant period, such as shortly after grant award (baseline round of data
collection), during the middle of the grant period (interim round of
data collection), and toward the end of the grant period (final round
of data collection); and
(e) Assisting in facilitating connections between each grantee's
local evaluator and the national evaluation of implementation to ensure
efficiency and coordination between the evaluation efforts.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in 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, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in
gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or
Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a 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 legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
[[Page 37221]]
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA 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.'' OIRA has emphasized
that these techniques may include ``identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priority and requirements 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 the
final priority and requirements will not impose significant costs on
the entities eligible to apply for FSCS. We also believe that the
benefits of implementing the final priority and requirements outweigh
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.
The priority and requirements give the Department the opportunity
to conduct a national evaluation of the FSCS program, as required in
section 4625(f) of the ESEA.
Because the final priority and requirements 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 this priority and requirements for applicants; grantees
would use grant funds for participation in evaluation activities.
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
local educational agencies, the Bureau of Indian Education, and
community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and other
public or private entities that may apply. We believe that the costs
imposed on an applicant by the final priority and requirements will be
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and
that the benefits of implementing this final priority and requirements
will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. Grantees will incur
costs related to participating in the national evaluation and
implementation study; however, grant funds will be available to meet
those costs. Therefore, we do not believe that the final priority and
requirements 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 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 priority and requirements 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.
[[Page 37222]]
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 Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
<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.
James F. Lane,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the Authority to
Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2023-12144 Filed 6-6-23; 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 June 7, 2023.
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.