Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) Charter Schools Program Non State Educational Agencies (Non SEA) Planning, Program Design, And Initial Implementation Grant CFDA Number 84.282B | Apply Online

FAQs: OII Charter Schools Program (CSP) Non-SEA Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation Grant (CFDA 84.282B)

1) What is this grant opportunity?

This was a discretionary U.S. Department of Education funding opportunity under the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) Charter Schools Program (CSP). The specific competition described here was the Non State Educational Agencies (Non SEA) Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation grant tied to CFDA 84.282B.

2) What was the purpose of CFDA 84.282B?

The 84.282B competition was designed to provide direct federal start-up support to eligible charter school developers to help them plan a new charter school, design the academic and operational program, and cover initial implementation costs as the school opened and stabilized.

3) How does CFDA 84.282B differ from CFDA 84.282C?

The notice described two related but distinct CSP competitions: (1) Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation (CFDA 84.282B) and (2) Dissemination (CFDA 84.282C). In plain terms, 84.282B was for planning and launching new charter schools, while 84.282C was for spreading effective practices and lessons learned (dissemination). Applicants needed to apply under the correct CFDA based on the proposed activities.

4) Who was expected to apply for this Non-SEA competition?

This Non-SEA competition targeted eligible charter school developers in states where the State Educational Agency (SEA) was not running an approved CSP grant program. In those states, developers could seek start-up support directly from the U.S. Department of Education.

5) What is a "developer" for purposes of eligibility?

A developer could be an individual or a group of individuals, including a public or private nonprofit organization. The definition could include teachers, administrators, other school staff, parents, or other community members involved in launching the charter school.

6) What two basic conditions did a developer need to meet to qualify?

Based on the notice, the developer had to: (1) have applied to an authorized public chartering authority to operate a charter school, and (2) have provided that chartering authority adequate and timely notice as required by section 5203(d)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

7) What if an applicant wanted a pre-charter planning grant but did not meet the timely notice requirement?

The notice stated that an applicant seeking a pre-charter planning grant could request a waiver from the Secretary regarding the timely notice requirement, and that the waiver request would be included in the application.

8) What state-level requirement affected whether a developer could apply under this Non-SEA competition?

The charter school had to be located in a state with a charter school law authorizing charter schools and, critically, in a state where the SEA did not have an approved CSP application (or would not have one approved as of October 1, 2013).

9) Which states were listed as having approved SEA CSP applications at the time?

The notice listed these as having approved SEA CSP applications: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

10) If an organization was in one of the listed states, could it still apply directly under this Non-SEA opportunity?

The notice explained that organizations in those states were generally expected to pursue CSP funding through their SEA subgrant competitions instead of applying directly to the Department under this Non-SEA competition.

11) What larger goals of the Charter Schools Program (CSP) were described in the notice?

The notice described broader CSP goals including expanding the number of strong charter school options available to students nationwide and strengthening understanding of the charter model by supporting schools and evaluating their effects on students, achievement, staff, and parents.

12) How were applications required to be submitted?

Applications were required to be submitted electronically through Grants.gov using the governmentwide "Apply" process.

13) Could applicants submit an application by emailing it to the Department of Education?

No. The notice explicitly stated that applications could not be submitted by emailing an electronic copy to the Department.

14) How were applicants instructed to find the application package on Grants.gov?

Applicants were instructed to search for the base CFDA number (84.282) without the letter suffix, locate the package that way, complete the forms offline, and upload the application through the Grants.gov portal.

15) When was the opportunity posted and when were applications due?

The opportunity was posted on June 11, 2013, and applications were available that same day. The deadline for transmittal of applications was July 12, 2013.

16) How many awards did the Department anticipate making and what was the estimated total funding?

The Department anticipated making about five awards, with an estimated total funding level of $1,000,000.

17) Was cost-sharing or matching required?

No. The notice stated there was no cost-sharing or matching requirement.

18) Were there any pre-application webinars?

Yes. The Department scheduled pre-application webinars on June 17, 2013 (3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Washington, DC time) and June 20, 2013 (11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.).

19) How did someone register for a pre-application webinar?

Interested participants were encouraged to preregister by emailing their name, organization, contact information, and preferred webinar session to Charterschools@ed.gov with the subject line "NON SEA PRE APPLICATION MEETING."

20) Was there a fee to attend the pre-application webinars?

No. The notice stated there was no registration fee.

21) Who were the key contacts mentioned for questions or support?

The notice identified a Program Manager contact (LaShawndra Thornton) and also referenced an ED Grants.gov systems contact for technical access issues.

22) In simple terms, what kind of applicant and use case was this funding stream designed for?

This opportunity functioned as a targeted start-up funding stream for charter developers in non-SEA CSP states, pairing federal funds with expectations about planning rigor, early implementation readiness, and compliance with charter authorizer notification requirements.