What changed between these versions
A substantive refinement of funding allocations and minor textual clarifications. V2 adjusts the primary grant allocation for eligible applicants from 80% (as proposed in v1) to 82% and removes a proposed increase in administrative funds for state entities, retaining the original 3% cap. Minor wording changes also clarify the revolving loan fund and pre-charter planning subgrant recipient terminology.
Overview
A handful of targeted changes, primarily affecting funding allocations and specific terminology. · V2 refines the initial proposals made in v1, adjusting percentage allocations and clarifying descriptive language without altering the core purpose or structure of the grant program.
The most significant change in v2 is the adjustment of the primary allocation for subgrants to eligible applicants, which v1 proposed reducing from 90 percent to 80 percent, but v2 now sets at 82 percent. Additionally, v2 removes the v1 proposal to increase state administrative funds from 3 percent to 5 percent, effectively maintaining the 3 percent cap. Minor textual clarifications were also made to the description of revolving loan funds and the terminology for recipients of pre-charter planning subgrants.
Deletions
V1 included an instruction to modify subparagraph (D) (which was redesignated from subparagraph (C)) by striking '3 percent' and inserting '5 percent'. This would have increased the percentage of funds reserved for administrative costs.
The removal of this instruction means that the allocation for administrative costs for State entities remains at the existing 3 percent, rather than being increased to 5 percent as proposed in v1. This limits the administrative funding available to State entities compared to v1's proposal.
Modifications
This modification provides more precise legal language regarding the purpose and timing of the revolving loan fund, specifying that it is for 'eligible applicants' and tied to the 'receipt of subgrant funds under paragraph (1)', which enhances clarity for program administrators and applicants regarding pre-award expenses.
Before
V1 described the revolving loan fund as being for 'expenses under subsection (h) prior to an eligible applicant receiving reimbursement'.
After
V2 clarifies this to 'for the expenses of eligible applicants under subsection (h) prior to the receipt of subgrant funds under paragraph (1)'.
This change standardizes the language used for recipients of pre-charter planning subgrants, aligning it with common grant program terminology ('subgrantee'), which can improve consistency and clarity in program administration and reporting.
Before
V1 referred to the recipients of pre-charter planning subgrants as 'prospective applicant'.
After
V2 changes this terminology to 'subgrantee'.
Compared to v1's proposal, v2 increases the percentage of funds allocated to the core program of subgrants for eligible applicants by 2 percentage points (from 80% to 82%). This means a slightly larger share of the overall grant funds will be directed towards supporting high-quality charter schools directly.
Before
V1 proposed striking '90 percent' and inserting '80 percent' for the primary allocation of funds for subgrants to eligible applicants.
After
V2 proposes striking '90 percent' and inserting '82 percent' for the primary allocation of funds for subgrants to eligible applicants.
Scope
Minor adjustment within existing scope — Changes are concentrated in the funding allocation provisions and specific descriptive language within the grant program's operational details. — V2 represents a refinement within the same policy direction as v1, primarily adjusting the financial mechanics and clarifying administrative language rather than introducing new policy objectives. — The changes to funding allocations in subsection (c)(1) are interconnected, as they redistribute percentages of the total available funds. The terminological clarifications affect how specific provisions are understood and implemented.
Impact analysis
Eligible applicants for charter school subgrants
Gain, as a slightly larger share of total funds is directed towards their subgrants.
V1 proposed reducing the primary allocation for these subgrants from 90% to 80%. V2 revises this reduction, setting the allocation at 82%.
State entities administering the grant program
Loss, as they will have less administrative funding than proposed in v1.
V1 proposed increasing the administrative funds for these entities from 3% to 5%. V2 removes this proposed increase.
Charter school developers receiving pre-charter planning subgrants
Procedural change, offering clearer legal terminology without changing benefits or burdens.
The term used to describe these recipients was clarified from 'prospective applicant' to 'subgrantee'.
Eligible applicants utilizing revolving loan funds for pre-subgrant expenses
Procedural change, offering clearer legal language for accessing pre-award funds.
The description of the revolving loan fund mechanism was clarified to specify 'for the expenses of eligible applicants under subsection (h) prior to the receipt of subgrant funds under paragraph (1)'.