[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37804-37837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17909]
[[Page 37803]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Race to the Top Fund; State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program;
Institute of Education Sciences; Overview Information; Grant Program
for Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems; Notice Inviting Applications
for New Awards Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 /
Notices
[[Page 37804]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2009-OESE-0006]
RIN 1810-AB07
Race to the Top Fund
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.395A.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the Race to the
Top Fund. The Secretary may use these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in any year in which this program
is in effect.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 28, 2009. 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 e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. In
addition, please include the Docket ID and the term ``Race to the Top''
at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://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 This Site.'' A direct link to the docket
page is also available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop.
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
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (Attention: Race to the
Top Fund Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Room 3W329, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments
received from members of the public (including those comments submitted
by mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these
submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Yeh, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6W219, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: 202-205-3775 or by e-mail: [email protected]. Note that we
will not accept comments by e-mail.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 encourage you to submit comments in advance
of the date by which they must be received.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its 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 we 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 by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person, in Room 3W329, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Eastern 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
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The Race to the Top Fund, authorized under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides
approximately $4.3 billion for competitive grants to States to
encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for
education innovation and reform; implementing ambitious plans in the
four education reform areas described in the ARRA; and achieving
significant improvement in student outcomes, including making
substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps,
improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring student
preparation for success in college and careers.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, Division A, Section 14006, Public Law 111-5.
Background for Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and
Selection Criteria
The Statutory Context
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the ARRA,
historic legislation designed to stimulate the economy, support job
creation, and invest in critical sectors, including education. The ARRA
lays the foundation for education reform by supporting investments in
innovative strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results
for students, long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and
increased productivity and effectiveness.
The ARRA provides $4.3 billion for the Race to the Top Fund
(referred to in the statute as the State Incentive Grant Fund). This is
a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward States
that are implementing significant education reforms across four
``assurance'' areas. Specifically, section 14006(a)(2) of the ARRA
requires States to have made significant progress in the following four
education reform areas in order to receive a grant: implementing
standards and assessments, improving teacher effectiveness and
achieving equity in teacher distribution, improving collection and use
of data, and supporting struggling schools. In addition, as required by
section 14006(c) of the ARRA, States that receive a Race to the Top
grant must use at least 50 percent of the award to provide subgrants to
local educational agencies (LEAs), including public charter schools
identified as LEAs under State law, based upon LEAs' relative shares of
funding under Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). LEAs that choose to
participate in their State's Race to the Top proposal must agree to
fully implement the State's proposed plan and to use their funding
under this grant in support of that plan.
[[Page 37805]]
The ARRA also requires that the Governor apply on behalf of a State
seeking a Race to the Top grant, and section 14005(c) of the ARRA
specifically requires that a Race to the Top application:
Describe the status of the State's progress in each of the
four education reform areas, and the strategies the State is employing
to help ensure that students in the subgroups described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (i.e., economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with
disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency) who have
not met the State's proficiency targets continue making progress toward
meeting the State's student academic achievement standards;
Describe the achievement and graduation rates (as
described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vi) of the ESEA and as clarified in
34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)) of public elementary and secondary school students
in the State, and the strategies the State is employing to help ensure
that all subgroups of students identified in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA continue making progress toward
meeting the State's student academic achievement standards;
Describe how the State would use its grant funding to
improve student academic achievement in the State, including how it
will allocate the funds to give priority to high-need LEAs (as defined
in this notice); and
Include a plan for evaluating the State's progress in
closing achievement gaps.
In this notice, we propose additional specific priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria regarding the
applications that individual States submit for approximately $4 billion
of Race to the Top funds. At a later date, we may announce a separate
Race to the Top Standards and Assessment competition, for approximately
$350 million, to support the development of assessments by consortia of
States.
Structure of Race to the Top
Race to the Top will reward States for having created the
conditions for reform (as measured through the State Reform Conditions
Criteria proposed in this notice) and for increasing student
achievement. Race to the Top will also provide incentives for States to
develop and implement comprehensive reform strategies that are
integrated across the four ARRA education reform areas and lead to
improved student outcomes (as measured through the Reform Plan Criteria
proposed herein). The Department expects successful applicants to clear
a high bar on both State Reform Conditions and Reform Plan Criteria.
Proposed State Reform Conditions and Reform Plan Criteria are described
in detail in the Proposed Selection Criteria section of this notice.
To ensure that the State's Race to the Top plans (which the State
will describe in its application in response to the Reform Plan
Criteria) are comprehensive, coherent, and measurable, we propose that
States describe their approaches and, where appropriate, set annual
targets for each of the Reform Plan Criteria.
Note: The proposed annual targets are set forth in the Appendix
to this notice. These targets are specific to Race to the Top, and
they are in addition to, not a replacement for, the existing annual
requirements under the ESEA.) The annual targets should be
achievable but sufficiently ambitious to support a successful Race
to the Top grant application.
Under the statute, at least 50 percent of the funds under a State's
Race to the Top grant must be provided to LEAs based on LEAs' relative
shares of funding under part A of Title I of the ESEA. The remaining
funds are available to the State for State-level activities and for
disbursements to LEAs and other eligible entities under such formulas,
competitive processes, or other mechanisms as the State may propose in
its plan. We propose that a State incorporate into its plan the
activities that LEAs will undertake to advance the four education
reform areas.
Timing of Applications and Awards
The Department plans to make Race to the Top grants in two phases.
States that are ready to apply may do so in Phase 1, which will open in
late calendar year 2009. States that need more time--for example, to
engage in planning with and secure commitments from superintendents,
school boards, principals, teachers, union leaders, and community
supporters, or others--may apply in Phase 2, which will open in late
Spring of calendar year 2010. States that apply in Phase 1 but are not
awarded grants may reapply for funding in Phase 2, together with States
that are applying for the first time in Phase 2. Phase 1 grantees may
not apply for additional funding in Phase 2. We will announce specific
deadlines for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 in subsequent notice(s) inviting
applications for funds under this program.
I. Proposed Priorities
Background: The Secretary proposes five priorities for the Race to
the Top competition. We are proposing to designate Proposed Priority 1
as an absolute priority, Proposed Priority 2 as a competitive
preference priority, and Proposed Priorities 3 through 5 as
invitational priorities. We may choose, in the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, to
change the designation of any of these priorities to absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational priorities, or to include the
substance of these priorities in the selection criteria.
Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we
would consider only applications that meet the priority. Under a
competitive preference priority, we would 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)). With an invitational priority, we
would signal our interest in receiving applications that meet the
priority; however, consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not
give an application that meets an invitational priority preference over
other applications.
Proposed Priority 1: Absolute Priority--Comprehensive Approach to the
Four Education Reform Areas
To meet this priority, the State's application must comprehensively
address each of the four education reform areas specified in the ARRA
to demonstrate that the State and its participating LEAs are taking a
systemic approach to education reform. The State's application must
describe how the State and participating LEAs intend to use Race to the
Top and other funds to implement comprehensive and coherent policies
and practices in the four education reform areas, and how these are
designed to increase student achievement, reduce the achievement gap
across student subgroups (as described in section 303(b)(2)(G) of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (NAEP)
\1\), and increase the rates at which students
[[Page 37806]]
graduate from high school prepared for college and careers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This statute, rather than relevant sections of the ESEA, is
referenced because it provides the most recent listing of NAEP
subgroups. We propose using the NAEP to monitor overall increases in
student achievement and decreases in the achievement gap over the
course of this grant because the NAEP provides a way to report
consistently across Race to the Top grantees as well as within a
State over time as the State transitions from its current
assessments to the high-quality assessments (as defined in this
notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priority 2: Competitive Preference Priority--Emphasis on
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
To meet this priority, the State's application must describe plans
to address the need to (i) offer a rigorous course of study in
mathematics, sciences, technology, and engineering; (ii) cooperate with
industry experts, museums, universities, research centers, or other
STEM-capable community partners to prepare and assist teachers in
integrating STEM content across grades and disciplines, in promoting
effective and relevant instruction, and in offering applied learning
opportunities for students; and (iii) prepare more students for
advanced study and careers in the sciences, technology, engineering,
and mathematics, including addressing the needs of underrepresented
groups and of women and girls in the areas of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics.
Proposed Priorities 3 Through 5: Proposed Priority 3--Invitational
Priority-- Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data
Systems
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which
the State plans to expand statewide longitudinal data systems to
include or integrate data from special education programs, limited
English proficiency programs, early childhood programs, human
resources, finance, health, postsecondary, and other relevant areas,
with the purpose of allowing important questions related to policy or
practice to be asked and answered.
The Secretary is also particularly interested in applications in
which States propose working together to adapt one State's statewide
longitudinal data system so that it may be used, in whole or in part,
by other State(s), rather than having each State build or continue
building such system(s) independently.
Proposed Priority 4--Invitational Priority--P-20 Coordination and
Vertical Alignment
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which
the State plans to address how early childhood programs, K-12 schools,
postsecondary institutions, and workforce organizations will coordinate
to improve all parts of the education system and create a more seamless
P-20 route for students. Vertical alignment across P-20 is particularly
critical at each point where a transition occurs (e.g., between early
childhood and K-12, or between K-12 and post secondary) to ensure that
students exiting one level are prepared for success, without
remediation, in the next.
Proposed Priority 5--Invitational Priority--School-Level Conditions for
Reform and Innovation
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which
the State's participating LEAs provide schools, where appropriate, with
flexibilities and autonomies conducive to reform and innovation, such
as--
(i) Selecting staff;
(ii) Implementing new structures and formats for the school day or
year that expand learning time;
(iii) Placing budgets under the schools' control;
(iv) Awarding credit to students based on student performance
instead of instructional time; and
(v) Providing comprehensive services to high-need students (e.g.,
through local partnerships, internal staffing, and contracts with
outside providers).
II. Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following requirements for this program.
We may apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in
effect.
A. Eligibility Requirements
Background: We are proposing two eligibility requirements for Race
to the Top applicants. First, we propose that a State must have an
approved application under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund (Stabilization) program of the ARRA in order to be
eligible to receive an award from the Race to the Top competition.
Section 14005(d) of the ARRA requires a State that receives funds under
the Stabilization program to provide assurances in the same four
education reform areas that will be advanced by the Race to the Top
grant. We therefore believe that it would be inconsistent to award a
Race to the Top grant, which requires a determination that a State has
made significant progress in the four education reform areas, to a
State that has not met requirements for receiving funds under the
Stabilization program.
Second, we propose that to be eligible under this program, a State
must not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers to linking
student achievement or student growth data to teachers for the purpose
of teacher and principal evaluation. Research indicates that teacher
quality is a critical contributor to student learning and that there is
dramatic variation in teacher quality.\2\ Yet it is difficult to
predict teacher quality based on the qualifications that teachers bring
to the job. Indeed, measures such as certification, master's degrees,
and years of teaching experience have limited predictive power on this
point.\3\ Therefore, one of the most effective ways to accurately
assess teacher quality is to measure the growth in achievement of a
teacher's students;\4\ \5\ and by aggregating the performance of
students across teachers within a school, to assess principal quality.
Current law in a number of States presents an obstacle to efforts to
improve teacher quality by prohibiting data regarding student
achievement from being tied to teachers for the purposes of evaluation.
This capability is fundamental to Race to the Top reforms and to the
requirement in section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA that States take actions
to improve teacher effectiveness. Without this legal authority, States
would not be able to execute reform plans relating to several selection
criteria in this notice (see Selection Criteria (C)(2) through (C)(5)),
because these plans must require LEAs and schools to determine which
[[Page 37807]]
teachers and principals are effective using student achievement data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g. Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and Douglas O.
Staiger (2006), ``What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher
Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City,'' NBER Working Paper No.
12155; Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain (2005),
``Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,'' Econometrica,
73(2), 417-458; Rockoff, Jonah. E. (2004), ``The Impact of
Individual Teachers on Students' Achievement: Evidence from Panel
Data,'' American Economic Review 94(2), 247-52; Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (2004), ``Teachers Matter:
Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers'', p. 3;
Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla
Wahlstrom (2004), ``How Leadership Influences Student Learning,''
Wallace Foundation Learning from Leadership Project; Aaronson,
Daniel, Lisa Barrow, and William Sander (2003), ``Teacher and
Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools,'' Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago Working Paper 2002-28.
\3\ Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005). Kane, Rockoff, and
Staiger (2006). Aaronson, Barrow, and Sander (2003).
\4\ For example, Rockoff et al. find that even using a detailed
data set on incoming teacher characteristics allows them to predict
only about 12 percent of the variance of the expected distribution
of teacher effectiveness. Jonah E. Rockoff, Brian A. Jacob, Thomas
J. Kane, and Douglas O. Staiger (2008), ``Can You Recognize an
Effective Teacher When You Recruit One?'' NBER Working Paper No.
14485. Similarly, Goldhaber et al. show that the variance in student
achievement due to unobservable teacher variables is 40 times
greater than the variance due to observable teacher variables. Dan
Goldhaber, Dominic Brewer, and Deborah J. Anderson (1999), ``A
three-way error components analysis of educational productivity,''
Education Economics 7 (3): 199-208.
\5\ Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006). Aaronson, Barrow, and
Sander (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Eligibility Requirements: We propose the following
requirements that a State must meet in order to be eligible to receive
funds under this program.
(a) In order for the State to be eligible for the Race to the Top
Phase 1 competition, the State's applications for funding under Phase 1
and Phase 2 of the Stabilization program must be approved by the
Department by December 31, 2009. In order for the State to be eligible
for the Race to the Top Phase 2 competition, the State's application
for funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Stabilization program must
be approved by the Department prior to the State submitting its Race to
the Top Phase 2 application.
(b) The State does not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory
barriers to linking data on student achievement (as defined in this
notice) or student growth (as defined in this notice) to teachers and
principals for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation.
B. Application Requirements
Background: Section 14005(c) of the ARRA requires that certain
information (as discussed earlier in this notice) be included in
States' Race to the Top applications. Consistent with those
requirements and the need for additional information that will ensure a
fair and accurate peer review of the grant applications, we propose the
following requirements for the application a State would submit to the
Department for funding under this program.
The Department recognizes that requests for data and information
should reflect an integrated and coordinated approach among the various
ARRA programs, particularly the State Fiscal Stabilization, Race to the
Top, School Improvement Grants, and Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
grant programs. Accordingly, the Department will continue to evaluate
our requests for data and information under this program in context
with the other ARRA programs.
Proposed Application Requirements
(a) The State's application must be signed by the Governor, the
State's chief school officer, and the president of the State board of
education.
(b) The State must describe the progress it has made to date in
each of the four education reform areas, including how the State has
used ARRA and other Federal and State funding over the last several
years to pursue reforms in these areas (as described in Overall
Selection Criterion (E)(1)).
(c) The State must provide financial data to show whether and to
what extent the percentage of the total revenues available to the State
(as defined in this notice) that were used to support elementary,
secondary, and public higher education for FY 2009 increased,
decreased, or remained the same compared to FY 2008 (as described in
Overall Selection Criterion (E)(2)).
(d) The State must describe its statewide support from stakeholders
and LEAs, including public charter schools identified as LEAs under
State law (as described in Overall Selection Criterion (E)(3)).
(e) The State must include a budget that details how it will use
grant funds and other resources to meet targets and perform related
functions, including how it will use funds awarded under this program
to--
(1) Achieve its targets for improving student achievement and
graduation rates and for closing achievement gaps (as described in
Overall Selection Criterion (E)(4)); and
(2) Give priority to high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice), in
addition to providing 50 percent of the grant to participating LEAs
based on their relative shares of funding under part A of Title I of
the ESEA as required under section 14006(c) of the ARRA.
(f) The State must provide, for each State Reform Conditions
Criterion (listed later in this notice), a description of the State's
current status in meeting that Criterion, and at a minimum, the
information requested as supporting evidence for the Criterion. The
Appendix to this notice contains a table listing the proposed evidence.
(g) The State must provide, for each Reform Plan Criterion (listed
later in this notice) a detailed plan for use of grant funds that
includes, but need not be limited to--
(1) The key activities to be undertaken;
(2) The goals and rationale for the activities, which may include
but need not be limited to evidence of the past effectiveness of those
activities, as documented in research or through the effective
implementation of an activity in one or more States, LEAs, or schools
(which may include charter schools);
(3) The timeline for implementing the activities;
(4) The party or parties responsible for implementing the
activities;
(5) The resources the State will use to support the activities
(e.g., funding, personnel, systems);
(6) The State's annual targets, where applicable, with respect to
the performance measures aligned to the Criterion for the four school
years beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. The Appendix to this
notice contains a table listing the proposed performance measures.
Where plans are proposed for reform efforts not covered by a
performance measure specified by the Department, States are encouraged
to propose performance measures and annual targets for those efforts;
and
(7) The information requested as supporting evidence, if any (as
described in the Appendix), for the Criterion, together with any
additional information the State believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
(h) The State must submit a certification from the State Attorney
General, or other chief State legal officer, that the State's
description of, and statements and conclusions concerning, State law
(for example, with respect to the Eligibility Requirement regarding
teacher effectiveness or any of the applicable Selection Criteria) in
its application are complete, accurate, and constitute a reasonable
interpretation of State law.
C. Annual Report and Performance Measures
The Secretary proposes core performance measures for evaluating the
performance of States receiving funds under this program. See the
Appendix to this notice for the proposed performance measures.
In addition, a State receiving funds under this program must submit
to the Department an annual report which may include, in addition to
the standard elements, a description of the State's and its LEAs'
progress to date on their goals, timelines, and budgets, as well as
actual performance compared to the annual targets the State established
in its application with respect to each performance measure.
Further, a State receiving funds under this program and its
participating LEA are accountable for meeting the goals, timelines,
budget, and annual targets established in the application; adhering to
an annual fund drawdown schedule that is tied to meeting these goals,
timelines, budget, and annual targets; and fulfilling and maintaining
all other conditions for the conduct of the project.
The Department will monitor a State's and its participating LEAs'
progress in meeting its goals, timelines, budget, and annual targets
and in fulfilling other applicable requirements. To support a
collaborative process between the State and the Department, the
Department may require that applicants who are selected to receive an
award enter into a written performance or cooperative
[[Page 37808]]
agreement with the Department. If the Department determines that a
State is not meeting its goals, timelines, budget, or annual targets or
is not fulfilling other applicable requirements, the Department will
take appropriate action, which could include a collaborative process
between the Department and the State, or enforcement measures with
respect to this grant such as placing the State in high-risk status,
putting the State on reimbursement payment status, or delaying or
withholding funds.
D. Other Program Requirements
We propose the following additional requirements for States
receiving funds under this program:
(a) The State and its participating LEAs must use funds under this
program to participate in a national evaluation of the program, if the
Department chooses to conduct one. In addition, the Department is
seeking comment on whether a State should, instead of or in addition to
a national evaluation, be required to conduct its own evaluation of its
program activities using funds under this program. The Department will
announce in the notice inviting applications the evaluation
approach(es) that will be required.
(b) The State must participate in all applicable technical
assistance activities that may be conducted by the Department or its
designees.
(c) The State must make freely available all of the outputs (e.g.,
materials, tools, processes, systems) that it or its designated
partners produce related to its grant, including by posting the outputs
on any Web site identified or sponsored by the Department.
III. Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following criteria for reviewing
applications submitted under this program. We may apply one or more of
these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. In the
notice inviting applications, the application package, or both, we will
announce the maximum number of points assigned to each criterion.
As discussed elsewhere in this notice, we propose using two types
of selection criteria--State Reform Conditions Criteria and Reform Plan
Criteria--to rate a State's application for Race to the Top funds.
State Reform Conditions Criteria will be used to assess a State's past
progress and its success in creating conditions for reform in specific
areas related to the four ARRA education reform areas. The Reform Plan
Criteria will be used to assess States' plans for future efforts in the
four ARRA education reform areas.
In the Appendix, we list both the minimum evidence, if any, that
the State must provide to assist the Department and peer reviewers in
determining whether a State's application meets each Criterion, and the
performance measures, if any, for each Reform Plan Criterion. States
may submit additional information if they deem it to be relevant and
useful. In addition, States that have submitted the requested
information to the Department for other programs are welcome to
indicate that they would like a specific previous submission to be used
as evidence, or they may provide an updated submission.
For each Reform Plan Criterion, peer reviewers will also consider
the extent to which States, where applicable, set ambitious yet
achievable annual targets against the performance measure, to support
the State's plan. Grantees will report their progress with respect to
these performance measures and annual targets as part of their annual
reports.
Proposed Selection Criteria
A. Standards and Assessments
Note: Under this reform area, we are proposing several Criteria
that will be different for applications submitted under Phase 1 and
Phase 2. Where the Criteria are different, we have so indicated.
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(A)(1) Developing and adopting common standards: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (c)(2) and
Descriptor (c)(1) in its Stabilization program Phase 2 application
may contain information responsive, in part, to this State Reform
Conditions Criterion, to which the State may refer and incorporate
in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) For Phase 1 applications: The extent to which the State has
demonstrated commitment to improving the quality of its standards by
participating in a consortium of States that is working toward jointly
developing and adopting, by June 2010, a common set of K-12 standards
(as defined in this notice) that are internationally benchmarked and
that build toward college and career readiness by the time of high
school graduation, and the extent to which this consortium includes a
significant number of States.
(ii) For Phase 2 applications: Whether the State has demonstrated
commitment to improving the quality of its standards by adopting, as
part of a multi-State consortium, a common set of K-12 standards (as
defined in this notice) that are internationally benchmarked and that
build toward college and career readiness by the time of high school
graduation, and the extent to which this consortium includes a
significant number of States.
(A)(2) Developing and implementing common, high-quality
assessments: \7\ Whether the State has demonstrated a commitment to
improving the quality of its assessments by participating in a
consortium of States that is working toward jointly developing and
implementing common, high-quality assessments (as defined in this
notice) aligned with the consortium's common set of K-12 standards (as
defined in this notice) that are internationally benchmarked and that
build toward college and career readiness by the time of high school
graduation, and the extent to which this consortium includes a
significant number of States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (c)(2) and
Descriptor (c)(1) in its Stabilization program Phase 2 application
may contain information responsive, in part, to this State Reform
Conditions Criterion, to which the State may refer and incorporate
in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reform Plan Criteria
(A)(3) Supporting transition to enhanced standards and high-quality
assessments: \8\ The extent to which the State, in collaboration with
its participating LEAs, has a high-quality plan for supporting a
statewide transition to and implementation of (a) internationally
benchmarked K-12 standards that build toward college and career
readiness by the time of high school graduation, and (b) high-quality
assessments (as defined in this notice) tied to these standards. State
or LEA activities might include: Aligning high school exit criteria and
college entrance requirements with the new assessments; developing,
disseminating, and implementing curricular frameworks and materials,
formative and interim assessments (as defined in this notice), and
professional development materials; and engaging in other strategies
that translate the standards and information from assessments into
classroom practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A State's responses to proposed Indicators (c)(1)-(c)(13)
and Descriptor (c)(1) in its Stabilization program Phase 2
application may contain information related to this Reform Plan
Criterion, to which the State can refer and build upon in its Race
to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Data Systems to Support Instruction
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(B)(1) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system: \9\
The extent to
[[Page 37809]]
which the State has a statewide longitudinal data system that includes
all of the elements specified in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America
COMPETES Act (as defined in this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The State's responses to proposed Indicator (b)(1) and
requirements II.c.1.A and II.c.1.B.(i-iii) in its Stabilization
program Phase 2 application may contain information responsive, in
part, to this State Reform Conditions Criterion, to which the State
can refer and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reform Plan Criteria
(B)(2) Accessing and using State data: \10\ The extent to which the
State has a high-quality plan to ensure that data from the State's
statewide longitudinal data system are accessible to, and used to
inform and engage, as appropriate, key stakeholders (e.g., parents,
students, teachers, principals, LEA leaders, community members, unions,
researchers, and policymakers); that the data support decision-makers
in the continuous improvement of instruction, operations, management,
and resource allocation; and that they comply with the applicable
requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (b)(2) and
requirements II.c.2.A and II.c.2.B(i-iii) in its Stabilization
program Phase 2 application may contain information related to this
Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer and build upon
in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)(3) Using data to improve instruction: \11\ The extent to which
the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs, has a high-
quality plan to--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (b)(2) and
requirements II.c.2.A and II.c.2.B(i-iii) in its Stabilization
program Phase 2 application may contain information related to this
Reform Plan Criteria, to which the State can refer and build upon in
its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Increase the use of instructional improvement systems (as
defined in this notice) that provide teachers, principals, and
administrators with the information they need to inform and improve
their instructional practices, decision-making, and overall
effectiveness; and
(ii) Make these data, together with statewide longitudinal data
system data, available and accessible to researchers so that they have
detailed information with which to evaluate the effectiveness of
instructional materials, strategies, and approaches for educating
different types of students (e.g., students with disabilities, limited
English proficient students, students whose achievement is well below
or above grade level), in a manner that complies with the applicable
requirements of FERPA.
C. Great Teachers and Leaders
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(C)(1) Providing alternative pathways for aspiring teachers and
principals: The extent to which the State has in place legal,
statutory, or regulatory provisions that allow alternative routes to
certification (as defined in this notice) for teachers and principals,
particularly routes that allow for providers in addition to
institutions of higher education; and the extent to which these routes
are in use.
Reform Plan Criteria
(C)(2) Differentiating teacher and principal effectiveness based on
performance: \12\ The extent to which the State, in collaboration with
its participating LEAs, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet
achievable annual targets to (a) Determine an approach to measuring
student growth (as defined in this notice); (b) employ rigorous,
transparent, and equitable processes for differentiating the
effectiveness of teachers and principals using multiple rating
categories that take into account data on student growth (as defined in
this notice) as a significant factor; (c) provide to each teacher and
principal his or her own data and rating; and (d) use this information
when making decisions regarding--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A State's responses to proposed Indicators (a)(2) and
(a)(5) and Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) in its Stabilization
program Phase 2 application may contain information related to this
Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer and build upon
in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Evaluating annually and developing teachers and principals,
including by providing timely and constructive feedback and targeted
professional development;
(ii) Compensating and promoting teachers and principals, including
by providing opportunities for teachers and principals who are highly
effective (as defined in this notice) to obtain additional compensation
and responsibilities; and
(iii) Granting tenure to and dismissing teachers and principals
based on rigorous and transparent procedures for awarding tenure (where
applicable) and for removing tenured and untenured teachers and
principals after they have had ample opportunities to improve but have
not done so.
(C)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and
principals: \13\ The extent to which the State has a high-quality plan
and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to increase the number and
percentage of highly effective teachers and principals (as defined in
this notice) in high-poverty schools (as defined in this notice), and
to increase the number and percentage of effective teachers (as defined
in this notice) teaching hard-to-staff subjects including mathematics,
science, special education, English language proficiency, and other
hard-to-staff subjects identified by the State or LEA. Plans may
include, but are not limited to, the implementation of incentives and
strategies in areas such as recruitment, compensation, career
development, and human resources practices and processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A State's response to proposed Indicator (a)(1) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application may contain information
related to this Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer
and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)(4) Reporting the effectiveness of teacher and principal
preparation programs: The extent to which the State has a high-quality
plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to link a student's
achievement data to the student's teachers and principals, to link this
information to the programs where each of those teachers and principals
was prepared for credentialing, and to publicly report the findings for
each credentialing program that has twenty or more graduates annually.
(C)(5) Providing effective support to teachers and principals: The
extent to which the State, in collaboration with its participating
LEAs, has a high-quality plan to use rapid-time (as defined in this
notice) student data to inform and guide the support provided to
teachers and principals (e.g., professional development, time for
common planning and collaboration) in order to improve the overall
effectiveness of instruction; and to continuously measure and improve
both the effectiveness and efficiency of those supports.
D. Turning Around Struggling Schools
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(D)(1) Intervening in the lowest-performing schools and LEAs: The
extent to which the State has the legal, statutory, or regulatory
authority to intervene directly in the State's persistently lowest-
performing schools (as defined in this notice) and in LEAs that are in
improvement and corrective action status.
(D)(2) Increasing the supply of high-quality charter schools: \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (d)(6) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application may contain information
related to this Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer
and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The extent to which the State has a charter school law that
does not prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number of
charter schools in the State (as measured by the percentage of total
schools in the State that are allowed to be charter schools) or
otherwise restrict student enrollment in charter schools.
[[Page 37810]]
(ii) The extent to which the State has statutes and guidelines
regarding how charter school authorizers approve, monitor, hold
accountable, reauthorize, and close charter schools, including the
extent to which such statutes or guidelines require that student
academic achievement be a factor in such activities and decisions, and
the extent to which charter school authorizers in the State have closed
or not renewed ineffective charter schools.
(iii) The extent to which the State's charter schools receive
equitable funding, compared to traditional public schools, and a
commensurate share of local, State, and Federal program and revenue
sources.
(iv) The extent to which the State provides charter schools with
facilities funding (for leasing facilities, purchasing facilities, or
making tenant improvements), assistance with facilities acquisition,
access to public facilities, the ability to share in bonds and mill
levies, or other supports; and the extent to which the State does not
impose any facility-related requirements on charter schools that are
stricter than those applied to traditional public schools.
Reform Plan Criteria
(D)(3) Turning around struggling schools: \15\ The extent to which
the State has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual
targets to (i) identify at least the lowest-achieving five percent of
the persistently lowest-performing schools (as defined in this notice)
or the lowest-achieving five schools, whichever is larger; and (ii)
support its LEAs in turning around these schools by--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A State's responses to proposed Indicators (d)(3)-(d)(5) in
its Stabilization program Phase 2 application may contain
information related to this Reform Plan Criterion, to which the
State can refer and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putting in place new leadership and a majority of new
staff, new governance, and improved instructional programs, and
providing the school with flexibilities such as the ability to select
staff, control its budget, and expand student learning time; or
Converting them to charter schools or contracting with an
education management organization (EMO); or
Closing the school and placing the school's students in
high-performing schools; or
To the extent that these strategies are not possible,
implementing a school transformation model that includes: Hiring a new
principal, measuring teacher and principal effectiveness (as defined in
this notice), rewarding effective teachers and principals (as defined
in this notice), and improving strategies for recruitment, retention,
and professional development; implementing comprehensive instructional
reform, including an improved instructional program and differentiated
instruction; and extending learning time and community-oriented
supports, including more time for students to learn and for teachers to
collaborate, more time for enrichment activities, and on-going
mechanisms for family and community engagement.
E. Overall Selection Criteria
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(E)(1) Demonstrating significant progress: The extent to which the
State has, over the past several years--
(i) Made progress to date in each of the four education reform
areas;
(ii) Used ARRA and other Federal and State funding to pursue
reforms in these areas;
(iii) Created, through law or policy, conditions favorable to
education reform and innovation;
(iv) Increased student achievement and decreased the achievement
gap, as reported on the NAEP since 2003; and increased graduation
rates.
(E)(2) Making education funding a priority: The extent to which the
percentage of the total revenues available to the State (as defined in
this notice) that were used to support elementary, secondary, and
public higher education for FY 2009 was greater than or equal to the
percentage of the total revenues available to the State (as defined in
this notice) that were used to support elementary, secondary, and
public higher education for FY 2008.
(E)(3) Enlisting statewide support and commitment: The extent to
which the State has demonstrated commitment, support, and/or funding
from the following key stakeholders:
(i) The State's teachers' union(s) and charter school authorizers;
(ii) Other State and local leaders (e.g., business, community,
civil rights, and education association leaders);
(iii) Grant-making foundations and other funding sources; and
(iv) LEAs, including public charter schools identified as LEAs
under State law, with special emphasis on the following: High-need LEAs
(as defined in this notice); participation by LEAs, schools, students,
and students in poverty; and the strength of the Memoranda of
Understanding between LEAs and the State, which must at a minimum be
signed by the LEA superintendent (or equivalent), the president of the
local school board (if relevant), and the local teachers' union leader
(if relevant).
Reform Plan Criteria
(E)(4) Raising achievement and closing gaps:
(i) Achievement gains: The extent to which the State has set
ambitious yet achievable targets for increasing its students'
achievement results overall and by student subgroup (as described in
section 303(b)(2)(G) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act) in reading and mathematics, as reported by the NAEP;
annual targets using other assessments may be submitted as well.
(ii) Gap closing: The extent to which the State has set ambitious
yet achievable targets for decreasing the reading and mathematics
achievement gaps between subgroups (as described in section
303(b)(2)(G) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act), as reported, at a minimum, by the NAEP; annual
targets using other assessments may be submitted as well.
(iii) Graduation rate: \16\ The extent to which the State has
ambitious yet achievable annual targets for increasing graduation rates
(as defined in this notice) overall and by student subgroup (consistent
with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (c)(11) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application may contain information
related to this Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer
and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E)(5) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale, and
sustain proposed plans: The extent to which the State has a high-
quality overall plan that demonstrates how it has, and will continue to
build, the capacity to--
(i) Effectively and efficiently oversee the grant, including
administering and disbursing funds, and, if necessary, taking
appropriate enforcement actions to ensure that participating LEAs
comply with the State's plan and program requirements;
(ii) Support the success of participating LEAs, ensure the
dissemination of effective practices, and hold participating LEAs
accountable for progress;
(iii) Use the economic, political, and human capital resources of
the State to continue the reforms funded under the grant after the
period of funding has ended;
(iv) Collaborate with other States on key elements of or activities
in the State's application; and
(v) Coordinate, reallocate, or repurpose education funds from other
[[Page 37811]]
sources to align with the State's Race to the Top goals, as outlined in
its plans.
IV. 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.
Proposed Definitions
Alternative certification routes means pathways to certification
that are authorized under the State's laws or regulations that allow
the establishment and operation of teacher and administrator
preparation programs in the State that have the following
characteristics: (a) Can be provided by various types of qualified
providers, including both institutions of higher education and other
providers; (b) provide a clinical/student teaching experience; (c)
significantly limit the amount of coursework required or have options
to test-out of courses; and (d) award the level of certification that
permits a candidate who successfully completes the program to teach or
lead in public schools within the State.
Common set of K-12 standards means a set of content standards that
define what students must know and be able to do, and that are
identical across all States in a consortium. Notwithstanding this, a
State may supplement the common standards with additional standards,
provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the
State's total standards for that content area.
Effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and
for each subgroup (described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the
ESEA), demonstrate acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in
an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice). States
may supplement this definition as they see fit so long as principal
effectiveness is judged, in significant measure, by student growth (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). States may supplement this
definition as they see fit so long as teacher effectiveness is judged,
in significant measure, by student growth (as defined in this notice).
Formative assessment means an assessment process that is embedded
in instruction and is used by teachers and students to provide instant
feedback on student understanding and to adjust ongoing teaching and
learning accordingly.
Graduation rate means the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
as defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i). A State may also use, as a
supplement to this rate, extended adjusted cohort graduation rates
(consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v)) that are approved by the
Secretary.
Highly effective principal means a principal whose students,
overall and for each subgroup (described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), demonstrate high rates (e.g., more
than one grade level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined
in this notice). States may supplement this definition as they see fit
so long as principal effectiveness is judged, in significant measure,
by student growth (as defined in this notice).
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., more than one grade level in an academic year) of
student growth (as defined in this notice). States may supplement this
definition as they see fit so long as teacher effectiveness is judged,
in significant measure, by student growth (as defined in this notice).
High-need LEA means an LEA with one or more high-poverty schools
(as defined in this notice).
High-poverty school means, consistent with section
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA, a school in the highest quartile of
schools in the State with respect to poverty level, using a measure of
poverty determined by the State.
High-quality assessment means an assessment designed to measure a
student's understanding of, and ability to apply, critical concepts
through the use of a variety of item types, formats, and administration
conditions (e.g., open-ended responses, performance-based tasks, use of
technology). Such assessments are structured to enable measurement of
student achievement (as defined in this notice) and student growth (as
defined in this notice); are of high technical quality (e.g., are
valid, reliable, and aligned to standards); and include the assessment
of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students.
Instructional improvement systems means tools that provide
teachers, principals, and administrators with meaningful support for a
cycle of continuous instructional improvement, including activities
such as: instructional planning; gathering information (e.g., through
formative assessments (as defined in this notice), interim assessments
(as defined in this notice), and looking at student work); analyzing
information with the support of rapid-time (as defined in this notice)
reporting; using this information to inform decisions on appropriate
next steps; and evaluating the effectiveness of the actions taken.
Interim assessment means an assessment given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the school year, and designed to
evaluate students' knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of
academic standards, and the results of which can be aggregated (e.g.,
by course, grade level, school, or LEA) in order to inform teachers and
administrators at the student, classroom, school, and LEA levels.
Persistently lowest-performing schools means Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State and the
secondary schools (both middle and high schools) in the State that are
equally as low-achieving as these Title I schools and are eligible for,
but do not receive, Title I funds. When considering which schools are
the lowest-achieving, the State must consider both the absolute
performance of schools on the State assessments in reading/language
arts and mathematics and whether schools have made progress on those
assessments.
Rapid-time, in reference to reporting and availability of school-
and LEA-level data, means that data is available quickly enough to
inform current lessons, instruction, and related supports; in most
cases, this will be within 72 hours of an assessment or data gathering
in classrooms, schools, and LEAs.
Student achievement means, at a minimum--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: A student's score on the
State's assessment under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; and
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: An alternative measure of
student performance (e.g., student performance on interim assessments
(as defined in this notice), rates at which students are on track to
graduate from high school, percentage of students enrolled in Advanced
Placement courses who take Advanced Placement exams, rates at which
students meet goals in individualized education programs, student
scores on end-of-course exams).
Student growth means the change in achievement data for an
individual student between two points in time. Growth may be measured
by a variety of approaches, but any approach used must be statistically
rigorous and based on student achievement (as defined in this notice)
data, and may also include other measures of student learning in
[[Page 37812]]
order to increase the construct validity and generalizability of the
information.
Total revenues available to the State means either (a) projected or
actual total State revenues for education and other purposes for the
relevant year; or (b) projected or actual total State appropriations
for education and other purposes for the relevant year.
America COMPETES Act elements (as specified in section
6401(e)(2)(D)) means: (1) A unique statewide student identifier that
does not permit a student to be individually identified by users of the
system; (2) student-level enrollment, demographic, and program
participation information; (3) student-level information about the
points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or
complete P-16 education programs; (4) the capacity to communicate with
higher education data systems; (5) a State data audit system assessing
data quality, validity, and reliability; (6) yearly test records of
individual students with respect to assessments under section 1111(b)
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); (7) information on students not tested
by grade and subject; (8) a teacher identifier system with the ability
to match teachers to students; (9) student-level transcript
information, including information on courses completed and grades
earned; (10) student-level college readiness test scores; (11)
information regarding the extent to which students transition
successfully from secondary school to postsecondary education,
including whether students enroll in remedial coursework; and (12)
other information determined necessary to address alignment and
adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education.
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, and selection criteria, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866
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 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 set forth in the Executive order. Pursuant to the
Executive order, it has been determined that this regulatory action
will have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million
because the amount of government transfers provided through the Race to
the Top Fund will exceed that amount. Therefore, this action is
``economically significant'' and subject to OMB review under section
3(f)(1) of the Executive order.
The potential costs associated with this proposed regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this proposed regulatory action, we have determined
that the benefits of the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this proposed regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are needed to implement the Race to the Top program. The
Secretary does not believe that the statute, by itself, provides a
sufficient level of detail to ensure that Race to the Top truly serves
as a mechanism for driving significant education reform in the States.
The authorizing language is very brief, and we believe the Congress
likely expected the Secretary to augment this language, through
rulemaking, in order to give greater meaning to the statutory
provisions. Additionally, the statute expressly provides the Secretary
the authority to require States to include in their application such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require and to determine
which States receive grants on the basis of other criteria as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
In the absence of specific selection criteria for Race to the Top
grants, the Department would use the general selection criteria in 34
CFR 75.210 of the Education Department General Administrative
Regulations in selecting States to receive grants. The Secretary does
not believe the use of those general criteria would be appropriate for
the Race to the Top competitions, because they do not focus on the
educational reforms that States must be implementing in order to
receive a Race to the Top grant, on the specific uses of funds under
Race to the Top, or on the plans that the Secretary believes States
should develop for their Race to the Top grants.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department considered a variety of possible priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria before deciding to
propose those included in this notice. The proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are those that best
embody the Secretary's concept of how the Race to the Top program
should operate. The proposals would provide States (and their LEAs)
receiving Race to the Top grants with broad flexibility in the
expenditure of those grants, while creating clear criteria for the
selection of applications and providing greater clarity (than is
provided in the legislation itself) on what must be included in a State
application and what progress States would have to make in the four
education reform areas in order to receive a grant. The Secretary
believes that the proposals, thus, appropriately balance a limited
degree of Federal prescription with broad flexibility in State and
local implementation. We seek public comment on whether we have
achieved the optimal balance.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria will not impose significant costs
on States,
[[Page 37813]]
or on the LEAs and other entities that will receive assistance through
the Race to the Top Fund. As discussed elsewhere, the proposals are
intended to create a framework for the award of approximately $4
billion in support of State and local efforts to implement critical
educational reforms and to making substantial gains in student
achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation
rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and
careers. Without promulgation of priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria for the Race to the Top competitions, the
Department would not have clear and defensible criteria for making very
large grants to States.
The Department believes that the costs imposed on States by the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
will be limited to the paperwork burden discussed elsewhere in this
notice. The benefits conveyed on a State through its receipt of a grant
will greatly exceed those costs. In addition, even States that apply
but are unsuccessful in the competitions may derive benefits, as the
process of working with LEAs and other stakeholders on the State
application may help accelerate the pace of education reforms in the
State.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at http://www.Whitehouse.gov/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 proposed
regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the Federal
payments to be made to States under this program as a result of this
proposed regulatory action. Expenditures are classified as transfers to
States.
Table--Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Transfers................ $3,956.
From Whom to Whom......................... Federal Government to
States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously explained, ARRA provides approximately $4.3 billion
for the Race to the Top Fund (referred to in the statute as State
Incentive Grants). In this notice, we propose additional specific
priorities, requirements, definitions, and criteria regarding the
applications that individual States submit for approximately $4 billion
of Race to the Top funds. At a later date, we may announce a separate
Race to the Top Standards and Assessment competition, for approximately
$350 million, to support the development of assessments by consortia of
States.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The application requirements and selection criteria proposed in
this notice will require the collection of information that is subject
to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). It is our plan
to offer a comment period for the information collection at the time of
the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria. At that time, the Department will submit the
information collection to OMB for its review and provide the specific
burden hours associated with each of the requirements and selection
criteria for comment. However, because it is likely that the
information collection will be reviewed under emergency OMB processing,
the Department encourages the public to comment on the estimates we are
providing for the burden hours associated with the requirements and
selection criteria proposed in this notice.
Proposed Application Requirements
There are eight application requirements that the Department
proposes States must meet when submitting their applications. These
are:
(a) The State's application must be signed by the Governor, the
State's chief school officer, and the president of the State board of
education.
(b) The State must describe the progress it has made to date in
each of the four education reform areas, including how the State has
used ARRA and other Federal and State funding over the last several
years to pursue reforms in these areas (as described in Overall
Selection Criterion (E)(1)).
(c) The State must provide financial data to show whether and to
what extent the percentage of the total revenues available to the State
(as defined in this notice) that were used to support elementary,
secondary, and public higher education for FY 2009 increased,
decreased, or remained the same compared to FY 2008 (as described in
Overall Selection Criterion (E)(2)).
(d) The State must describe its statewide support from stakeholders
and LEAs, including public charter schools identified as LEAs under
State law (as described in Overall Selection Criterion (E)(3)).
(e) The State must include a budget that details how it will use
grant funds and other resources to meet targets and perform related
functions, including how it will use funds awarded under this program
to--
(1) Achieve its targets for improving student achievement and
graduation rates and for closing achievement gaps (as described in
Overall Selection Criterion (E)(4)); and
(2) Give priority to high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice), in
addition to providing 50 percent of the grant to participating LEAs
based on their relative shares of funding under part A of Title I of
the ESEA as required under section 14006(c) of the ARRA.
(f) The State must provide, for each State Reform Conditions
Criterion (listed earlier in this notice), a description of the State's
current status in meeting that Criterion, and at a minimum, the
information requested as supporting evidence for the Criterion. The
Appendix to this notice contains a table listing the proposed evidence.
(g) The State must provide, for each Reform Plan Criterion (listed
earlier in this notice) a detailed plan for use of grant funds that
includes, but need not be limited to the activities to be undertaken,
the goals and rationale for the activities, the timeline for
implementation, the party responsible for implementing the activities,
the resources the State will use to support the activities, the State's
annual targets, if applicable, for the performance measures aligned to
the Criterion, and the evidence requested in support of that Criterion
(if any). (See the ``Proposed Application Requirements'' section for a
detailed description of these proposed requirements.)
(h) The State must submit a certification from the State Attorney
General, or other chief State legal officer, that the State's
description of, and statements and conclusions concerning, State law
(for example, with respect to the Eligibility Requirement regarding
teacher effectiveness or any of the applicable Selection Criteria) in
its application are complete, accurate, and constitute a reasonable
interpretation of State law.
Proposed Selection Criteria
There are 19 selection criteria that the Department proposes States
may address when submitting their applications. These are--
(A)(1) Developing and adopting common standards;
[[Page 37814]]
(A)(2) Developing and implementing common, high-quality
assessments;
(A)(3) Supporting transition to enhanced standards and high-
quality assessments;
(B)(1) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system;
(B)(2) Accessing and using State data;
(B)(3) Using data to improve instruction;
(C)(1) Providing alternative pathways for aspiring teachers and
principals;
(C)(2) Differentiating teacher and principal effectiveness based
on performance;
(C)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and
principals;
(C)(4) Reporting the effectiveness of teacher and principal
preparation programs;
(C)(5) Providing effective support to teachers and principals;
(D)(1) Intervening in the lowest-performing schools and LEAs;
(D)(2) Increasing the supply of high-quality charter schools;
(D)(3) Turning around struggling schools;
(E)(1) Demonstrating significant progress;
(E)(2) Making education funding a priority;
(E)(3) Enlisting statewide support and commitment;
(E)(4) Raising achievement and closing gaps; and
(E)(5) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale,
and sustain proposed plans.
(Please see the ``Proposed Selection Criteria'' section for
detailed descriptions.)
We estimate that each SEA would spend approximately 642 hours of
staff time to address the application requirements and criteria,
prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. The total
number of hours for all 52 SEAs is an estimated 33,384 hours (52 SEAs
(the 50 States plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) times 642
hours equals 33,384 hours.) We estimate the average total cost per hour
of the State-level staff who carry out this work to be $30.00 an hour.
The total estimated cost for all States would be $1,001,520 ($30.00 x
33,384 hours = $1,001,520).
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 Secretary makes this certification because the only
entities eligible to apply for grants are States, and States are not
small entities.
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 computer diskette) on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: 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 Format (PDF) on the
Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: 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 on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.
Dated: July 22, 2009.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[[Page 37815]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.015
[[Page 37816]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.016
[[Page 37817]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.017
[[Page 37818]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.018
[[Page 37819]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.019
[[Page 37820]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.020
[[Page 37821]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.021
[[Page 37822]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.022
[[Page 37823]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.023
[[Page 37824]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.024
[[Page 37825]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.025
[[Page 37826]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.026
[[Page 37827]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.027
[[Page 37828]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.028
[[Page 37829]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.029
[[Page 37830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.030
[[Page 37831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.031
[[Page 37832]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.032
[[Page 37833]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.033
[[Page 37834]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.034
[[Page 37835]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.035
[[Page 37836]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.036
[[Page 37837]]
[FR Doc. E9-17909 Filed 7-24-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C