Yes, you can apply. Just don’t tell them you read this blog.
What’s New
2016 PEER REVIEWERS
The Office of Innovation and Improvement is seeking individuals to serve as peer reviewers for the FY 2016 Charter Schools Program (CSP) State educational agency (SEA) grant competition. The CSP SEA program is a competitive grant program that enables SEAs to provide financial assistance, through subgrants to eligible applicants, for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools and for the dissemination of information about successful charter schools.
For FY 2016, Congress appropriated $333 million for the CSP. Approximately $160 million of these funds are available for new FY 2016 SEA grant awards through this competition.
We invite qualified individuals to apply to serve as grant application peer reviewers by completing the Peer Reviewer Application Form. A hard copy of the peer reviewer application can be found here [below].
Additional information can be found in the CSP SEA Call for Peer Reviewers. If you have questions about the peer review process and/or potential conflicts of interest please contact the SEA competition manager, Kathryn Meeley by email: Kathryn.Meeley@ed.gov.
Program Description
The purpose of the CSP is to increase the national understanding of the charter school model by (1) expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the Nation by providing financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and (2) by evaluating the effects of charter schools, including their effects on students, student academic achievement, staff and parents.
2016 CHARTER SCHOOLS PROGRAM STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY GRANT COMPETITION
CALL FOR PEER REVIEWERS
CONTEXT: The U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), is seeking individuals to serve as peer reviewers for the FY 2016 Charter Schools Program (CSP) State educational agency (SEA) grant competition. The purpose of the CSP is to increase national understanding of the charter school model and to expand the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the nation. The CSP SEA program is a competitive grant program that enables SEAs to provide financial assistance, through subgrants to eligible applicants, for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools and for the dissemination of information about successful charter schools. For FY 2016, Congress appropriated $333 million for the CSP. Approximately $160 million of these funds are available for new FY 2016 SEA grant awards through this competition. We invite qualified individuals to apply to serve as grant application peer reviewers by completing the Peer Reviewer Application Form.
NOTE: Even if you applied to be a peer reviewer in the past, please complete the Peer Reviewer Application Form as directed below by 5:00 p.m. (EST) on Friday, April 15, 2016 to be considered for a peer reviewer position for the 2016 SEA competition.
WHO: We are seeking peer reviewers from various professions and backgrounds with an understanding of the charter school sector and expertise in at least one of the following areas: Charter School Authorizing and Accountability; Charter School Policy; Charter School Research and Evaluation; Charter School Development and Implementation; or Charter School Grant Administration. Peer reviewers may have expertise in various geographies, including urban, suburban, rural, and tribal communities.
WHAT: Peer reviewers will independently read, score, and provide timely, well written comments for SEA grant applications submitted to the U.S. Department of Education under the CSP and travel to Washington, D.C., to participate in one week of in-person panel discussions.
- Availability: Reviewers for the CSP SEA competition will need to dedicate approximately 80 hours for the review process (40 hours will be needed to review all assigned applications, and another 40 hours will be needed to participate in the on-site application review). This time estimate includes participation in an orientation session by conference call prior to evaluating the applications, time for reading, scoring, developing comments, and discussing assigned applications. While exact dates for the review have not yet been finalized, we expect it will be around the end of May through July, 2016.
- Where: Reviewers will read, score and develop comments from their location prior to traveling to Washington, D.C., to participate in one week of in-person panel discussions.
- Tools: Each reviewer must have access to the Internet, a phone, a computer, a printer and have the ability to interact within the web environment.
- Quality of review: Each reviewer must provide detailed, objective, constructive, timely and, well written reviews for each assigned application. These reviews will be used to recommend applications for funding. They will also be shared with each applicant and the comments regarding winning applicants will be made available to the general public following the reviews.
HONORARIUM: Reviewers will receive an honorarium of $200 per application for the satisfactory completion of the above requirements during the grant review schedule. A satisfactory review requires that each application is read, scored, and discussed. The final, high-quality comments and corresponding scores will be reviewed and approved by a panel monitor prior to their final submission in the G5 system. Travel costs for the onsite portion of the review will also be covered.
IF INTERESTED: If you would like to be considered as a peer reviewer, please click here and complete the Peer Reviewer Application Form. After completing the form you will be prompted to send your resume and contact information via email with the subject heading “FY 2016 CSP SEA PEER REVIEWER” to the email address provided in the Peer Reviewer Application Form. You must complete both steps by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, April 15, 2016 to be considered as an FY 2016 CSP SEA peer reviewer. Please do not exceed the five-page limit for resumes.
G5 REGISTRATION: To serve as a reviewer you will need to register in G5. If you would like take care of this process prior to being selected you can register at www.g5.gov. For support with this process you may contact G5 at edcaps.user@ed.gov or call 1-888-336-8930. *Please note that registering in G5 at this time does not guarantee that you will be selected as a reviewer.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Please remember that if your organization intends to apply for a grant under any CSP competitions, you may not be eligible to serve as a reviewer. As a reviewer, you will have a conflict of interest if:
- You helped prepare an application, regardless of financial interest in the success or failure of that application.
- You have agreed to serve, or you have been offered a position, as an employee, advisor, or consultant on the project.
- Your personal financial interest will be affected by the outcome of the competition, which would include any family members, employees or associates of the project applying for funding.
If you have any questions about the peer review process and/or potential conflicts of interest please contact the SEA competition manager, Kathryn Meeley by email: Kathryn.Meeley@ed.gov.
NON-DISCRIMINATION: The Department solicits reviewers without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age or disability. The Department will provide reasonable accommodations for a qualified individual with a disability so that individual might participate in the peer reviewer application process. If you require a reasonable accommodation to apply to participate in this review, please contact Kathryn Meeley by phone, (202) 453-6818 or email at kathryn.meeley@ed.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. EST, Friday, April 8, 2016 to ensure we can facilitate the application process.
PROGRAM INFORMATION: For more information about the Charter Schools Program State Educational Agency Grant Program, click here.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Pennsylvania auditor tells the truth:
“Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale issued a scathing report damning the state charter law Tuesday, and he blamed many of the School District of Philadelphia’s fiscal woes on state lawmakers who have not revised the nearly 20-year-old measure.
“Our charter school law is simply the worst charter school law in the United States,” said DePasquale at a news conference at Philadelphia’s district headquarters.
He blamed recent failed efforts in Harrisburg to reform the charter law on special interest lobbying.”
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/homepage-feature/item/92766-pa-charter-school-law-worst-in-us-state-auditor-general-says?l=mt
LikeLike
“Special interest lobbying.” Imagine my surprise that the state legislature failed to reform the charter law. 😦
LikeLike
The legislature is so corrupt with members allied with hedge funds and charter investors, and the reimbursement formula is too generous. It is depleting the operating budgets of several communities with charters. Governor Wolf is trying to restore funding to public schools, but the legislature obstructs him at every turn.
LikeLike
Omg…NUTS!
LikeLike
I WANT MY TAX DOLLARS BACK. Now. This is absolutely ridiculous. How do we stop the insanity? There is no money for public schools, but there is money for this nonsense (and TFA)? It defies logic and is a slap in our collective faces.
LikeLike
It seems to say that if you are not a part of the charter school industry with experience in the industry you will not qualify.
It is really disgusting to have tax dollars being spent to harm public schools and the teaching profession with no real place for public comment. Thanks Obama, Bush and Clinton, it has been a sustained bipartisan attack on us non-elites.
It’s the elitists lusting for more and pushing the rest of us into the ditch.
Both of these political parties are sick and need to be taken out behind the barn and put out of their misery before they totally corrupt American values.
LikeLike
tultican is correct. The survey begs for bias in candidates. So, I applied. I hope others will, too. There’s an open-ended question which provides an opportunity to explain to the US Dept. of Education, what a government of the people, by the people and, for the people means.
LikeLike
$200 for 80 hours of work? That’s $2.50 per hour
LikeLike
Wow!
Calling all Tims to the rescue . . . You’re such a reform whore, Tim . . . Why not sign up and become a peer reviewer?
LikeLike
So, of I understand this correctly: the fed govt has a certain amount of funds set aside for granting $, on a competitive basis, to state education agencies looking to increase their number of quality charter-school applicants by providing some funds to applicants for designing the charter-schools they wish to propose. There are also some funds set aside for ‘peer-reviews’ of those grant applications, hence the solicitation of peer reviewers (who stand to earn $200 per review, 1/2 of which must be spent on a [transportation-pd??] junket to DC.
The money (tax funds) involved seems to be minimal. However, the principle involved deserves investigation: by what right is the fed gov funding penny number one in encouraging state govts to “increase the national understanding of the charter school model by (1) expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the Nation…”?
LikeLike
Bethree5,
Your point is very well taken.
US Ed claims that peer reviewers, with conflicts of interest, will not be selected. Are they planning to turn their heads, while selecting?
Or, is this a case of revolving door, where the conflict occurs immediately, on the other side, of the revolve?
Only, reviewers with a subsidy from somewhere else, could afford the offered position. I think I can guess some sources of the subsidies.
US Ed couldn’t be more offensive, if they tried.
LikeLike
You know, Linda, I had a 2nd thought about this program, being as the dollars invested are so small. [Tho I so agree w/yr sentiment, ‘US DOE couldn’t be more offensive if they tried’– & I’ve been feeling that way for 15 yrs…]. Maybe this is just an example of legislative compromise. To pass ESSA, which partly undercuts the choke-hold ed-deformers had on the fed, small bones had to be tossed to them, & this is one.
LikeLike
Bones, for all of the Democratic senators, who voted for a privatizing Secretary of Education? Expected of Repubs. not, Dems.
LikeLike
I think they misspelled it and actually want pee-er reviewers.
LikeLike