Direct Grant School Definition & Meaning

Many commenters expressed that a religious institution should be allowed the freedom to uphold the values it holds close in regard to who it hires, fires, and what activities are allowed on campus based on the particular tenets of their faith practice, corresponding with the value that America places on freedom of religion. They stated that student organizations on college and university campuses should be able to select leaders who share the organizations’ goals and mission.

• Performance Stock Unit means a Performance Award awarded under Section 10.1 which is denominated in units of value including dollar value of Shares.
• The applicant’s capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
• Another commenter contended that the Department has no statutory basis for the proposed regulations to require public institutions to comply with certain provisions of the U.S.
• Many commenters expressed concern over increasing intolerance of free speech and religious viewpoints which may deviate from mainstream thought on college campuses, noting that many colleges have shown intolerance towards religious organizations by driving them off campuses.
• These selection factors support that goal by providing incentives to applicants for grants to build an evidence base on the effectiveness of the processes, products, strategies, and practices that are, or will be used, in education.

A significant number of commenters, including organizations that represent various religions stated that universities should be diverse and inclusive spaces for all students and should treat religions equally. These organizations supported the regulations so that religious student groups will be treated fairly. Some commenters added that religious student groups have a distinctive need to be protected so that organizations can operate with integrity. Many commenters shared that allowing religious student groups to fully express their convictions uniquely contributes to campus diversity. We do not wish to eliminate language that would require private institutions to comply with their stated institutional policies as a material condition of a grant and explain the Department’s authority to issue such regulations in the “Executive Orders and Other Requirements” section of this preamble. Expressly requiring private institutions to comply with their stated institutional policies on freedom of speech, including academic freedom, as a material condition of the Department’s grant reinforces the importance of compliance and reminds private institutions of the promises they chose to make to their students, faculty, and other stakeholders. The Department agrees with the general assertion made by one commenter that the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking process may have the benefit of de-politicizing regulatory enforcement.

Proposed 34 Cfr 106 12c

In the NPRM we requested comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available. Due to the number of affected entities and recipients, we cannot estimate, with absolute precision, the likely effects of these regulations. However, as discussed below, we estimate that these final regulations will have a one-time net cost of approximately $297,770. In addition, commenters stated that the proposed rule violated the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999, note to 5 U.S.C. 601, because it failed to include a Family Policy Making Assessment, which would assess the proposed rules’ impact on family wellbeing. The Department is not persuaded that such a mandate would be consistent with the Title IX statute, or beneficial overall.

A commenter whose daughter participated in a religious student group shared that religious student groups are places where belief systems and cultures can be explored along with other intellectual pursuits. Another commenter noted how religious student groups afford students the opportunity to explore faith, examine and choose, as an adult, a path they may want to follow. An additional commenter wrote that the university experience is a key time for intellectual development and character formation, so diversity added from religious student groups is profitable to students. Many commenters underscored that students ought to be allowed to learn from a multiplicity of viewpoints to form their own convictions while forming common ground with and respect for other beliefs.

The State shall make its comments in a written statement signed by an appropriate State official. Binds each member of the group to every statement and assurance made by the applicant in the application.

One commenter described religious student groups as unique places in the world where people from any walk of life, social setting, socio-economic background, faith background, sexual orientation, etc., can come together to learn with and from one another. Many former participants in religious student groups expressed how religious student groups enhanced their experience at universities because they were given the opportunity to explore personal beliefs and experience and contribute to diversity on campus. Lastly, we believe that free inquiry on our Nation’s campuses is a fundamentally important subject that deserves a serious rulemaking process.

Dictionary Entries Near Direct Grant School

Both commenters stated that most studies posted on the WWC Web site focus on K-12 education and that existing research around community colleges is insufficient for them to compete if factors related to evidence of effectiveness are used by the Department. To address this concern, one commenter recommended creating a special track of priority funding for empirical research on community colleges in all of the Department’s postsecondary programs. Some commenters also recommended that the regulation specifically identify SEAs, institutions of higher education , and nonprofit organizations as types of entities that may be awarded a subgrant. One commenter proposed adding for-profit entities as a type of entity that may be awarded a subgrant.

This commenter also advised the Department to consider providing grants for security to institutions instead of conditioning Federal funding on compliance with the First Amendment or with stated institutional policies. The commenter reasoned that providing grants for security to institutions could effectively protect controversial and diverse speakers from being shut down by protesting students. According to this commenter, grants for security may be a more effective way to promote the Department’s free speech goals because it is more narrowly focused on preserving the free speech rights of students and staff, as opposed to the proposed rule’s disproportionately punitive approach. Commenters also emphasized that tying Federal funding for public institutions to First Amendment compliance and funding for private institutions to compliance with stated institutional policies could result in unfair treatment because different courts and jurisdictions have different jurisprudence. For example, the Department would create an unequal playing field where an institution could lose funding for engaging in the same underlying misconduct as another institution, but the latter did not lose funding because it was in a different jurisdiction. Commenters noted that the First Amendment is a particularly complex area of law, and cases may be decided by sharply divided courts. The provision of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 cited by commenters pertains to “policies and regulations that may affect family well-being.” As the proposed regulations, and these final regulations, did not have a direct effect on families, such an analysis was not required.

Unequal Treatment Between Institutions

One commenter shared that well-intended anti-discrimination policies at both public and private universities can be used in an “indiscriminate” manner that nearly undermined the ability of the campus ministry in which the commenter participated. The scheme was attractive to most of the direct grant schools.Of the 231 secondary schools receiving direct grant in 1945, 196 applied to join the new scheme, with the rest becoming independent schools. In addition 31 grant-aided schools applied to join the scheme.Of these, 164 schools (including four formerly grant-aided schools) were accepted as direct grant grammar schools.The list was re-opened between 1957 and 1961, when 44 applications were received, of which 15 were accepted.There were therefore 179 direct grant grammar schools, alongside over 1200 maintained grammar schools. The application of the rates and the determination of the direct cost base by a grantee must be in accordance with the indirect cost rate agreement approved by the grantee’s cognizant agency. A grantee using the training rate of eight percent is required to have documentation available for audit that shows that its negotiated indirect cost rate is at least eight percent.

Specifically, the commenter noted that a pure control condition is rare because fidelity of implementation can significantly impact the effectiveness of a process, product, strategy, or practice. The commenter indicated that how well a particular process, product, strategy, or practice works depends on the conditions under which it is implemented, and the costs of observation and metrics to determine the fidelity of that implementation are significant. The commenter also noted that, because products and services are constantly changing and improving, the products or services are frequently no longer available in the format or version that was studied by the time an evaluation is complete.

The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information on its project so as to support further development or replication. The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key components, mediators, and outcomes of the grant-supported intervention, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-implemented, produce evidence of promise (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1). We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, or tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. This final regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3 of Executive Order 12866. With regard to ensuring that studies are of sufficient duration to meet the requirements, we note that the WWC Evidence Standards do not require a minimum study length.

Assessment Of Educational Impact

The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator. The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project. The quality of the proposed demonstration design and procedures for documenting project activities and results.

Religious student organizations would not be empowered to “blackmail” universities by “claiming” discrimination each time they failed to receive money. If, in fact, a public institution of higher education does not provide religious student organizations a public benefit that is generally available to secular organizations because of the religious character of the student organization, then it is engaging in discrimination prohibited by these final regulations and the principles established by the Supreme Court in Trinity and Espinoza. However, withholding funds from any student organization under a neutral rule of general applicability is not constitutionally suspect or prohibited under these final regulations. A significant number of commenters discussed the community service that religious student groups perform, including many stories from current and former students about service projects through their religious student organizations. Many commenters shared how they were able to partner with other campus organizations or lead campus initiatives.

The Department’s final regulations recognize that Congress provided a right of action in 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of the First Amendment by those acting in an official government capacity, whether on campuses or elsewhere. These final regulations do not in any way abrogate sovereign immunity and instead recognize that employees acting on behalf of a public institution are prone to be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, if they violate the First Amendment.

Also, given the variety of programs to which these regulations apply, we do not think it is appropriate to prescribe a list of indicators in the regulation. We think that Department program officials are in the best position to establish appropriate performance measurement indicators for particular grant competitions and need the discretion to change the measures as the program evolves. In addition, more detailed information on indicators for a particular Department program will be provided in each notice inviting applications than can be provided through the use of generic performance measures listed in a regulation.

The Department also believes that our judicial system has the requisite expertise and impartiality to render sound judgments that consider all the relevant facts and circumstances of a given case. Single instance of a violation of stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech, including academic freedom, at a private institution, as adjudicated by a court, is egregious with respect to Federal research or education grants. Such violations deny students the opportunity to learn and also deny teachers and faculty the opportunity to research and engage in rigorous academic discourse. The freedoms in the First Amendment for public institutions and stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech, including academic freedom, for private institutions are fundamental for education. Second, while the Department understands that not everyone agrees with the mission or beliefs of religious student organizations, the First Amendment requires public institutions of higher education to refrain from content-based or viewpoint discrimination under the Free Speech Clause and to protect the free exercise of religion under the Free Exercise Clause.

A public institution also may adopt other types of generally applicable policies with respect to student organizations as long as such policies apply equally to all student organizations, including religious student organizations. None of these scenarios give religious student organizations an exemption or preferential treatment, but merely equal treatment, which is required under the First Amendment. Another commenter stated that these regulations would support the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Establishment Clause—government officials never should be allowed to dictate to religious groups their leadership standards, and government officials should never be able or allowed to penalize religious groups because of their religious beliefs and speech. Commenters stated that a national standard, codified by these regulations, would provide consistent protection for students’ speech and religious freedom regardless of which State a student chooses to move to in order to attend college. Another commenter expanded on the argument that universities should not be picking which groups can receive equal treatment, since public university administrators and faculty are on the public payroll. Another religious student group expressed support that the proposed regulations would emphasize that no religion-based discrimination against faith-based entities will be accepted at any stage of the funding process. In short, this commenter believed the Department should require private institutions to clearly explain how and why they would like to be held to a lesser standard than public institutions under the First Amendment because that may discourage private institutions from watering down their free speech protections to avoid liability.

The commenter contended that Congress, in 1972 when Title IX was originally passed, and in 1988 when it was amended, would have wanted to enact Title IX without a religious exemption, if a court were to hold that the limited religious exemption it enacted was unconstitutional. The commenter noted that there is no statutory language in Title IX that can be excised from the religious exemption itself if the “controlled by a religious organization” is unconstitutionally limiting, because without this language, the exemption makes no sense. The commenter also asserted that even without the religious exemption in Title IX, an educational institution can invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act if it can show that Title IX substantially burdens its exercise of religion. Further, the Department disagrees that these proposed regulations will have a significantly increased negative impact upon LGBTQ individuals, because the final regulations clarify existing statutory exemptions to Title IX and the recipients’ eligibility for claiming such exemptions. Since that time, the Department has issued a number of letters in response to educational institutions’ correspondence asserting eligibility for a religious exemption, and the Department has stated publicly that it utilizes many of the criteria contained in this proposed regulation when considering such correspondence. In any event, based on public comment, the Department does not believe that there are a significant number of educational institutions who have not previously sought a religious exemption, but would be eligible to do so as a result of these final regulations, which include existing factors from OCR’s non-binding guidance. Many commenters expressed support for the regulations because they would increase ideological diversity which contributes to a more robust university environment.

Their organizations had often been deprived from accessing campus facilities, funding, free speech, and even approval from the university based on their orthodox beliefs, even though these chapters help students to think critically and better prepare them for life. One university student shared their story of administrative interference in which a State university system refused to allow religious groups to have any faith-based qualifications for their leaders, prompting concern among religious groups that their leaders would not be required to agree with their mission or teach their faith.