[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22451-22467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08847]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
RIN 1810-AB17
[Docket ID ED-2013-OS-0050]
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Race to the Top--District [CFDA Number: 84.416.]
AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria under the Race to the Top--District program. The
Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions using funds from
fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years. The Race to the Top--District
program builds on the experience of States and districts in
implementing reforms in the four core educational assurance areas
through Race to the Top and other key programs and supports applicants
that demonstrate how they can personalize education for all students in
their schools. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) conducted
one competition under the Race to the Top--District program in FY 2012,
and we propose to maintain the overall purpose and structure of the FY
2012 Race to the Top--District competition. These proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are almost identical
to the ones we used in the FY 2012 competition. We describe the changes
at the beginning of each section of this document.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 16, 2013, and we
encourage you to submit comments well in advance of this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure we do not receive
duplicate comments, please submit your comments only once. In addition,
please include the Docket ID and the phrase ``Race to the Top--
District-Comments'' at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit
your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under ''How
to use Regulations.gov'' in the Help section.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you mail or
deliver your comments about these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, address them to the
[[Page 22452]]
Office of the Deputy Secretary (Attention: Race to the Top--District--
Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room
7e208, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly
available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Farace. Telephone: (202) 453-
6800 or by email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary:
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The purpose of this document is
to propose priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for the Race to the Top--District competition that would
enable effective grant making and result in the selection of high-
quality applicants that propose to implement activities that are most
likely to support bold, locally directed improvements in learning and
teaching that would directly improve student achievement and educator
effectiveness.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: The Race
to the Top--District program is designed to build on the momentum of
other Race to the Top competitions by encouraging bold, innovative
reform at the local level. The Race to the Top--District competition is
aimed squarely at classrooms and the all-important relationship between
educators and students. The proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in this document are almost
identical to those we used in the FY 2012 competition. The competition
will again support applicants that demonstrate how they can personalize
education for all students in their schools.
In that regard, through this action, the Department will encourage
and reward those LEAs or consortia of LEAs that have the leadership and
vision to implement the strategies, structures, and systems needed to
implement personalized, student-focused approaches to learning and
teaching that will produce excellence and ensure equity for all
students. The proposed priorities, definitions, requirements, and
selection criteria are designed to help LEAs meet these goals. Most
changes from the FY 2012 competition reflect minor language
clarifications. The two more substantive changes are the removal of the
opportunity to apply for an optional budget supplement and the
reduction of the minimum and maximum grant amount for which an
applicant may apply. We believe these proposed changes would enable the
Department to maximize the number of grantees that would receive
funding under a competition, while still awarding grants of sufficient
size to support bold improvements in learning and teaching.
Under Proposed Priority 1, applicants must design a personalized
learning environment that uses collaborative, data-based strategies and
21st century tools such as online learning platforms, computers, mobile
devices, and learning algorithms, to deliver instruction and supports
tailored to the needs and goals of each student, with the aim of
enabling all students to graduate college- and career-ready.
Implementation of a personalized learning environment is not achieved
through a single solution or product but rather requires a multi-
faceted approach that addresses the individual and collective needs of
students, educators, and families and that dramatically transforms the
learning environment in order to improve student outcomes.
Through Race to the Top--District, the Department proposes to
continue to support high-quality proposals from applicants across a
varied set of LEAs in order to create diverse models of personalized
learning environments for use by LEAs across the Nation. For this
reason, the Department is proposing four additional priorities.
Proposed Priorities 2 through 5 would support efforts to expand the
types of reform efforts being implemented in LEAs in States that have
received a Race to the Top award and to LEAs in other States. Moreover,
these proposed priorities would also help ensure that LEAs of varying
sizes, both rural and non-rural, and with different local contexts are
able to implement innovative personalized learning environments for
their students that can serve as models for other LEAs and help improve
student achievement widely.
Finally, we propose one additional priority to support applicants
that propose to extend their reforms beyond the classroom and partner
with public or private entities in order to address the social,
emotional, and behavioral needs of students, particularly students who
attend a high-need school.
Costs and Benefits: The costs imposed on applicants by these
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an
application and the benefits of implementing them would outweigh any
costs incurred by applicants. The costs of carrying out activities
would be paid for with program funds. Thus, the costs of implementation
would not be a burden for any eligible applicants, including small
entities. Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this
document for a more complete discussion of the costs and benefits of
this regulatory action.
This notice provides an accounting statement that estimates that
approximately up to $150 million will transfer from the Federal
Government to LEAs under this program. Please refer to the accounting
statement in this document for a more detailed discussion.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
Please let us know of any further ways the Department could reduce
potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the
effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in room 7e208, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
[[Page 22453]]
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Race to the Top--District
program is to build on the lessons learned from the State competitions
conducted under the Race to the Top program and to support bold,
locally directed improvements in learning and teaching that will
directly improve student achievement and educator effectiveness.
Program Authority: Sections 14005 and 14006 of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111-5), as amended by
section 1832(b) of Division B of the Department of Defense and Full-
Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-10), and the
Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012) (Title III of Division F of Pub. L. 112-
74).
Background
The Statutory Context and Program Overview
Race to the Top
The Race to the Top program, authorized under the ARRA (Pub. L.
111-5), is centered on four core educational reform areas:
(a) Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to
succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global
economy;
(b) Building data systems that measure student growth and success
and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve
instruction;
(c) Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective
teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
(d) Turning around the Nation's lowest-achieving schools.
In 2010, the Department conducted Race to the Top State
competitions, which provided incentives to States to adopt bold and
comprehensive reforms in elementary and secondary education and laid
the foundation for unprecedented innovation. A total of 46 States and
the District of Columbia put together plans to implement college- and
career-ready standards, use data systems to guide teaching and
learning, evaluate and support teachers and school leaders, and turn
around their lowest-performing schools. The Race to the Top State
competitions provided States with incentives to implement large-scale,
system-changing reforms designed to improve student achievement, narrow
achievement gaps, and increase graduation and college enrollment rates.
The Race to the Top Assessment program, also authorized under the
ARRA, supports consortia of States in developing new and better
assessments aligned with high standards.
In 2011, the ARRA was amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011 (Pub. L. 112-10), which added an additional education reform area:
strengthening the quality of early learning and development programs
and increasing access to high-quality early learning programs for all
children, including those with high needs. As a result, the Department
had the authority to use a portion of the FY 2011 and FY 2012
appropriations for Race to the Top on the Race to the Top--Early
Learning Challenge program, which is jointly administered by the
Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. The Race to the
Top--Early Learning Challenge supports 14 States' efforts to strengthen
the quality of their early learning programs.
Race to the Top--District Competition
On May 22, 2012, the Secretary announced the Race to the Top--
District program, which is designed to build on the momentum of other
Race to the Top competitions by encouraging bold, innovative reform at
the local level. This district-level program is authorized under
sections 14005 and 14006 of the ARRA, as amended by section 1832(b) of
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012. Congress
appropriated approximately $550 million for Race to the Top in FY 2012.
Of these funds, the Department awarded approximately $383 million to 16
Race to the Top--District grantees representing 55 LEAs, with grants
ranging from $10 to $40 million. The amount of an award for which an
applicant was eligible to apply depended upon the number of students
who would be served under the application.
The Race to the Top--District competition is aimed squarely at
classrooms and the all-important relationship between educators and
students. The proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria in this document are almost identical to those we
used in the FY 2012 competition. The competition will again support
applicants that demonstrate how they can personalize education for all
students in their schools.
In that regard, the Race to the Top--District program will
encourage and reward those LEAs or consortia of LEAs that have the
leadership and vision to implement the strategies, structures, and
systems needed to implement personalized, student-focused approaches to
learning and teaching that will produce excellence and ensure equity
for all students. The proposed priorities, definitions, requirements,
and selection criteria in this notice are designed to help LEAs meet
these goals.
Under Proposed Priority 1, applicants must design a personalized
learning environment that uses collaborative, data-based strategies and
21st century tools such as online learning platforms, computers, mobile
devices, and learning algorithms, to deliver instruction and supports
tailored to the needs and goals of each student, with the aim of
enabling all students to graduate college- and career-ready.
Implementation of a personalized learning environment is not achieved
through a single solution or product but rather requires a multi-
faceted approach that addresses the individual and collective needs of
students, educators, and families and that dramatically transforms the
learning environment in order to improve student outcomes.
The Secretary believes that teacher and student classroom
interaction, supported by strong principals and engaged families, is
crucial to educating students. Teacher and student interactions are
strengthened when an effective teacher has useful information about
students' particular needs, support from his or her principal or
leadership team, a quality curriculum aligned with college- and career-
ready standards, and the other tools needed to do the job.
Too often, however, these supportive conditions have not existed in
our schools or districts, and the results are painfully predictable:
students fall behind or drop out, achievement gaps remain or widen,
teachers get frustrated and leave the field, and stakeholders become
polarized and divided under pressure to perform.
That is why--for more than four years--the Department has supported
bold reforms at the State and local levels that have reduced barriers
to good teaching and helped create better conditions for learning.
There is no single approach or boutique solution to implementation
of personalized learning environments. An LEA or consortium of LEAs
receiving an award under this competition will build on the experience
of States and districts in implementing reforms in the four core
educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) through Race to
the Top and other key programs. A successful applicant will provide
teachers the information, tools, and
[[Page 22454]]
supports that enable them to meet the needs of each student and
substantially accelerate and deepen each student's learning. These LEAs
will have the policies, systems, infrastructure, capacity, and culture
to enable teachers, teacher teams, and school leaders to continuously
focus on improving individual student achievement and closing
achievement gaps. These LEAs will also make equity and access a
priority and aim to prepare each student to master the content and
skills required for college- and career-readiness, provide each student
the opportunity to pursue a rigorous course of study, and accelerate
and deepen students' learning through attention to their individual
needs. As important, they will create opportunities for students to
identify and pursue areas of personal academic interest--all while
ensuring that each student masters critical areas identified in
college- and career-ready standards or college- and career-ready high
school graduation requirements.
Educators want a way to inspire and challenge those students who
are furthest ahead, provide targeted help and assistance to those
furthest behind, and engage fully and effectively with the students in
the middle. To accomplish this objective, educators across the country
have created personalized learning environments and used strategies
that involve such elements as technology, virtual and blended learning,
individual and group tasks, partnering with parents, and aligning non-
school hours with the educational needs of students.
Personalized learning environments allow students to: understand
their individual learning goals and needs; access deep learning
experiences that include individual and group tasks; and develop such
skills and traits as goal setting, teamwork, perseverance, critical
thinking, communications, creativity, and problem solving across
multiple academic domains. If students are to do this successfully,
both students and educators need opportunities to build their
individual and collective capacity to support the implementation of
personalized learning environments and strategies.
The Race to the Top--District program does not create new stand-
alone programs, or support niche programs or interventions. Nor is it a
vehicle for maintenance of the status quo. Rather, the Race to the
Top--District program will support LEAs that demonstrate their
commitment to identifying teachers, principals, and schools who have a
vision and the expertise to personalize education and extend their
reach to all of their students. LEAs successfully implementing an
approach to learning and teaching that includes personalized learning
environments will lay a foundation for raising student achievement,
decreasing the achievement gap across student groups, and increasing
the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for
college and careers.
The Department is also proposing to continue to support high-
quality proposals from applicants across a varied set of LEAs in order
to create diverse models of personalized learning environments for use
by LEAs across the Nation. For this reason, the Department is proposing
four additional priorities--Proposed Priorities 2 through 5--through
which the Department will support efforts to expand the types of reform
efforts being implemented in LEAs in States that have received a Race
to the Top award and to LEAs in other States. Moreover, these proposed
priorities would also help ensure that LEAs of varying sizes, both
rural and non-rural, and with different local contexts are able to
implement innovative personalized learning environments for their
students that can serve as models for other LEAs and help improve
student achievement widely.
Finally, we proposed one additional priority to support applicants
that propose to extend their reforms beyond the classroom and partner
with public or private entities in order to address the social,
emotional, and behavioral needs of students, particularly students who
attend a high-need school. This priority aligns with other Department
programs, such as the Promise Neighborhoods program, and further
amplifies the Department's commitment to improve education as well as
family and community supports. We believe that this will help children
and youth in communities with these partnerships access great schools
and the complementary family and community supports that will help
prepare them to attain an excellent education and successfully
transition to college and a career.
Changes From the FY 2012 Competition
These proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria maintain the overall purpose and structure of the FY 2012 Race
to the Top--District competition, and include almost identical language
to the FY 2012 competition. At the beginning of the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria sections,
we list all of the differences between the FY 2012 notice inviting
applications and this document. Most differences reflect minor language
clarifications or changes to ensure language is appropriate for a
notice of proposed priorities, definitions, requirements, and selection
criteria, as compared to a notice inviting applications. The two more
substantive changes are the removal of the opportunity to apply for an
optional budget supplement and the reduction of the minimum and maximum
grant amount for which an applicant may apply. We believe these
proposed changes will enable the Department to maximize the number of
grantees that receive funding under a competition, while still awarding
grants of sufficient size to support bold improvements in learning and
teaching.
Proposed Priorities
Changes From the FY 2012 Competition
(a) In Proposed Priority 6, sub-bullet (2), we propose changing
``and'' to ``or'' in ``educational results or other educational
outcomes'', and we separate the sentence with an ``(a)'' and ``(b)''.
These edits do not change the meaning, but help to clarify that
educational results or outcomes, and family and community supports, are
two distinct categories.
--New: ``Identify not more than 10 population-level desired results
for students in the LEA or consortium of LEAs that align with and
support the applicant's broader Race to the Top--District proposal.
These results must include both (a) educational results or other
education outcomes (e.g., children enter kindergarten prepared to
succeed in school, children exit third grade reading at grade level,
and students graduate from high school college- and career-ready) and
(b) family and community supports (as defined in this notice)
results;''
--Original: ``Identify not more than 10 population-level desired
results for students in the LEA or consortium of LEAs that align with
and support the applicant's broader Race to the Top--District proposal.
These results must include both educational results and other education
outcomes (e.g., children enter kindergarten prepared to succeed in
school, children exit third grade reading at grade level, and students
graduate from high school college- and career-ready) and family and
community supports (as defined in this notice) results;''
Proposed priorities: The Secretary proposes six priorities. The
Department may apply one or more of these priorities in any year in
which a competition for program funds is held. In addition, in any year
in which a Race
[[Page 22455]]
to the Top--District competition is held, we may include priorities
from the notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for
discretionary grant programs, published in the Federal Register on
December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78486), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 DR
276637).
Proposed Priority 1: Personalized Learning Environments. To meet
this priority, an applicant must coherently and comprehensively address
how it will build on the core educational assurance areas (as defined
in this notice) to create learning environments that are designed to
significantly improve learning and teaching through the personalization
of strategies, tools, and supports for students and educators that are
aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this
notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as
defined in this notice); accelerate student achievement and deepen
student learning by meeting the academic needs of each student;
increase the effectiveness of educators; expand student access to the
most effective educators; decrease achievement gaps across student
groups; and increase the rates at which students graduate from high
school prepared for college and careers.
Proposed Priority 2: Non-Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. To
meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs
in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in
this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that received awards under
the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition.
Proposed Priority 3: Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. To meet
this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in
which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in
this notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States
that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or
Phase 3 competition.
Proposed Priority 4: Non-Rural LEAs in non-Race to the Top States.
To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of
LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as
defined in this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that did not
receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3
competition.
Proposed Priority 5: Rural LEAs in non-Race to the Top States. To
meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs
in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in
this notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States
that did not receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2,
or Phase 3 competition.
Proposed Priority 6: Results, Resource Alignment, and Integrated
Services. To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate the
extent to which the applicant proposes to integrate public or private
resources in a partnership designed to augment the schools' resources
by providing additional student and family supports to schools that
address the social, emotional, or behavioral needs of the participating
students (as defined in this notice), giving highest priority to
students in participating schools with high-need students (as defined
in this notice). To meet this priority, an applicant's proposal does
not need to be comprehensive and may provide student and family
supports that focus on a subset of these needs.
To meet this priority, an applicant must--
(1) Provide a description of the coherent and sustainable
partnership that it has formed with public or private organizations,
such as public health, before-school, after-school, and social service
providers; integrated student service providers; businesses,
philanthropies, civic groups, and other community-based organizations;
early learning programs; and postsecondary institutions to support the
plan described in Priority 1;
(2) Identify not more than 10 population-level desired results for
students in the LEA or consortium of LEAs that align with and support
the applicant's broader Race to the Top--District proposal. These
results must include both (a) educational results or other education
outcomes (e.g., children enter kindergarten prepared to succeed in
school, children exit third grade reading at grade level, and students
graduate from high school college- and career-ready) and (b) family and
community supports (as defined in this notice) results;
(3) Describe how the partnership would--
(a) Track the selected indicators that measure each result at the
aggregate level for all children within the LEA or consortium and at
the student level for the participating students (as defined in this
notice);
(b) Use the data to target its resources in order to improve
results for participating students (as defined in this notice), with
special emphasis on students facing significant challenges, such as
students with disabilities, English learners, and students affected by
poverty (including highly mobile students), family instability, or
other child welfare issues;
(c) Develop a strategy to scale the model beyond the participating
students (as defined in this notice) to at least other high-need
students (as defined in this notice) and communities in the LEA or
consortium over time; and
(d) Improve results over time;
(4) Describe how the partnership would, within participating
schools (as defined in this notice), integrate education and other
services (e.g., services that address social-emotional, and behavioral
needs, acculturation for immigrants and refugees) for participating
students (as defined in this notice);
(5) Describe how the partnership and LEA or consortium would build
the capacity of staff in participating schools (as defined in this
notice) by providing them with tools and supports to--
(a) Assess the needs and assets of participating students (as
defined in this notice) that are aligned with the partnership's goals
for improving the education and family and community supports (as
defined in this notice) identified by the partnership;
(b) Identify and inventory the needs and assets of the school and
community that are aligned with those goals for improving the education
and family and community supports (as defined in this notice)
identified by the applicant;
(c) Create a decision-making process and infrastructure to select,
implement, and evaluate supports that address the individual needs of
participating students (as defined in this notice) and support improved
results;
(d) Engage parents and families of participating students (as
defined in this notice) in both decision-making about solutions to
improve results over time and in addressing student, family, and school
needs; and
(e) Routinely assess the applicant's progress in implementing its
plan to maximize impact and resolve challenges and problems; and
(6) Identify its annual ambitious yet achievable performance
measures for the proposed population-level and describe desired results
for students.
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 75.105(c)(3)).
[[Page 22456]]
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)).
Proposed Eligibility Requirements
Changes From the FY 2012 Competition
(a) In eligibility requirement (1)(a), we propose adding
``individual'' and ``one of'' to the requirement to help further
describe the entities that are eligible to apply for grants under this
program. This does not change the meaning, but helps clarify that every
LEA, whether applying individually or as part of a consortium, must be
from one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
--New: ``An applicant must be an individual LEA (as defined in this
notice) or a consortium of individual LEAs from one of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.''
--Original: ``An applicant must be an individual LEA (as defined in
this notice) or a consortium of LEAs from the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(b) In eligibility requirement (1)(a)(iii), we propose adding that
``Successful applicants (i.e., grantees) from past Race to the Top--
District competitions may not apply for additional funding.'' This
provides an opportunity for a greater number of LEAs nationwide to
receive funding under the program.
Proposed Eligibility Requirements: The Secretary proposes the
following requirements that an LEA or consortium of LEAs must meet in
order to be eligible to receive funds under this competition. We may
apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in
effect.
(1) Eligible applicants: To be eligible for a grant under this
competition:
(a) An applicant must be an individual LEA (as defined in this
notice) or a consortium of individual LEAs from one of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(i) LEAs may apply for all or a portion of their schools, for
specific grades, or for subject-area bands (e.g., lowest-performing
schools, secondary schools, schools connected by a feeder pattern,
middle school math, or preschool through third grade).
(ii) Consortia may include LEAs from multiple States.
(iii) Each LEA may participate in only one Race to the Top--
District application. Successful applicants (i.e., grantees) from past
Race to the Top--District competitions may not apply for additional
funding.
(b) An applicant must serve a minimum of 2,000 participating
students (as defined in this notice) or may serve fewer than 2,000
participating students (as defined in this notice) provided those
students are served by a consortium of at least 10 LEAs and at least 75
percent of the students served by each LEA are participating students
(as defined in this notice). An applicant must base its requested award
amount on the number of participating students it proposes to serve at
the time of application or within the first 100 days of the grant
award.
(c) At least 40 percent of participating students (as defined in
this notice) across all participating schools (as defined in this
notice) must be students from low-income families, based on eligibility
for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that LEAs use to
make awards under section 1113(a) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). If an applicant has not
identified all participating schools (as defined in this notice) at the
time of application, it must provide an assurance that within 100 days
of the grant award it will meet this requirement.
(d) An applicant must demonstrate its commitment to the core
educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice), including, for
each LEA included in an application, an assurance signed by the LEA's
superintendent or CEO that--
(i) The LEA, at a minimum, will implement no later than the 2014-
2015 school year--
(A) A teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice);
(B) A principal evaluation system (as defined in this notice); and
(C) A superintendent evaluation (as defined in this notice);
(ii) The LEA is committed to preparing all students for college or
career, as demonstrated by--
(A) Being located in a State that has adopted college- and career-
ready standards (as defined in this notice); or
(B) Measuring all student progress and performance against college-
and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice);
(iii) The LEA has a robust data system that has, at a minimum--
(A) An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student match;
and
(B) The capability to provide timely data back to educators and
their supervisors on student growth (as defined in this notice);
(iv) The LEA has the capability to receive or match student-level
preschool-through-12th grade and higher education data; and
(v) The LEA ensures that any disclosure of or access to personally
identifiable information in students' education records complies with
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
(e) Required signatures for the LEA or lead LEA in a consortium are
those of the superintendent or CEO, local school board president, and
local teacher union or association president (where applicable).
Proposed Application Requirements
Changes from the FY 2012 competition: No changes proposed.
Proposed Application Requirements:
The Secretary proposes the following application requirements for
the application an LEA or consortium of LEAs would submit to the
Department for funding under this competition. We may apply these
requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
(1) State comment period. Each LEA included in an application must
provide its State at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA's
application and submit as part of its application package--
(a) The State's comments or, if the State declined to comment,
evidence that the LEA offered the State 10 business days to comment;
and
(b) The LEA's response to the State's comments (optional).
(2) Mayor (or city or town administrator) comment period. Each LEA
included in an application must provide its mayor or other comparable
official at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA's application
and submit as part of its application package--
(a) The mayor or city or town administrator's comments or, if that
individual declines to comment, evidence that the LEA offered such
official 10 business days to comment; and
[[Page 22457]]
(b) The LEA's response to the mayor or city or town administrator
comments (optional).
(3) Consortium. For LEAs applying as a consortium, the application
must--
(a) Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, whether--
(i) One member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf
of the consortium; or
(ii) The consortium has established itself as a separate, eligible
legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf;
(b) Be signed by--
(i) If one member of the consortium is applying for a grant on
behalf of the consortium, the superintendent or chief executive officer
(CEO), local school board president, and local teacher union or
association president (where applicable) of that LEA; or
(ii) If the consortium has established itself as a separate
eligible legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf, a
legal representative of the consortium; and
(c) Include, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, for each LEA in the
consortium, copies of all memoranda of understanding or other binding
agreements related to the consortium. These binding agreements must--
(i) Detail the activities that each member of the consortium plans
to perform;
(ii) Describe the consortium governance structure (as defined in
this notice);
(iii) Bind each member of the consortium to every statement and
assurance made in the application; and
(iv) Include an assurance signed by the LEA's superintendent or CEO
that--
(A) The LEA, at a minimum, will implement no later than the 2014-
2015 school year--
(1) A teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice);
(2) A principal evaluation system (as defined in this notice); and
(3) A superintendent evaluation (as defined in this notice);
(B) The LEA is committed to preparing students for college or
career, as demonstrated by--
(1) Being located in a State that has adopted college- and career-
ready standards (as defined in this notice); or
(2) Measuring all student progress and performance against college-
and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice);
(C) The LEA has a robust data system that has, at a minimum--
(1) An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student match;
and
(2) The capability to provide timely data back to educators and
their supervisors on student growth (as defined in this notice);
(D) The LEA has the capability to receive or match student-level
preschool through 12th grade and higher education data; and
(E) The LEA ensures that any disclosure of or access to personally
identifiable information in students' education records complies with
the FERPA; and
(v) Be signed by the superintendent or CEO, local school board
president, and local teacher union or association president (where
applicable).
Proposed Program Requirements
Changes from the FY 2012 competition:
(a) In program requirement (1), we propose decreasing the maximum
range from 25,001+ participating students with a $30-$40 million award
range to 20,001+ participating students with a $25-$30 million award
range, and making the next highest range 10,001-20,000 participating
students with a $20-$25 million award range. We also propose reducing
the minimum award from $5 million to $4 million. We believe these
changes would increase the number of grants awarded under a
competition, while still awarding grants of sufficient size to support
bold improvements in learning and teaching.
Proposed Program Requirements:
The Secretary proposes the following requirements for LEAs
receiving funds under this competition. We may apply these requirements
in any year in which this program is in effect.
(1) An applicant's budget request for all years of its project must
fall within the applicable budget range as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of participating students Award range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,000-5,000 or Fewer than 2,000, $4-10 million.
provided those students are served by
a consortium of at least 10 LEAs and
at least 75 percent of the students
served by each LEA are participating
students (as defined in this notice).
5,001-10,000........................... $10-20 million.
10,001-20,000.......................... $20-25 million.
20,001+................................ $25-30 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will not consider an application that requests a
budget outside the applicable range of awards.
(2) A grantee must work with the Department and with a national
evaluator or another entity designated by the Department to ensure that
data collection and program design are consistent with plans to conduct
a rigorous national evaluation of the program and of specific solutions
and strategies pursued by individual grantees. This commitment must
include, but need not be limited to--
(i) Consistent with 34 CFR 80.36 and State and local procurement
procedures, grantees must include in contracts with external vendors
provisions that allow contractors to provide implementation data to the
LEA, the Department, the national evaluator, or other appropriate
entities in ways consistent with all privacy laws and regulations.
(ii) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, a
plan for identifying and collecting reliable and valid baseline data
for program participants.
(3) LEAs must share metadata about content alignment with college-
and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) and use through
open-standard registries.
(4) LEAs in which minority students or students with disabilities
are disproportionately subject to discipline (as defined in this
notice) and expulsion (according to data submitted through the
Department's Civil Rights Data Collection, which is available at http://ocrdata.ed.gov/) must conduct a district assessment of the root causes
of the disproportionate discipline and expulsions. These LEAs must also
develop a detailed plan over the grant period to address these root
causes and to reduce disproportionate discipline (as defined in this
notice) and expulsions.
(5) Each grantee must make all project implementation and student
data available to the Department and its authorized representatives in
compliance with FERPA, as applicable.
(6) Grantees must ensure that requests for information (RFIs) and
requests for proposal (RFPs) developed as part of this grant are made
public, and are consistent with the requirements of State and local
law.
(7) Within 100 days of award, each grantee must submit to the
Department--
(i) A scope of work that is consistent with its grant application
and includes specific goals, activities, deliverables, timelines,
budgets, key personnel, and annual targets for key performance
measures; and
(ii) An individual school implementation plan for participating
schools (as defined in this notice).
(8) Within 100 days of award, each grantee must demonstrate that at
least 40 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice)
in participating schools (as defined in this notice) are from low-
income families, based on eligibility for free or reduced-price
[[Page 22458]]
lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act,
or other poverty measures that LEAs use to make awards under section
1113(a) of the ESEA.
Proposed Definitions
Changes from the FY 2012 competition: No changes proposed.
Proposed definitions:
The Secretary proposes the following definitions for terms not
defined in the ARRA (or, by reference, in the ESEA). We may apply these
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
Achievement gap means the difference in the performance between
each subgroup (as defined in this notice) within a participating LEA or
school and the statewide average performance of the LEA's or State's
highest-achieving subgroups in reading or language arts and in
mathematics as measured by the assessments required under the ESEA, as
amended.
College- and career-ready graduation requirements means minimum
high school graduation expectations (e.g., completion of a minimum
course of study, content mastery, proficiency on college- and career-
ready assessments) that are aligned with a rigorous, robust, and well-
rounded curriculum and that cover a wide range of academic and
technical knowledge and skills to ensure that by the time students
graduate high school, they satisfy requirements for admission into
credit-bearing courses commonly required by the State's public four-
year degree-granting institutions.
College- and career-ready standards means content standards for
kindergarten through 12th grade that build towards college- and career-
ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). A State's
college- and career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that
are common to a significant number of States; or (2) standards that are
approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which
must certify that students who meet the standards will not need
remedial course work at the postsecondary level.
College enrollment means the enrollment of students who graduate
from high school consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) and who enroll
in a public institution of higher education in the State (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20
U.S.C. 1001) within 16 months of graduation.
Consortium governance structure means the consortium's structure
for carrying out its operations, including--
(1) The organizational structure of the consortium and the
differentiated roles that a member LEA may hold (e.g., lead LEA, member
LEA);
(2) For each differentiated role, the associated rights and
responsibilities, including rights and responsibilities for adopting
and implementing the consortium's proposal for a grant;
(3) The consortium's method and process (e.g., consensus, majority)
for making different types of decisions (e.g., policy, operational);
(4) The protocols by which the consortium will operate, including
the protocols for member LEAs to change roles or leave the consortium;
(5) The consortium's procedures for managing funds received under
this grant;
(6) The terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding or
other binding agreement executed by each member LEA; and
(7) The consortium's procurement process, and evidence of each
member LEA's commitment to that process.
Core educational assurance areas means the four key areas
originally identified in the ARRA to support comprehensive education
reform: (1) Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to
succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global
economy; (2) building data systems that measure student growth and
success, and inform teachers and principals with data about how they
can improve instruction; (3) recruiting, developing, rewarding, and
retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are
needed most; and (4) turning around lowest-achieving schools.
Digital learning content means learning materials and resources
that can be displayed on an electronic device and shared electronically
with other users. Digital learning content includes both open source
and commercial content. In order to comply with the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, any digital learning content
used by grantees must be accessible to individuals with disabilities,
including individuals who use screen readers. For additional
information regarding the application of these laws to technology,
please refer to www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-201105-ese.pdf and
www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq-201105.pdf.
Discipline means any disciplinary measure collected by the 2009-
2010 or 2011-2012 Civil Rights Data Collection (see http://ocrdata.ed.gov).
Educators means all education professionals and education
paraprofessionals working in participating schools (as defined in this
notice), including principals or other heads of a school, teachers,
other professional instructional staff (e.g., staff involved in
curriculum development, staff development, bilingual/English as a
Second Language (ESL) specialists, or instructional staff who operate
library, media, and computer centers), pupil support services staff
(e.g., guidance counselors, nurses, speech pathologists), other
administrators (e.g., assistant principals, discipline specialists),
and education paraprofessionals (e.g., assistant teachers, bilingual/
ESL instructional aides).
Effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and
for each subgroup, achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade
level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this
notice) as defined in the LEA's principal evaluation system (as defined
in this notice).
Effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve acceptable
rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student
growth (as defined in this notice) as defined in the LEA's teacher
evaluation system (as defined in this notice).
Family and community supports means--
(1) Child and youth health programs, such as physical, mental,
behavioral, and emotional health programs (e.g., home visiting
programs; Head Start; Early Head Start; programs to improve nutrition
and fitness, reduce childhood obesity, and create healthier
communities);
(2) Safety programs, such as programs in school and out of school
to prevent, control, and reduce crime, violence, drug and alcohol use
and gang activity; programs that address classroom and school-wide
behavior and conduct; programs to prevent child abuse and neglect;
programs to prevent truancy and reduce and prevent bullying and
harassment; and programs to improve the physical and emotional security
of the school setting as perceived, experienced, and created by
students, staff, and families;
(3) Community stability programs, such as programs that: (a)
Provide adult education and employment opportunities and training to
improve educational levels, job skills, and readiness in order to
decrease unemployment, with a goal of increasing family stability; (b)
improve families' awareness of, access to, and use of a range of social
services, if possible at a single location; (c) provide
[[Page 22459]]
unbiased, outcome-focused, and comprehensive financial education,
inside and outside the classroom and at every life stage; (d) increase
access to traditional financial institutions (e.g., banks and credit
unions) rather than alternative financial institutions (e.g., check
cashers and payday lenders); (e) help families increase their financial
literacy, financial assets, and savings; (f) help families access
transportation to education and employment opportunities; and (g)
provide supports and services to students who are homeless, in foster
care, migrant, or highly mobile; and
(4) Family and community engagement programs that are systemic,
integrated, sustainable, and continue through a student's transition
from K-12 schooling to college and career. These programs may include
family literacy programs and programs that provide adult education and
training and opportunities for family members and other members of the
community to support student learning and establish high expectations
for student educational achievement; mentorship programs that create
positive relationships between children and adults; programs that
provide for the use of such community resources as libraries, museums,
television and radio stations, and local businesses to support improved
student educational outcomes; programs that support the engagement of
families in early learning programs and services; programs that provide
guidance on how to navigate through a complex school system and how to
advocate for more and improved learning opportunities; and programs
that promote collaboration with educators and community organizations
to improve opportunities for healthy development and learning.
Four intervention models means the turnaround model, restart model,
school closure, and transformational model as defined by the final
requirements for the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, published
in the Federal Register on October 28, 2010 (75 FR 66363).
Graduation rate means the four-year or extended-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate as defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1).
High-need students means students at risk of educational failure or
otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students
who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools (as defined
in this notice), who are far below grade level, who have left school
before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not
graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster
care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are
English learners.
High-minority school is defined by the LEA in a manner consistent
with its State's Teacher Equity Plan, as required by section
1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA. The LEA must provide, in its Race to the
Top--District application, the definition used.
Highly effective principal means a principal whose students,
overall and for each subgroup, achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-
half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in
this notice) as defined under the LEA's principal evaluation system (as
defined in this notice).
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of
student growth (as defined in this notice) as defined under the LEA's
teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice).
Interoperable data system means a system that uses a common,
established structure such that data can easily flow from one system to
another and in which data are in a non-proprietary, open format.
Local educational agency is an entity as defined in section
9101(26) of the ESEA, except that an entity described under section
9101(26)(D) must be recognized under applicable State law as a local
educational agency.
Low-performing school means a school that is in the bottom 10
percent of performance in the State, or that has significant
achievement gaps, based on student academic performance in reading/
language arts and mathematics on the assessments required under the
ESEA, or that has a graduation rate (as defined in this notice) below
60 percent.
Metadata means information about digital learning content such as
the grade or age for which it is intended, the topic or standard to
which it is aligned, or the type of resource it is (e.g., video,
image).
On-track indicator means a measure, available at a time
sufficiently early to allow for intervention, of a single student
characteristic (e.g., number of days absent, number of discipline
referrals, number of credits earned), or a composite of multiple
characteristics, that is both predictive of student success (e.g.,
students demonstrating the measure graduate at an 80 percent rate) and
comprehensive of students who succeed (e.g., of all graduates, 90
percent demonstrated the indicator). Using multiple indicators that are
collectively comprehensive but vary by student characteristics may be
an appropriate alternative to a single indicator that applies to all
students.
Open data format means data that are available in a non-
proprietary, machine-readable format (e.g., Extensible Markup Language
(XML) and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)) such that they can be
understood by a computer. Digital formats that require extraction, data
translation such as optical character recognition, or other
manipulation in order to be used in electronic systems are not machine-
readable formats.
Open-standard registry means a digital platform, such as the
Learning Registry, that facilitates the exchange of information about
digital learning content (as defined in this notice), including (1)
alignment of content with college- and career-ready standards (as
defined in this notice) and (2) usage information about learning
content used by educators (as defined in this notice). This digital
platform must have the capability to share content information with
other LEAs and with State educational agencies.
Participating school means a school that is identified by the
applicant and chooses to work with the applicant to implement the plan
under Priority 1, either in one or more specific grade spans or subject
areas or throughout the entire school and affecting a significant
number of its students.
Participating student means a student enrolled in a participating
school (as defined in this notice) and who is directly served by an
applicant's plan under Priority 1.
Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the
State, consistent with the requirements of the SIG program authorized
by section 1003(g) of the ESEA,\1\ (1) any Title I school in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that (a) is among the
lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title
I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the
State, whichever number of schools is greater; or (b) is a high school
that has had a graduation rate (as defined in this notice) that is less
than 60 percent over a number of years; and (2) any secondary school
that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that (a) is
among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary
[[Page 22460]]
schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State
that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever
number of schools is greater; or (b) is a high school that has had a
graduation rate (as defined in this notice) that is less than 60
percent over a number of years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department considers schools that are identified as Tier
I or Tier II schools under the School Improvement Grants Program
(see 75 FR 66363) as part of a State's approved FY 2009 or FY 2010
applications to be persistently lowest-achieving schools. A list of
these Tier I and Tier II schools can be found on the Department's
Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into
account both (1) the academic achievement of the ``all students'' group
in a school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under
section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading or language arts and in
mathematics combined; and (2) the school's lack of progress on those
assessments over a number of years in the ``all students'' group.
Principal evaluation system means a system that: (1) Is used for
continual improvement of instructional leadership; (2) meaningfully
differentiates performance using at least three performance levels; (3)
uses multiple valid measures in determining performance levels,
including, as a significant factor, data on student growth (as defined
in this notice) for all students (including English learners and
students with disabilities), as well as other measures of professional
practice (which may be gathered through multiple formats and sources,
such as observations based on rigorous leadership performance
standards, teacher evaluation data, and student and parent surveys);
(4) evaluates principals on a regular basis; (5) provides clear,
timely, and useful feedback, including feedback that identifies and
guides professional development needs; and (6) is used to inform
personnel decisions.
Rural local educational agency means an LEA, at the time of the
application, that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement
(SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program
authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may
determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by
referring to information on the Department's Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible12/index.html.
School leadership team means a team that leads the implementation
of improvement and other initiatives at the school and is composed of
the principal or other head of a school, teachers, and other educators
(as defined in this notice), and, as applicable, other school
employees, parents, students, and other community members. In cases
where statute or local policy, including collective bargaining
agreements, establishes a school leadership team, that body shall serve
as the school leadership team for the purpose of this program.
Student growth means the change in student achievement for an
individual student between two or more points in time, defined as--
(1) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under
ESEA section 1111(b)(3): (a) a student's score on such assessments; and
(b) may include other measures of student learning, such as those
described in (2) below, provided they are rigorous and comparable
across schools within an LEA.
(2) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required
under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): Alternative measures of student learning
and performance, such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course
tests, and objective performance-based assessments; performance against
student learning objectives; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that
are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
Student-level data means demographic, performance, and other
information that pertains to a single student.
Student performance data means information about the academic
progress of a single student, such as formative and summative
assessment data, information on completion of coursework, instructor
observations, information about student engagement and time on task,
and similar information.
Subgroup means each category of students identified under section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA, as well as any combined subgroup used
in the State accountability system and approved by the Department in a
State's request for ESEA flexibility.
Superintendent evaluation means a rigorous, transparent, and fair
annual evaluation of an LEA superintendent that provides an assessment
of performance and encourages professional growth. This evaluation must
reflect: (1) the feedback of many stakeholders, including but not
limited to educators, principals, and parents; and (2) student
outcomes.
Teacher evaluation system means a system that: (1) Is used for
continual improvement of instruction; (2) meaningfully differentiates
performance using at least three performance levels; (3) uses multiple
valid measures in determining performance levels, including, as a
significant factor, data on student growth (as defined in this notice)
for all students (including English learners and students with
disabilities), as well as other measures of professional practice
(which may be gathered through multiple formats and sources, such as
observations based on rigorous teacher performance standards, teacher
portfolios, and student and parent surveys); (4) evaluates teachers on
a regular basis; (5) provides clear, timely, and useful feedback,
including feedback that identifies and guides professional development
needs; and (6) is used to inform personnel decisions.
Teacher of record means an individual (or individuals in a co-
teaching assignment) who has been assigned the lead responsibility for
a student's learning in a subject or course.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Changes from the FY 2012 competition:
(a) For selection criteria that include plans, peer reviewers are
asked to assess the quality of the plans using a consistent set of
high-quality plan elements. To clarify that these elements apply across
all selection criteria that include plans, we propose deleting extra
references to ``plans'' or ``strategies'' in the criteria language.
These include:
(i) Selection criteria (C)(1) and (C)(2): In the last sentence of
the stem to selection criteria (C)(1) and (C)(2), we propose changing
``The quality of the plan will be assessed based on'' to ``This
includes''.
--New: ``This includes the extent to which the applicant proposes
an approach that includes the following:''
--Original: ``The quality of the plan will be assessed based on the
extent to which the applicant proposes an approach that includes the
following:''
(ii) Selection criterion (C)(1)(b): In (C)(1)(b), we propose
deleting ``there is a strategy to ensure that''. The proposed change
helps clarify the use of the high-quality plan elements, as well as
makes the stem for (C)(1)(b) consistent with the stem for (C)(1)(a).
--New: ``With the support of parents and educators, each student
has access to--''
--Original: ``With the support of parents and educators, there is a
strategy to ensure that each student has access to--''
(iii) Selection criteria (D)(1) and (D)(2): Similar to the
clarification proposed for the stem to selection criteria (C)(1) and
(C)(2), we propose changing ``The quality of the plan will be assessed
based on'' to ``This includes''.
--New: ``This includes the extent to which--''
[[Page 22461]]
--Original: ``The quality of the plan will be determined based on
the extent to which--''
(iv) Selection criteria (E)(1), (E)(2), and (E)(4): We propose
changing ``strategy'' or ``plan'' to ``high-quality plan''.
(b) Selection criterion (E)(3): In selection criterion (E)(3), we
propose changing ``must'' to ``should'', to clarify that the number of
performance measures should be approximately 12 to 14, and may vary
based on the applicant's plan and the number of applicable populations
served.
--New: ``The applicant should have a total of approximately 12 to
14 performance measures.''
--Original: ``The applicant must have a total of approximately 12
to 14 performance measures.''
(c) We propose removing Selection Criterion G: Optional Budget
Supplement. As noted elsewhere in this document, we propose removing
the opportunity to apply for an optional budget supplement in order to
maximize the number of grantees that could receive funding under this
program and decrease the complexity of having separate plans and
budgets for a single selection criterion that by definition is not
intended to impact an applicant's ability to meet Priority 1.
Proposed Selection Criteria:
The Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under this competition. We may apply one or
more of these criteria or sub-criteria, any of the selection criteria
in 34 CFR 75.210, criteria based on statutory requirements for the
program in accordance with 34 CFR 75.209, or any combination of these
in any year in which this program is in effect. In the notice inviting
applications and the application package, the Department will announce
the selection criteria to be applied and the maximum possible points
assigned to each criterion.
A. Vision
(1) The extent to which the applicant has set forth a comprehensive
and coherent reform vision that builds on its work in four core
educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) and articulates
a clear and credible approach to the goals of accelerating student
achievement, deepening student learning, and increasing equity through
personalized student support grounded in common and individual tasks
that are based on student academic interests.
(2) The extent to which the applicant's approach to implementing
its reform proposal (e.g., schools, grade bands, or subject areas) will
support high-quality LEA-level and school-level implementation of that
proposal, including--
(a) A description of the process that the applicant used or will
use to select schools to participate. The process must ensure that the
participating schools (as defined in this notice) collectively meet the
competition's eligibility requirements;
(b) A list of the schools that will participate in grant activities
(as available); and
(c) The total number of participating students (as defined in this
notice), participating students (as defined in this notice) from low-
income families, participating students (as defined in this notice) who
are high-need students (as defined in this notice), and participating
educators (as defined in this notice). If participating schools (as
defined in this notice) have yet to be selected, the applicant may
provide approximate numbers.
(3) The extent to which the application includes a high-quality
plan describing how the reform proposal will be scaled up and
translated into meaningful reform to support district-wide change
beyond the participating schools (as defined in this notice), and will
help the applicant reach its outcome goals (e.g., the applicant's logic
model or theory of change of how its plan will improve student learning
outcomes for all students who would be served by the applicant).
(4) The extent to which the applicant's vision is likely to result
in improved student learning and performance and increased equity as
demonstrated by ambitious yet achievable annual goals that are equal to
or exceed State ESEA targets for the LEA(s), overall and by student
subgroup (as defined in this notice), for each participating LEA in the
following areas:
(a) Performance on summative assessments (proficiency status and
growth).
(b) Decreasing achievement gaps (as defined in this notice).
(c) Graduation rates (as defined in this notice).
(d) College enrollment (as defined in this notice) rates.
Optional: The extent to which the applicant's vision is likely to
result in improved student learning and performance and increased
equity as demonstrated by ambitious yet achievable annual goals for
each participating LEA in the following area:
(e) Postsecondary degree attainment.
B. Prior Record of Success and Conditions for Reform
The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of--
(1) A clear record of success in the past four years in advancing
student learning and achievement and increasing equity in learning and
teaching, including a description, charts or graphs, raw student data,
and other evidence that demonstrates the applicant's ability to--
(a) Improve student learning outcomes and close achievement gaps
(as defined in this notice), including by raising student achievement,
high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), and college
enrollment (as defined in this notice) rates;
(b) Achieve ambitious and significant reforms in its persistently
lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice) or in its low-
performing schools (as defined in this notice); and
(c) Make student performance data (as defined in this notice)
available to students, educators (as defined in this notice), and
parents in ways that inform and improve participation, instruction, and
services.
(2) A high level of transparency in LEA processes, practices, and
investments, including by making public, by school, actual school-level
expenditures for regular K-12 instruction, instructional support, pupil
support, and school administration. At a minimum, this information must
include a description of the extent to which the applicant already
makes available the following four categories of school-level
expenditures from State and local funds:
(a) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for all school-
level instructional and support staff, based on the U.S. Census
Bureau's classification used in the F-33 survey of local government
finances (information on the survey can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/f33agency.asp);
(b) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for instructional
staff only;
(c) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for teachers
only; and
(d) Actual non-personnel expenditures at the school level (if
available).
(3) Successful conditions and sufficient autonomy under State
legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements to implement the
personalized learning environments described in the applicant's
proposal;
(4) Meaningful stakeholder engagement in the development of the
proposal and meaningful stakeholder support for the proposal,
including--
[[Page 22462]]
(a) A description of how students, families, teachers, and
principals in participating schools (as defined in this notice) were
engaged in the development of the proposal and, as appropriate, how the
proposal was revised based on their engagement and feedback,
including--
(i) For LEAs with collective bargaining representation, evidence of
direct engagement and support for the proposals from teachers in
participating schools (as defined in this notice); or
(ii) For LEAs without collective bargaining representation, at a
minimum, evidence that at least 70 percent of teachers from
participating schools (as defined in this notice) support the proposal;
and
(b) Letters of support from such key stakeholders as parents and
parent organizations, student organizations, early learning programs,
tribes, the business community, civil rights organizations, advocacy
groups, local civic and community-based organizations, and institutions
of higher education; and
(5) A high-quality plan for an analysis of the applicant's current
status in implementing personalized learning environments and the logic
behind the reform proposal contained within the applicant's proposal,
including identified needs and gaps that the plan will address.
C. Preparing Students for College and Careers
The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan for
improving learning and teaching by personalizing the learning
environment in order to provide all students the support to graduate
college- and career-ready. This plan must include an approach to
implementing instructional strategies for all participating students
(as defined in this notice) that enable participating students to
pursue a rigorous course of study aligned to college- and career-ready
standards (as defined in this notice) and college- and career-ready
graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) and accelerate his
or her learning through support of his or her needs. This includes the
extent to which the applicant proposes an approach that includes the
following:
(1) Learning: An approach to learning that engages and empowers all
learners, in particular high-need students, in an age-appropriate
manner such that:
(a) With the support of parents and educators, all students--
(i) Understand that what they are learning is key to their success
in accomplishing their goals;
(ii) Identify and pursue learning and development goals linked to
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or
college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this
notice), understand how to structure their learning to achieve their
goals, and measure progress toward those goals;
(iii) Are able to be involved in deep learning experiences in areas
of academic interest;
(iv) Have access and exposure to diverse cultures, contexts, and
perspectives that motivate and deepen individual student learning; and
(v) Master critical academic content and develop skills and traits
such as goal-setting, teamwork, perseverance, critical thinking,
communication, creativity, and problem-solving;
(b) With the support of parents and educators, each student has
access to--
(i) A personalized sequence of instructional content and skill
development designed to enable the student to achieve his or her
individual learning goals and ensure he or she can graduate on time and
college- and career-ready;
(ii) A variety of high-quality instructional approaches and
environments;
(iii) High-quality content, including digital learning content (as
defined in this notice) as appropriate, aligned with college- and
career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and
career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice);
(iv) Ongoing and regular feedback, including, at a minimum--
(A) Frequently updated individual student data that can be used to
determine progress toward mastery of college- and career-ready
standards (as defined in this notice), or college- and career-ready
graduation requirements; and
(B) Personalized learning recommendations based on the student's
current knowledge and skills, college- and career-ready standards (as
defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation
requirements (as defined in this notice), and available content,
instructional approaches, and supports; and
(v) Accommodations and high-quality strategies for high-need
students (as defined in this notice) to help ensure that they are on
track toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in
this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as
defined in this notice); and
(c) Mechanisms are in place to provide training and support to
students that will ensure that they understand how to use the tools and
resources provided to them in order to track and manage their learning.
(2) Teaching and Leading: An approach to teaching and leading that
helps educators (as defined in this notice) to improve instruction and
increase their capacity to support student progress toward meeting
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or
college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this
notice) by enabling the full implementation of personalized learning
and teaching for all students such that:
(a) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) engage
in training, and in professional teams or communities, that supports
their individual and collective capacity to--
(i) Support the effective implementation of personalized learning
environments and strategies that meet each student's academic needs and
help ensure all students can graduate on time and college- and career-
ready;
(ii) Adapt content and instruction, providing opportunities for
students to engage in common and individual tasks, in response to their
academic needs, academic interests, and optimal learning approaches
(e.g., discussion and collaborative work, project-based learning,
videos, audio, manipulatives);
(iii) Frequently measure student progress toward meeting college-
and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice), or college- and
career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) and
use data to inform both the acceleration of student progress and the
improvement of the individual and collective practice of educators; and
(iv) Improve teachers' and principals' practice and effectiveness
by using feedback provided by the LEA's teacher and principal
evaluation systems (as defined in this notice), including frequent
feedback on individual and collective effectiveness, as well as by
providing recommendations, supports and interventions as needed for
improvement.
(b) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) have
access to, and know how to use, tools, data, and resources to
accelerate student progress toward meeting college- and career-ready
graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). Those resources
must include--
(i) Actionable information that helps educators (as defined in this
notice) identify optimal learning approaches that respond to individual
student academic needs and interests;
[[Page 22463]]
(ii) High-quality learning resources (e.g., instructional content
and assessments), including digital resources, as appropriate, that are
aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this
notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as
defined in this notice), and the tools to create and share new
resources; and
(iii) Processes and tools to match student needs (see Selection
Criterion (C)(2)(b)(i)) with specific resources and approaches (see
Selection Criterion (C)(2)(b)(ii)) to provide continuously improving
feedback about the effectiveness of the resources in meeting student
needs.
(c) All participating school leaders and school leadership teams
(as defined in this notice) have training, policies, tools, data, and
resources that enable them to structure an effective learning
environment that meets individual student academic needs and
accelerates student progress through common and individual tasks toward
meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice)
or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in
this notice). The training, policies, tools, data, and resources must
include:
(i) Information, from such sources as the district's teacher
evaluation system (as defined in this notice), that helps school
leaders and school leadership teams (as defined in this notice) assess,
and take steps to improve, individual and collective educator
effectiveness and school culture and climate, for the purpose of
continuous school improvement; and
(ii) Training, systems, and practices to continuously improve
school progress toward the goals of increasing student performance and
closing achievement gaps (as defined in this notice).
(d) The applicant has a high-quality plan for increasing the number
of students who receive instruction from effective and highly effective
teachers and principals (as defined in this notice), including in hard-
to-staff schools, subjects (such as mathematics and science), and
specialty areas (such as special education).
D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure
The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan to
support project implementation through comprehensive policies and
infrastructure that provide every student, educator (as defined in this
notice), and level of the education system (classroom, school, and LEA)
with the support and resources they need, when and where they are
needed. This includes the extent to which--
(1) The applicant has practices, policies, and rules that
facilitate personalized learning by--
(a) Organizing the LEA central office, or the consortium governance
structure (as defined in this notice), to provide support and services
to all participating schools (as defined in this notice);
(b) Providing school leadership teams in participating schools (as
defined in this notice) with sufficient flexibility and autonomy over
factors such as school schedules and calendars, school personnel
decisions and staffing models, roles and responsibilities for educators
and noneducators, and school-level budgets;
(c) Giving students the opportunity to progress and earn credit
based on demonstrated mastery, not the amount of time spent on a topic;
(d) Giving students the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of
standards at multiple times and in multiple comparable ways; and
(e) Providing learning resources and instructional practices that
are adaptable and fully accessible to all students, including students
with disabilities and English learners; and
(2) The LEA and school infrastructure supports personalized
learning by--
(a) Ensuring that all participating students (as defined in this
notice), parents, educators (as defined in this notice), and other
stakeholders (as appropriate and relevant to student learning),
regardless of income, have access to necessary content, tools, and
other learning resources both in and out of school to support the
implementation of the applicant's proposal;
(b) Ensuring that students, parents, educators, and other
stakeholders (as appropriate and relevant to student learning) have
appropriate levels of technical support, which may be provided through
a range of strategies (e.g., peer support, online support, or local
support);
(c) Using information technology systems that allow parents and
students to export their information in an open data format (as defined
in this notice) and to use the data in other electronic learning
systems (e.g., electronic tutors, tools that make recommendations for
additional learning supports, or software that securely stores personal
records); and
(d) Ensuring that LEAs and schools use interoperable data systems
(as defined in this notice) (e.g., systems that include human resources
data, student information data, budget data, and instructional
improvement system data).
E. Continuous Improvement
Because the applicant's high-quality plan represents the best
thinking at a point in time, and may require adjustments and revisions
during implementation, it is vital that the applicant have a clear and
high-quality approach to continuously improve its plan. This will be
determined by the extent to which the applicant has--
(1) A high-quality plan for implementing a rigorous continuous
improvement process that provides timely and regular feedback on
progress toward project goals and opportunities for ongoing corrections
and improvements during and after the term of the grant. The plan must
address how the applicant will monitor, measure, and publicly share
information on the quality of its investments funded by Race to the
Top--District, such as investments in professional development,
technology, and staff;
(2) A high-quality plan for ongoing communication and engagement
with internal and external stakeholders; and
(3) Ambitious yet achievable performance measures, overall and by
subgroup, with annual targets for required and applicant-proposed
performance measures. For each applicant-proposed measure, the
applicant must describe--
(a) Its rationale for selecting that measure;
(b) How the measure will provide rigorous, timely, and formative
leading information tailored to its proposed plan and theory of action
regarding the applicant's implementation success or areas of concern;
and
(c) How it will review and improve the measure over time if it is
insufficient to gauge implementation progress.
The applicant should have a total of approximately 12 to 14
performance measures.
The chart below outlines the required and applicant-proposed
performance measures based on an applicant's applicable population.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable population Performance measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All............................... (a) The number and percentage of
participating students, by subgroup
(as defined in this notice), whose
teacher of record (as defined in
this notice) and principal are a
highly effective teacher (as
defined in this notice) and a
highly effective principal (as
defined in this notice); and
[[Page 22464]]
(b) The number and percentage of
participating students, by subgroup
(as defined in this notice), whose
teacher of record (as defined in
this notice) and principal are an
effective teacher (as defined in
this notice) and an effective
principal (as defined in this
notice).
PreK-3............................ (a) Applicant must propose at least
one age-appropriate measure of
students' academic growth (e.g.,
language and literacy development
or cognition and general learning,
including early mathematics and
early scientific development); and
(b) Applicant must propose at least
one age-appropriate non-cognitive
indicator of growth (e.g., physical
well-being and motor development,
or social-emotional development).
4-8............................... (a) The number and percentage of
participating students, by
subgroup, who are on track to
college- and career-readiness based
on the applicant's on-track
indicator (as defined in this
notice);
(b) Applicant must propose at least
one grade-appropriate academic
leading indicator of successful
implementation of its plan; and
(c) Applicant must propose at least
one grade-appropriate health or
social-emotional leading indicator
of successful implementation of its
plan.
9-12.............................. (a) The number and percentage of
participating students who complete
and submit the Free Application for
Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form;
(b) The number and percentage of
participating students, by
subgroup, who are on track to
college- and career-readiness based
on the applicant's on-track
indicator (as defined in this
notice);
(c) Applicant must propose at least
one measure of career-readiness in
order to assess the number and
percentage of participating
students who are or are on track to
being career-ready;
(d) Applicant must propose at least
one grade-appropriate academic
leading indicator of successful
implementation of its plan; and
(e) Applicant must propose at least
one grade-appropriate health or
social-emotional leading indicator
of successful implementation of its
plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) A high-quality plan to evaluate the effectiveness of Race to
the Top--District funded activities, such as professional development
and activities that employ technology, and to more productively use
time, staff, money, or other resources in order to improve results,
through such strategies as improved use of technology, working with
community partners, compensation reform, and modification of school
schedules and structures (e.g., service delivery, school leadership
teams (as defined in this notice), and decision-making structures).
F. Budget and Sustainability
The extent to which--
(1) The applicant's budget, including the budget narrative and
tables--
(a) Identifies all funds that will support the project (e.g., Race
to the Top--District grant; external foundation support; LEA, State,
and other Federal funds);
(b) Is reasonable and sufficient to support the development and
implementation of the applicant's proposal; and
(c) Clearly provides a thoughtful rationale for investments and
priorities, including--
(i) A description of all of the funds (e.g., Race to the Top--
District grant; external foundation support; LEA, State, and other
Federal funds) that the applicant will use to support the
implementation of the proposal, including total revenue from these
sources; and
(ii) Identification of the funds that will be used for one-time
investments versus those that will be used for ongoing operational
costs that will be incurred during and after the grant period, as
described in the proposed budget and budget narrative, with a focus on
strategies that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the
personalized learning environments; and
(2) The applicant has a high-quality plan for sustainability of the
project's goals after the term of the grant. The plan should include
support from State and local government leaders and financial support.
Such a plan may include a budget for the three years after the term of
the grant that includes budget assumptions, potential sources, and uses
of funds.
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude
us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 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 $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create 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 novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action would have an annual effect on the
economy of more than $100 million because we expect that more than that
amount will be appropriated for Race to the Top and awarded as grants.
Therefore, this proposed action is ``economically significant'' and
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order
12866.
[[Page 22465]]
Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the potential
costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this proposed
regulatory action and have determined that the benefits would justify
the costs.
We have also reviewed this proposed 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.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB 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 these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
would 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 proposed regulatory action would
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would not impose significant costs
on eligible LEAs. The Secretary also believes that the benefits of
implementing the proposals contained in this notice would outweigh any
associated costs. The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would result in
selection of high-quality applications to implement activities that are
most likely to support bold, locally directed improvements in learning
and teaching that would directly improve student achievement and
educator effectiveness. During the first year of the program, the
Department received over 370 applications representing more than 1200
LEAs. We expect that the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in this notice would strengthen the
applications for this program by clarifying the scope of activities the
Secretary expects to support with program funds and the expected burden
of work involved in preparing an application and implementing projects
under the program. The pool of possible applicants is large and there
is great interest in the program. Potential applicants need to consider
carefully the effort that will be required to prepare a strong
application, their capacity to implement projects successfully, and
their chances of submitting a successful application.
Program participation is voluntary. The Secretary believes that the
costs imposed on applicants by the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would be limited to paperwork
burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of
implementing these proposals would outweigh any costs incurred by
applicants. The costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with
program funds. Thus, the costs of implementation would not be a burden
for eligible applicants, including small entities.
Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities that this proposed regulatory action will
affect are small LEAs applying for and receiving funds under this
program. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an
application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would
outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.
Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
would impose no burden on small entities in general. Eligible
applicants would determine whether to apply for funds, and have the
opportunity to weigh the requirements for preparing applications, and
any associated costs, against the likelihood of receiving funding and
the requirements for implementing projects under the program. Eligible
applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the
likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The
likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as
other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of
an application, such as the use of that application to spur educational
reforms and improvements without additional Federal funding.
The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards defines as
``small entities'' 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. There are
approximately 16,000 LEAs in the country that meet the definition of
``small entity.'' However, the Secretary believes that only a small
number of these entities would be interested in applying for funds
under this program, thus reducing the likelihood that the proposals
contained in this notice would have a significant economic impact on
small entities. As discussed earlier, the number of applications
received during the last competition was approximately 370.
In addition, the Secretary believes that the proposed priorities,
[[Page 22466]]
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria discussed in this
notice do not impose any additional burden on small entities applying
for a grant than they would face in the absence of the proposed action.
That is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in
the absence of the regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an
application would likely be the same.
Further, the proposed action may help small entities determine
whether they have the interest, need, or capacity to implement
activities under the program and, thus, prevent small entities that do
not have such an interest, need, and capacity from absorbing the burden
of applying.
This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant
economic impact on small entities once they are able to meet the costs
of compliance using the funds provided under this program.
The Secretary invites comments from small LEAs as to whether they
believe this proposed regulatory action would have a significant
economic impact on them and, if so, requests evidence to support that
belief.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal
Government to LEAs.
Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
[in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers............ Approximately up to $150.
From Whom To Whom?........................ From the Federal Government
to LEAs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide 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. We estimate that each applicant
would spend approximately 230 hours of staff time to address the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria,
prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. The total
number of hours for all applicants will vary based on the number of
applications. Based on the number of applications the Department
received in the FY 2012 competition, we expect to receive approximately
300 applications for these funds. The total number of hours for all
expected applicants is an estimated 69,000 hours. We estimate the total
cost per hour of the applicant-level staff who carry out this work to
be $30 per hour. The total estimated cost for all applicants would be
$2,070,000. We have submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR)
for this collection to OMB. If you want to comment on the proposed
information collection requirements, please send your comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk
Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by email
to [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-6974. You may also
send a copy of these comments to the Department contact named in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. In preparing
your comments you may want to review the ICR, which we maintain on the
Regulations.gov Web site at http://regulations.gov. You may search for
this ICR using docket ID ED-2013-OS-0050. This ICR is also available on
OMB's RegInfo Web site at www.reginfo.gov under OMB Number 1894-0014.
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of information
in--
Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed priorities, requirements, and
selection criteria between 30 and 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives
your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives
your comments on the proposed collection within 30 days after
publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us
on the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
Please note that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the
PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a
currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the
collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. We will provide the OMB control number when we publish the
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
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: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 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
[[Page 22467]]
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:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: April 10, 2013.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2013-08847 Filed 4-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P