[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18171-18185]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-58]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Overview Information; Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program;
Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.395B
(Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants) and 84.395C (High School
Course Assessment Programs grants).
Dates:
Applications Available: April 9, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent To Apply: April 29, 2010.
Date of Technical Assistance Meeting for Prospective Applicants:
April 22, 2010.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 2010.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 23, 2010.
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose and Overview of Program: Authorized under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Race to the Top Fund
Assessment Program provides funding to consortia of States to develop
assessments that are valid, support and inform instruction, provide
accurate information about what students know and can do, and measure
student achievement against standards designed to ensure that all
students gain the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college and
the workplace. These assessments are intended to play a critical role
in educational systems; provide administrators, educators, parents, and
students with the data and information needed to continuously improve
teaching and learning; and help meet the President's goal of restoring,
by 2020, the nation's position as the world leader in college
graduates.
Through the Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program, the Department
expects to award two categories of grants: (A) Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants, and (B) High School Course Assessment Programs grants.
In this notice, we are establishing priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for each grant category. An
eligible applicant (i.e., a consortium of States) may apply for grants
in both categories, provided it meets the eligibility requirements for
each category. The Department will score and rank applications
separately in each grant category. Following is an overview of the two
grant categories:
(A) Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants. Over the past decade,
State assessment results have brought much-needed visibility to
disparities in achievement among different groups of students and
helped meet increasing demands for data that can be used to improve
teaching and learning. To fully meet the dual needs for accountability
and instructional improvement, however, States need assessment systems
that are based on standards designed to prepare students for college
and the workplace, and that more validly measure student knowledge and
skills against the full range of those standards and across the full
performance continuum. Further, States need assessment systems that
better reflect good instructional practices and support a culture of
continuous improvement in education by providing information that can
be used in a timely and meaningful manner to determine school and
educator effectiveness, identify teacher and principal professional
development and support needs, improve programs, and guide instruction.
This grant category supports the development of such assessment
systems by consortia of States. Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants
provide funding for the development of new assessment systems that
measure student knowledge and skills against a common set of college-
and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) in mathematics
and English language arts in a way that covers the full range of those
standards, elicits complex student demonstrations or applications of
knowledge and skills as appropriate, and provides an accurate measure
of student achievement across the full performance continuum and an
accurate measure of student growth over a full academic year or course.
Assessment systems developed with Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grants must include one or more summative assessment components in
mathematics and in English language arts that are administered at least
once during the academic year in grades 3 through 8 and at least once
in high school and that produce student achievement data and student
growth data (both as defined in this notice) that can be used to
determine whether individual students are college- and career-ready (as
defined in this notice) or on track to being college- and career-ready
(as defined in this notice). In addition, assessment systems developed
with Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants must assess all students,
including English learners (as defined in this notice) and students
with disabilities (as defined in this notice). Finally, assessment
systems developed with Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants must
produce data (including student achievement data and student growth
data) that can be used to inform (a) determinations of school
effectiveness; (b) determinations of individual principal and teacher
effectiveness for purposes of evaluation; (c) determinations of
principal and teacher professional development and support needs; and
(d) teaching, learning, and program improvement.
To be eligible for a Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant, an
eligible applicant must include at least 15 States, of which at least 5
States must be governing States (as defined in this notice). An
eligible applicant receiving a Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant
must ensure that the summative assessment components of the assessment
system (in both mathematics and English language arts) will be fully
implemented statewide in each State in the consortium no later than the
2014-2015 school year.\1\ It is the expectation of the Department that
States that adopt assessment systems developed with
[[Page 18172]]
Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants will use assessments in these
systems to meet the assessment requirements in Title I of the ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ By requiring that member States fully implement the
summative assessment components of the assessment system no later
than the 2014-2015 school year, we believe that we are providing an
eligible applicant receiving a Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grant with an appropriate amount of time to design and develop
summative assessments that meet the Absolute Priority and other
requirements for this grant category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to meeting the need for assessment systems that can be
used to determine whether students are college- and career-ready, this
grant category seeks to ensure that the results from those systems
will, in turn, be used meaningfully by institutions of higher education
(IHEs). Under this grant category, we intend to promote collaboration
and better alignment between public elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary education systems by establishing a competitive
preference priority for applications that include commitments from
public IHEs or IHE systems to participate in the design and development
of the consortium's final high school summative assessments and to
implement policies that exempt from remedial courses and place into
credit-bearing college courses students who meet the consortium-adopted
achievement standard (as defined in this notice) for those assessments.
An application that addresses this priority will receive competitive
preference points based on the extent to which it demonstrates strong
commitment from the public IHEs or IHE systems (as evidenced by letters
of intent) and on the percentage of direct matriculation students (as
defined in this notice) in public IHEs in the States in the consortium
who are enrolled in those IHEs or IHE systems.
(B) High School Course Assessment Programs grants. In our nation's
high schools, the rigor of courses offered varies and, in many cases,
is not sufficient to prepare students for success in college and
careers. To promote consistently high levels of rigor in high school
courses across a well-rounded curriculum, this grant category supports
the development of high school course assessment programs by consortia
of States. High School Course Assessment Programs grants provide
funding for the development of new assessment programs that cover
multiple high school courses (which may include courses in core
academic subjects and career and technical education courses) and that
include a process for certifying the rigor of the assessments in the
assessment program and for ensuring that assessments of courses
covering similar content have common expectations of rigor. Each
assessment in the assessment program must measure student knowledge and
skills against standards from a common set of college- and career-ready
standards in subjects for which such a set of standards exists, or
otherwise against State or other rigorous standards; and must produce
student achievement data and student growth data that can be used to
inform (a) determinations of principal and teacher effectiveness and
professional development and support needs, and (b) teaching, learning,
and program improvement. In addition, assessments in the assessment
program must be designed to assess the broadest possible range of
students, including English learners and students with disabilities.
To be eligible for a High School Course Assessment Programs grant,
an eligible applicant must include at least 5 governing States. An
eligible applicant receiving a High School Course Assessment Programs
grant must ensure that at least one course assessment developed under
the assessment program will be implemented in each State in the
consortium no later than the 2013-2014 school year and that all
assessments in the assessment program will be operational no later than
the 2014-2015 school year.\2\ The Department will not require that
assessments developed with High School Course Assessment Programs
grants be used to meet the assessment requirements in Title I of the
ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ By requiring that at least one course assessment developed
under the assessment program be implemented in each State in the
consortium no later than the 2013-2014 school year and that all
assessments in the assessment program be operational no later than
the 2014-2015 school year, we believe that we are providing an
eligible applicant receiving a High School Course Assessment
Programs grant with an appropriate amount of time to design and
develop course assessment programs that meet the Absolute Priority
and other requirements for this grant category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that States and high schools will use the assessments in
these assessment programs as part of coherent high school improvement
efforts that include aligned curricula, instruction, and professional
development. In that context, these assessments will play important
roles in providing teachers, principals, students, and parents with the
information they need to determine whether high school courses are
sufficiently rigorous to prepare students for success in college and
careers, as well as monitor student progress, adjust instruction, and
ultimately improve student outcomes. To ensure that these assessment
programs help students prepare for and transition to college
successfully, we encourage eligible applicants to collaborate with IHEs
in their design and development.
Within this grant category, the Department also seeks to promote
the development of rigorous assessment programs for particular courses
of high school study. To further the administration's goal of improving
teaching and learning in the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) subjects, we are establishing a competitive
preference priority for applications that include a high-quality plan
to develop, within the grant period and with input from one or more
four-year degree-granting IHEs, assessments for high school courses
that comprise a rigorous course of study designed to prepare high
school students for postsecondary study and careers in the STEM fields.
To help improve outcomes in career and technical education, we are also
establishing a second competitive preference priority for applications
that include a high-quality plan to develop, within the grant period
and with relevant business community participation and support,
assessments for high school courses that comprise a rigorous course of
study in career and technical education that is designed to prepare
high school students for success on technical certification
examinations or for postsecondary education or employment.
As mentioned earlier, the Department supports the development,
under both grant categories in this competition, of common assessments
by consortia of States. We believe that States working together in
consortia benefit from increased assessment resources and expertise
and, thus, can develop assessments that are of higher quality than
assessments developed by an individual State working on its own. In
addition, bringing States together in consortia will improve the
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of projects funded under this
competition and ensure that the assessments that this competition
supports are developed for as many States as possible as quickly as
possible. Finally, the development of common assessments will enable
the production of comparable data that can be used to identify and
promote effective instructional strategies and practices more reliably
across States.
In addition, we are requiring that eligible applicants receiving
awards under either category in this competition develop assessment
items and produce student data in a manner that is consistent with
standards for interoperability, and that they make all assessment
content (i.e., assessments and assessment items) developed with funds
from this competition freely available to States, technology platform
providers, or others that request it for purposes of administering
assessments, consistent with States' needs and with
[[Page 18173]]
consortium or State requirements for test or item security. We believe
that these requirements will ensure that assessment content developed
with funds from this competition is widely available, including to
States that are not part of consortia receiving funds under this
competition as well as to commercial organizations wishing to further
develop, extend, and incorporate the content into assessment products
intended for State use. Moreover, we believe that making assessment
content freely available will spur innovation in assessment technology
and enable technology providers to compete for States' business on the
basis of their developing efficient, effective, economical, and
innovative assessment platforms.
The Department recognizes that there are assessment needs--
particularly for alternate assessments based on alternate academic
achievement standards and assessments of English language proficiency--
that we do not attempt to address through this competition. We wish to
note that we have plans to address these needs in other ways. For
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, alternate
assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards are
critical components of a complete assessment system. It is the
Department's intent to support States in developing new alternate
assessments based on alternate achievement standards, in coordination
with this Race to the Top Assessment competition, through a separate
competition that will be administered by the Department's Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; we intend to issue a
notice inviting applications for this program later this year. For
English learners, new assessments of English language proficiency are
also needed. The Department intends to set aside other funds in its FY
2011 budget to support State efforts to develop assessments of English
language proficiency that are aligned with the college- and career-
ready standards in English language arts currently being developed and
adopted.
For additional information on the Race to the Top Fund Assessment
Program, see http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/
index.html.
Note about Public and Expert Input Meetings: The design of this
Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program competition has benefited
significantly from a series of public and expert input meetings held
by the Department. At these meetings, invited experts and members of
the public provided input in response to questions, published in the
Federal Register (see 74 FR 54795-54800 and 69081-69084), in the
following programmatic areas: General and technical assessment
issues, technology and innovation in assessment, high school
assessments, assessing English learners, assessing students with
disabilities, consortium and project management, and procurement.
For information about these meetings, including transcripts and
presentation materials, as well as other written input provided for
this program, see http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-
assessment/index.html.
A. Comprehensive Assessment Systems:
Priorities: For the Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant
category, we are establishing the following priorities for the FY 2010
grant competition only in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the
General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Absolute Priority: This priority is an absolute priority. Under 34
CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this
priority. An eligible applicant should address this priority throughout
the application narrative.
The priority is:
Comprehensive Assessment Systems Measuring Student Achievement
Against Common College- and Career-Ready Standards. Under this
priority, the Department supports the development of new assessment
systems that will be used by multiple States; are valid, reliable, and
fair for their intended purposes and for all student subgroups; and
measure student knowledge and skills against a common set of college-
and career-ready standards in mathematics and English language arts. To
meet this absolute priority, an eligible applicant must demonstrate in
its application that it will develop and implement an assessment system
that--
(a) Measures student knowledge and skills against a common set of
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) in
mathematics and English language arts in a way that--
(i) Covers the full range of those standards, including standards
against which student achievement has traditionally been difficult to
measure;
(ii) As appropriate, elicits complex student demonstrations or
applications of knowledge and skills;
(iii) Provides an accurate measure of student achievement across
the full performance continuum, including for high- and low-achieving
students; and
(iv) Provides an accurate measure of student growth over a full
academic year or course;
(b) Consists of assessment components in mathematics and in English
language arts that include, for each subject, one or more summative
assessment components that--
(i) Are administered at least once during the academic year in
grades 3 through 8 and at least once in high school; and
(ii) Produce student achievement data and student growth data (both
as defined in this notice) that can be used to determine whether
individual students are college- and career-ready (as defined in this
notice) or on track to being college- and career-ready (as defined in
this notice);
(c) Assesses all students, including English learners (as defined
in this notice) and students with disabilities (as defined in this
notice); and
(d) Produces data, including student achievement data and student
growth data, that can be used to inform--
(i) Determinations of school effectiveness for purposes of
accountability under Title I of the ESEA;
(ii) Determinations of individual principal and teacher
effectiveness for purposes of evaluation;
(iii) Determinations of principal and teacher professional
development and support needs; and
(iv) Teaching, learning, and program improvement.
Competitive Preference Priority: This priority is a competitive
preference priority. Consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award
additional points to an application as specified in the priority.
The priority is:
Collaboration and Alignment with Higher Education. The Department
gives eligible applicants competitive preference points based on the
extent to which they have promoted collaboration and alignment between
member States' public elementary and secondary education systems and
their public IHEs (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)) or systems of those IHEs. Eligible
applicants addressing this priority must provide, for each IHE or IHE
system, a letter of intent that--
(a) Commits the IHE or IHE system to participate with the
consortium in the design and development of the consortium's final high
school summative assessments in mathematics and English language arts
in order to ensure that the assessments measure college readiness;
(b) Commits the IHE or IHE system to implement policies, once the
final high school summative assessments are implemented, that exempt
from remedial courses and place into credit-bearing college courses any
student who meets the consortium-adopted
[[Page 18174]]
achievement standard (as defined in this notice) for each assessment
and any other placement requirement established by the IHE or IHE
system; and
(c) Is signed by the State's higher education executive officer (if
the State has one) and the president or head of each participating IHE
or IHE system.
All letters of intent must provide the total number of direct
matriculation students (as defined in this notice) in the partner IHE
or IHE system in the 2008-2009 school year. An eligible applicant must
also provide the total number of direct matriculation students (as
defined in this notice) in public IHEs in the consortium's member
States.
The Department will award up to 20 competitive preference points
based on the strength of commitment demonstrated in the letters of
intent and on the percentage of direct matriculation students in public
IHEs in the member States who are direct matriculation students in the
partner IHEs or IHE systems. To receive full competitive preference
points under this priority, eligible applicants must provide letters of
intent that demonstrate strong commitment from each partner IHE or IHE
system and that represent at least 30 percent of direct matriculation
students in public IHEs in member States. No points will be awarded for
letters of intent that represent fewer than 10 percent of direct
matriculation students in public IHEs in member States.
Requirements: For the Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant
category, we are establishing the following requirements for the FY
2010 grant competition only in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are consortia of
States.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Consistent with section 14013 of the ARRA, the term
``State'' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility Requirements:
To be eligible to receive an award under this category, an eligible
applicant must--
1. Include a minimum of 15 States, of which at least 5 States must
be governing States (as defined in this notice);
2. Identify in its application a proposed project management
partner and provide an assurance that the proposed project management
partner is not partnered with any other eligible applicant applying for
an award under this category;\4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In selecting a proposed project management partner, an
eligible applicant must comply with the requirements for procurement
in 34 CFR 80.36. Due to the limited time period that eligible
applicants have to select a proposed project management partner, we
remind eligible applicants that they may, under 34 CFR 80.36, use
informal procedures to select a proposed contractor for this
purpose. For example, 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1) authorizes simple informal
procedures to select contractors under the simplified acquisition
threshold of $100,000; the regulations only require that the
eligible applicant request offers from an adequate number of
qualified sources. In addition, even if the eligible applicant
expects that the proposed project management partner would cost more
than $100,000, the regulations recognize special cases where a
contractor must be selected within a very limited time period.
Again, the eligible applicant must request proposals from an
adequate number of qualified sources and select the contractor whose
proposal is most advantageous to the program, considering price and
other selection factors. In these situations, if informal
solicitation does not result in an adequate number of proposals, the
eligible applicant may select a single bidder so long as the
eligible applicant documents the facts that formed the basis for its
decision. 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1), (d)(3), and (d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Submit assurances from each State in the consortium that, to
remain in the consortium, the State will adopt a common set of college-
and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) no later than
December 31, 2011, and common achievement standards (as defined in this
notice) no later than the 2014-2015 school year.
Application Requirements:
An eligible applicant's application must--
1. Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, whether--
(a) One member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf
of the consortium; or
(b) The consortium has established itself as a separate eligible
legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf;
2. Be signed by--
(a) If one member of the consortium is applying for a grant on
behalf of the consortium, the Governor, the State's chief school
officer, and, if applicable, the president of the State board of
education from that State; or
(b) If the consortium has established itself as a separate eligible
legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf, a
representative of the consortium;
3. Include an assurance that--
(a) A competitive procurement process based on a ``best value''
selection \5\ will be used for tasks related to assessment design and
development; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, section 2.101 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) defines ``best value'' as the expected outcome of
an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the
greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) All applicable Federal procurement requirements, including the
requirements of 34 CFR 80.36, will be met;
4. Include, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, for each State in the
consortium, copies of all Memoranda of Understanding or other binding
agreements. These binding agreements must--
(a) Detail the activities that members of the consortium will
perform;
(b) Bind each member of the consortium to every statement and
assurance made in the application;
(c) Include an assurance, signed by the State's chief procurement
official (or designee), that the State has reviewed its applicable
procurement rules and determined that it may participate in and make
procurements through the consortium; and
(d) Be signed by the Governor, the State's chief school officer,
and, if applicable, the president of the State board of education;
5. Include--
(a) An executive summary of the eligible applicant's proposed
project;
(b) A theory of action that describes in detail the causal
relationships between specific actions or strategies in the eligible
applicant's proposed project and its desired outcomes for the proposed
project, including improvements in student achievement and college- and
career-readiness;
(c) A plan for designing and developing the proposed assessment
system;
(d) A plan for research and evaluation of the proposed assessment
system;
(e) A plan for implementing the proposed assessment system; and
(f) A project management plan (including a workplan and timeline);
and
6. Include a budget that--
(a) Describes in detail how funds from this grant category and
other resources will be used to design, develop, implement, and
evaluate the proposed assessment system;
(b) Identifies Level 1 budget modules (as defined in this notice)
that do not exceed $150 million in total; and
(c) Identifies any Level 2 budget modules (as defined in this
notice) that do not exceed $10 million each.
Program Requirements
An eligible applicant awarded a grant under this category must--
1. Evaluate the validity, reliability, and fairness of the
summative assessment components of the assessment system, and make
available through formal mechanisms (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) and
informal mechanisms (e.g., newsletters), and in print and
electronically, the results of any evaluations it conducts;
2. Actively participate in any applicable technical assistance
activities
[[Page 18175]]
conducted or facilitated by the Department or its designees, including
periodic expert reviews, collaboration with other consortia that
receive funds under this program, and other activities as determined by
the Department;
3. Work with the Department to develop a strategy to make student-
level data that result from the assessment system available on an
ongoing basis for research, including for prospective linking,
validity, and program improvement studies; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this program must
comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
and 34 CFR Part 99, as well as State and local requirements
regarding privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ensure that the summative assessment components of the
assessment system in both mathematics and English language arts are
fully implemented statewide by each State in the consortium no later
than the 2014-2015 school year;
5. Maximize the interoperability of assessments across technology
platforms and the ability for States to switch their assessments from
one technology platform to another by--
(a) Developing all assessment items to an industry-recognized open-
licensed interoperability standard that is approved by the Department
during the grant period, without non-standard extensions or
additions;\7\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We encourage grantees under this competition to work during
the grant period with the Department and the entities that set
interoperability standards to extend those standards in order to
make them more functional for assessment materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Producing all student-level data in a manner consistent with an
industry-recognized open-licensed interoperability standard that is
approved by the Department during the grant period;
6. Unless otherwise protected by law or agreement as proprietary
information, make any assessment content (i.e., assessments and
assessment items) developed with funds from this grant category freely
available to States, technology platform providers, and others that
request it for purposes of administering assessments, provided they
comply with consortium or State requirements for test or item security;
7. Use technology to the maximum extent appropriate to develop,
administer, and score assessments and report assessment results;
8. Use funds from this grant category only for the design,
development, and evaluation of the assessment system. An eligible
applicant awarded a grant under this category may not use funds for the
administration of operational assessments;
9. Comply with the requirements of 34 CFR 75.129, which specifies
that--
(a) The applicant (i.e., the State applying on behalf of the
consortium, or the consortium if established as a separate legal entity
and applying on its own behalf) is legally responsible for--
(i) The use of all grant funds;
(ii) Ensuring that the project is carried out by the consortium in
accordance with Federal requirements; and
(iii) Ensuring that indirect cost funds are determined as required
under 34 CFR 75.564(e); and
(b) Each member of the consortium is legally responsible to--
(i) Carry out the activities it agrees to perform; and
(ii) Use any grant funds it receives under the consortium's
Memoranda of Understanding or other binding agreements in accordance
with Federal requirements that apply to the grant;
10. Obtain approval from the Department of any third-party
organization or entity that is responsible for managing funds received
under this grant category; and
11. Identify any current assessment requirements in Title I of the
ESEA that would need to be waived in order for member States to fully
implement the proposed assessment system.
B. High School Course Assessment Programs:
Priorities: For the High School Course Assessment Programs grant
category, we are establishing the following priorities for the FY 2010
grant competition only in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20
U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Absolute Priority: This priority is an absolute priority. Under 34
CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this
priority. An eligible applicant should address this priority throughout
the application narrative.
The priority is:
High School Course Assessment Programs. Under this priority, the
Department supports the development of new and adapted assessments for
high school courses that will be used by multiple States and are valid,
reliable, and fair for their intended purposes and students. To meet
this absolute priority, an eligible applicant must demonstrate in its
application that it will develop and implement a high school course
assessment program that--
(a) For each course in the assessment program--
(i) Measures student knowledge and skills against standards from a
common set of college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this
notice) in subjects for which such a set of standards exists, or
otherwise against State or other rigorous standards;
(ii) As appropriate, elicits complex student demonstrations or
applications of knowledge and skills;
(iii) Produces student achievement data (as defined in this notice)
and student growth data (as defined in this notice) over a full
academic year or course that can be used to inform--
(A) Determinations of individual principal and teacher
effectiveness and professional development and support needs; and
(B) Teaching, learning, and program improvement; and
(iv) Is designed to assess the broadest possible range of students,
including English learners (as defined in this notice) and students
with disabilities (as defined in this notice);
(b) Includes assessments for multiple courses that will be
implemented in each member State at a scale that will enable
significant improvements in student achievement outcomes statewide; and
(c) Includes a process for certifying the rigor of each assessment
in the assessment program and for ensuring that assessments of courses
covering similar content have common expectations of rigor.
Competitive Preference Priorities: These priorities are competitive
preference priorities. Consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award
additional points to an application as specified in these priorities.
The priorities are:
1. Focus on Preparing Students for Study in STEM-Related Fields.
The Department gives 10 competitive preference points to applications
that include a high-quality plan to develop, within the grant period
and with input from one or more four-year degree-granting IHEs,
assessments for high school courses that comprise a rigorous course of
study that is designed to prepare high school students for
postsecondary study and careers in the STEM fields, including
technology and engineering. Any such course of study may include cross-
cutting or interdisciplinary STEM courses (e.g., computer science,
information technology, bioengineering) and be designed to address the
needs of underrepresented groups.
An eligible applicant addressing this priority must, in addition to
addressing the priority throughout the application narrative, provide a
separate plan that describes--
(a) The courses for which assessments will be developed;
(b) How the courses comprise a rigorous course of study that is
designed to prepare high school students for
[[Page 18176]]
postsecondary study and careers in the STEM fields; and
(c) How input from one or more four-year degree-granting IHEs will
be obtained in developing assessments for the courses.
We will award points to eligible applicants addressing this
priority on an ``all or nothing'' basis (i.e., 10 points or zero
points). An eligible applicant may not use the same course of study to
address both this priority and Competitive Preference Priority 2 (Focus
on Career Readiness and Placement).
2. Focus on Career Readiness and Placement. The Department gives 10
competitive preference points to applications that include a high-
quality plan to develop, within the grant period and with relevant
business community participation and support, assessments for high
school courses that comprise a rigorous course of study in career and
technical education that is designed to prepare high school students
for success on technical certification examinations or for
postsecondary education or employment.
An eligible applicant addressing this priority must, in addition to
addressing the priority throughout the application narrative, provide a
separate plan that describes--
(a) The courses for which assessments will be developed;
(b) How the courses comprise a rigorous course of study in career
and technical education that is designed to prepare high school
students for success on technical certification examinations or for
postsecondary education or employment; and
(c) How relevant business community participation and support will
be obtained in developing assessments for the courses.
We will award points to eligible applicants addressing this
priority on an ``all or nothing'' basis (i.e., 10 points or zero
points). An eligible applicant may not use the same course of study to
address both this priority and Competitive Preference Priority 1 (Focus
on Preparing Students for Study and Careers in STEM-Related Fields).
Requirements: For the High School Course Assessment Programs grant
category, we are establishing the following requirements for the FY
2010 grant competition only in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are consortia of
States.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Consistent with section 14013 of the ARRA, the term
``State'' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility Requirements:
To be eligible to receive an award under this category, an eligible
applicant must--
1. Include a minimum of 5 governing States (as defined in this
notice); and
2. Identify in its application a proposed project management
partner and provide an assurance that the proposed project management
partner is not partnered with any other eligible applicant applying for
an award under this category.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In selecting a proposed project management partner, an
eligible applicant must comply with the requirements for procurement
in 34 CFR 80.36. Due to the limited time period that eligible
applicants have to select a proposed project management partner, we
remind eligible applicants that they may, under 34 CFR 80.36, use
informal procedures to select a proposed contractor for this
purpose. For example, 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1) authorizes simple informal
procedures to select contractors under the simplified acquisition
threshold of $100,000; the regulations only require that the
eligible applicant request offers from an adequate number of
qualified sources. In addition, even if the eligible applicant
expects that the proposed project management partner would cost more
than $100,000, the regulations recognize special cases where a
contractor must be selected within a very limited time period.
Again, the eligible applicant must request proposals from an
adequate number of qualified sources and select the contractor whose
proposal is most advantageous to the program, considering price and
other selection factors; in these situations, if informal
solicitation does not result in an adequate number of proposals, the
eligible applicant may select a single bidder so long as the
eligible applicant documents the facts that formed the basis for its
decision. 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1), (d)(3), and (d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Requirements
An eligible applicant's application must--
1. Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, whether--
(a) One member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf
of the consortium; or
(b) The consortium has established itself as a separate eligible
legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf;
2. Be signed by--
(a) If one member of the consortium is applying for a grant on
behalf of the consortium, the Governor, the State's chief school
officer, and, if applicable, the president of the State board of
education from that State; or
(b) If the consortium has established itself as a separate eligible
legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf, a
representative of the consortium;
3. Include an assurance that--
(a) A competitive procurement process based on a ``best value''
selection \10\ will be used for tasks related to assessment design and
development; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For example, section 2.101 of the FAR defines ``best
value'' as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the
Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in
response to the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) All applicable Federal procurement requirements, including the
requirements of 34 CFR 80.36, will be met;
4. Include, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, for each State in the
consortium, copies of all Memoranda of Understanding or other binding
agreements. These binding agreements must--
(a) Detail the activities that members of the consortium will
perform;
(b) Bind each member of the consortium to every statement and
assurance made in the application;
(c) Include an assurance, signed by the State's chief procurement
official (or designee), that the State has reviewed its applicable
procurement rules and determined that it may participate in and make
procurements through the consortium; and
(d) Be signed by the Governor, the State's chief school officer,
and, if applicable, the president of the State board of education;
5. Include--
(a) An executive summary of the eligible applicant's proposed
project;
(b) A theory of action that describes in detail the causal
relationships between specific actions or strategies in the eligible
applicant's proposed project and its desired outcomes for the proposed
project, including improvements in student achievement and college- and
career-readiness;
(c) A plan for designing and developing the proposed assessment
program;
(d) A plan for research and evaluation of the proposed assessment
program;
(e) A plan for implementing the proposed assessment program; and
(f) A project management plan (including a workplan and timeline);
and
6. Include a budget that--
(a) Describes in detail how funds from this grant category and
other resources will be used to design, develop, implement, and
evaluate the proposed assessment program; and
(b) Does not exceed more than $30 million in funds from this grant
category.
Program Requirements
An eligible applicant awarded a grant under this category must--
1. Evaluate the validity, reliability, and fairness of the
assessments in its high school course assessment program;
2. Actively participate in any applicable technical assistance
activities
[[Page 18177]]
conducted or facilitated by the Department or its designees, including
periodic expert reviews, collaboration with other consortia that
receive funds under this program, and other activities as determined by
the Department;
3. Work with the Department to develop a strategy to make student-
level data that result from the assessment program available on an
ongoing basis for research, including for prospective linking,
validity, and program improvement studies; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this program must
comply with FERPA and 34 CFR Part 99, as well as State and local
requirements regarding privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ensure that at least one course assessment developed under the
high school course assessment program will be implemented in each State
in the consortium no later than the 2013-2014 school year and that all
assessments in the assessment program will be operational no later than
the 2014-2015 school year;
5. To the extent that technology is used, maximize the
interoperability of assessments across technology platforms and the
ability for States to switch their assessments from one technology
platform to another by--
(a) Developing all assessment items to an industry-recognized open-
licensed interoperability standard that is approved by the Department
during the grant period, without non-standard extensions or additions;
\12\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ We encourage grantees under this competition to work during
the grant period with the Department and the entities that set
interoperability standards to extend those standards in order to
make them more functional for assessment materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Producing all student-level data in a manner consistent with an
industry-recognized open-licensed interoperability standard that is
approved by the Department during the grant period;
6. Unless otherwise protected by law or agreement as proprietary
information, make any assessment content (i.e., assessments and
assessment items) developed with funds from this grant category freely
available to States, technology platform providers, and others that
request it for purposes of administering assessments, provided they
comply with consortium or State requirements for test or item security;
7. Use funds from this grant category only for the design,
development, and evaluation of the assessment program. An eligible
applicant awarded a grant under this category may not use funds for the
administration of operational assessments;
8. Comply with the requirements of 34 CFR 75.129, which specifies
that--
(a) The applicant (i.e., the State applying on behalf of the
consortium, or the consortium if established as a separate legal entity
and applying on its own behalf) is legally responsible for--
(i) The use of all grant funds;
(ii) Ensuring that the project is carried out by the consortium in
accordance with Federal requirements; and
(iii) Ensuring that indirect cost funds are determined as required
under 34 CFR 75.564(e); and
(b) Each member of the consortium is legally responsible to--
(i) Carry out the activities it agrees to perform; and
(ii) Use any grant funds it receives under the consortium's
Memoranda of Understanding or other binding agreements in accordance
with Federal requirements that apply to the grant; and
9. Obtain approval from the Department of any third-party
organization or entity that is responsible for managing funds received
under this grant category.
C. Definitions: For the Comprehensive Assessment Systems and High
School Course Assessment Programs grant categories, we are establishing
the following definitions for the FY 2010 grant competition only in
accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Accommodations means changes in the administration of an
assessment, including but not limited to changes in assessment setting,
scheduling, timing, presentation format, response mode, and
combinations of these changes, that do not change the construct
intended to be measured by the assessment or the meaning of the
resulting scores. Accommodations must be used for equity in assessment
and not provide advantage to students eligible to receive them.
Achievement standard means the level of student achievement on
summative assessments that indicates that (a) for the final high school
summative assessments in mathematics or English language arts, a
student is college- and career-ready (as defined in this notice); or
(b) for summative assessments in mathematics or English language arts
at a grade level other than the final high school summative
assessments, a student is on track to being college- and career-ready
(as defined in this notice). An achievement standard must be determined
using empirical evidence over time.
College- and career-ready (or readiness) means, with respect to a
student, that the student is prepared for success, without remediation,
in credit-bearing entry-level courses in an IHE (as defined in section
101(a) of the HEA), as demonstrated by an assessment score that meets
or exceeds the achievement standard (as defined in this notice) for the
final high school summative assessment in mathematics or English
language arts.
Common set of college- and career-ready standards means a set of
academic content standards for grades K-12 that (a) define what a
student must know and be able to do at each grade level; (b) if
mastered, would ensure that the student is college- and career-ready
(as defined in this notice) by the time of high school graduation; and
(c) are substantially identical across all States in a consortium. A
State may supplement the common set of college- and career-ready
standards with additional content standards, provided that the
additional standards do not comprise more than 15 percent of the
State's total standards for that content area.
Direct matriculation student means a student who entered college as
a freshman within two years of graduating from high school.
English learner means a student who is an English learner as that
term is defined by the consortium. The consortium must define the term
in a manner that is uniform across member States and consistent with
section 9101(25) of the ESEA.
Governing State means a State that (a) is a member of only one
consortium applying for a grant in the competition category, (b) has an
active role in policy decision-making for the consortium, and (c) is
committed to using the assessment system or program developed by the
consortium.
Level 1 budget module means a budget module for which an eligible
applicant is seeking funds under the Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grant category that (a) is necessary to delivering operational
summative assessments in both mathematics and English language arts no
later than school year 2014-2015, or (b) is otherwise necessary to the
eligible applicant's proposed project and consistent with the eligible
applicant's theory of action.
Level 2 budget module means any budget module for which an eligible
applicant is seeking funds under the Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grant category other than a Level 1 budget module. An eligible
applicant must prioritize Level 2 budget modules in the order of
importance to the implementation of the proposed project.
Moderation system means a system for ensuring that human scoring of
complex item types, such as extended
[[Page 18178]]
responses or performance tasks, is accurate, consistent across schools
and States, and fair to all students.
On track to being college- and career-ready \13\ means, with
respect to a student, that the student is performing at or above grade
level such that the student will be college- and career-ready (as
defined in this notice) by the time of high school graduation, as
demonstrated by an assessment score that meets or exceeds the
achievement standard (as defined in this notice) for the student's
grade level on a summative assessment in mathematics or English
language arts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The term on track to being college- and career-ready is
used in place of the term ``proficiency'' used in section 1111(b)(3)
of the ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance level descriptor means a statement or description of a
set of knowledge and skills exemplifying a level of performance
associated with a standard.
Student achievement data means data regarding an individual
student's mastery of tested content standards. Student achievement data
from summative assessment components must be reported in a way that can
be reliably aggregated across multiple students at the subgroup,\14\
classroom, school, LEA, and State levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Eligible applicants receiving funds under this competition
must aggregate data using the student subgroups in section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., by gender, by each major
racial and ethnic group, by English proficiency status, by migrant
status, by students with disabilities as compared to nondisabled
students, and by economically disadvantaged students as compared to
students who are not economically disadvantaged, except that such
aggregation is not required in a case in which the number of
students in a subgroup is insufficient to yield statistically
reliable information or the results would reveal personally
identifiable information about an individual student). When using
the term ``subgroup'' throughout this notice, we mean these student
subgroups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student growth data means data regarding the change in student
achievement data (as defined in this notice) between two or more points
in time. Student growth data from summative assessment components must
be reported in a way that can be reliably aggregated across multiple
students at the subgroup, classroom, school, LEA, and State levels and
over a full academic year or course.
Student with a disability means, for purposes of this competition,
a student who has been identified as a student with a disability under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended (IDEA),
except for a student with a disability who is eligible to participate
in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement
standards consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2).
Through-course summative assessment means an assessment system
component or set of assessment system components that is administered
periodically during the academic year. A student's results from
through-course summative assessments must be combined to produce the
student's total summative assessment score for that academic year.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties
the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA,
however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements
regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or
substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant
competition for the Race to the Top Assessment Program under section
14006 of the ARRA and therefore qualifies for this exemption. In order
to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forego
public comment on the priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. (We note that, as
discussed earlier, the design of this grant competition has benefited
significantly from a series of public and expert input meetings held by
the Department.) These priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria will apply to the FY 2010 grant competition only.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, Division A, Section 14006, Public Law 111-5.
Applicable Regulations: The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80,
81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
Estimated Available Funds: $350,000,000.
Estimated Size of Awards:
A. Comprehensive Assessment Systems: $160,000,000.
B. High School Course Assessment Programs: $30,000,000.
Estimated Number of Awards
A. Comprehensive Assessment Systems: 1-2 awards.
B. High School Course Assessment Programs: 1 award.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice. The Department will determine the number of awards to be
made in each grant category based on the quality of applications
received consistent with the selection criteria. It will also
determine the size of an award made to an eligible applicant based
on a review of the eligible applicant's budget. However, with
respect to Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants, an eligible
applicant may not submit Level 1 budget modules exceeding $150
million in total, and with respect to High School Course Assessment
Programs grants, an eligible applicant may not submit a budget
exceeding $30 million. Applications requesting budget amounts that
exceed these maximum amounts will not be reviewed for funding. An
eligible applicant awarded a Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant
will receive funding for the Level 1 budget modules identified in
its application, and may receive funding for one or more Level 2
budget modules identified in its application if those modules do not
exceed the maximum amount of $10 million each and funds are
available. The Department will rank and fund separately applications
under each grant category. The Department may use any unused funds
designated for this competition to make awards in Phase 2 of the
Race to the Top Fund Program (CFDA Number 84.395A).
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Application and Submission Information
A. Address to Request Application Package: Prospective applicants
can obtain an application package for either grant category in this
competition via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center
(ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following
address: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/
index.html. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the
following: Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD
20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (301) 470-1244.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll
free: 1-877-576-7734.
Prospective applicants can also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html or at its e-mail address:
edpubs@inet.ed.gov.
If requesting an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this
competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.395B (Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants) or CFDA Number 84.395C (High School Course Assessment
Programs grants).
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape,
or computer diskette) by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT in section VI of this notice.
B. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements
concerning
[[Page 18179]]
the content of an application, together with the forms an applicant
must submit, are in the application package for each grant category in
this competition.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part I.G of the application
for each grant category) is where the applicant addresses the selection
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate applications. The Department
recommends that applicants limit the application narrative for a
Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant to no more than 60 total pages,
and for a High School Course Assessment Programs grant to no more than
45 total pages, using the following standards:
A page is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' margins
at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Each page is numbered.
Line spacing is set to 1.5 spacing, and the font used is
12 point Times New Roman font.
An applicant must limit the executive summary of its proposed
project (Part I.D of the application for each grant category) to no
more than two pages using the standards above. We will not read
information on any pages that exceed this page limit.
C. Submission Dates and Times:
Applications Available: April 9, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: April 29, 2010.
The Department will be able to develop a more efficient process for
reviewing grant applications if we have a better understanding of the
number of applications we will receive. Therefore, we strongly
encourage each prospective applicant to send an e-mail notice of its
intent to apply for funding under a grant category in this competition
to the e-mail address racetothetop.assessment@ed.gov by April 29, 2010.
The notice of intent to apply is optional; an applicant may still
submit an application if it has not notified us of its intention to
apply.
Date of Technical Assistance Meeting for Prospective Applicants:
April 22, 2010.
To assist prospective applicants in preparing an application and to
respond to questions, the Department will host a Technical Assistance
Meeting for Prospective Applicants on April 22, 2010. Detailed
information about this meeting (including the meeting location) will be
posted on the Department's Web site at http://www.ed.gov/programs/
racetothetop-assessment. Attendance at the meeting is strongly
encouraged. Announcements of any other technical assistance
opportunities for prospective applicants will also be available at the
Web site above.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 2010.
An applicant must submit an original and one paper copy of its
application for either grant category under this competition. An
applicant may submit its application by mail or hand delivery. E-mailed
applications will not be read. For more information about how to submit
an application, please refer to the Other Submission Requirements later
in this section.
The Department will not consider an application that does not
comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or
auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VI
of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or
auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the
application process, the individual's application remains subject to
all other requirements and limitations in this notice.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 23, 2010.
D. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order
12372 is in the application package for each grant category in this
competition.
E. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Requirements and Applicable Regulations in section
I of this notice.
F. Other Submission Requirements: An applicant must submit an
original and one paper copy of its application for either grant
category under this competition. An applicant may submit its
application by mail or hand delivery. E-mailed applications will not be
read.
If an applicant's application includes content that cannot be
presented in a paper copy, the applicant may submit that content
separately in one or more electronic files on a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM. The
application content must reside on the CD-ROM or DVD-ROM; the
Department will not review material in external references or links.
The files may be in any of the following formats: .DOC/.DOCX (Microsoft
Word Document), .PDF (Adobe Portable Document Format), .PPT/.PPTX
(Microsoft Powerpoint), .HTML (Hypertext Markup Language), .JPEG (Joint
Photographic Experts Group Image), .GIF (Graphics Interchange Format),
.PNG (Portable Network Graphics), .TIFF (Tagged Image Format),
.XLS/.XLSX (Microsoft Excel), .XML/.XSD (Extensible Markup Language/XML
Schema), .CSV (Comma Separated Values), .TXT (Text File), and .ZIP
(Compressed Package). If an applicant is submitting data files, it
should include in its application a description or schema of the data
elements within the files. If an applicant submits a file type other
than the types specified in this paragraph, the Department will not
review that material. Applicants should not password-protect these
files. Each electronic file name should clearly identify the part of
the application to which the content is responding. The CD-ROM or DVD-
ROM should be clearly labeled with the applicant's name and any other
relevant information. An applicant must provide 10 copies of any CD-ROM
or DVD-ROM it submits with the original and paper copy of its
application.
The Department must receive all applications by 4:30 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will not
accept an application for this competition after 4:30 p.m., Washington,
DC time, on the application deadline date. Therefore, we strongly
recommend that applicants arrange for mailing or hand delivery of their
applications in advance of the application deadline date.
(1) Submission of Applications by Mail. An applicant for either
grant category may submit its application (i.e., the original and one
paper copy of the application and, if necessary, 10 copies of an
accompanying CD-ROM or DVD-ROM with any electronic files of application
content that cannot be included in the original or paper copy of the
application) by mail (either through the U.S. Postal Service or a
commercial carrier). We must receive applications no later than 4:30
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Therefore,
to avoid delays, we strongly recommend sending applications via
overnight mail. Mailed applications for Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants must be mailed to the Department at the following
address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center,
Attention: (CFDA Number 84.395B), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260. Mailed applications for High
School Course Assessment Programs grants must be mailed to the
Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education,
Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.395C), LBJ
Basement Level
[[Page 18180]]
1, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
If we receive an application after the application deadline, we
will not consider that application.
(2) Submission of Applications by Hand Delivery. An applicant for
either grant category may submit its application (i.e., the original
and one paper copy of the application and, if necessary, 10 copies of
an accompanying CD-ROM or DVD-ROM with any electronic files of
application content that cannot be included in the original or paper
copy of the application) by hand delivery (including via a courier
service). We must receive applications no later than 4:30 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Hand-delivered
applications for Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants must be
received at the following address: U.S. Department of Education,
Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.395B), 550 12th
Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-
4260. Hand-delivered applications for High School Course Assessment
Programs grants must be received at the following address: U.S.
Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA
Number 84.395C), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand
deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time,
except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If we receive an application after the application deadline, we
will not consider that application.
(3) Envelope Requirements and Receipt: When an applicant submits
its application, whether by mail or hand delivery--
(a) It must indicate on the envelope that the CFDA number of the
competition under which it is submitting its application is 84.395B
(for Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants) or 84.395C (for High
School Course Assessment Programs grants); and
(b) The Application Control Center will mail to the applicant a
notification of receipt of the grant application. If the applicant does
not receive this notification, it should call Joyce Mays at the U.S.
Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
In accordance with 34 CFR 75.216(b) and (c), an application will
not be evaluated for funding if the applicant does not comply with all
of the procedural rules that govern the submission of the application
or the application does not contain the information required under the
program.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The requirements and selection criteria established in this notice
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). An emergency review has been requested
in accordance with the Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)), since public harm is
reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are
followed. Approval by OMB has been requested by April 5, 2010.
Burden Hour Estimates for Comprehensive Assessment Systems Grants:
We estimate 4 applicants for Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants,
and that each applicant would spend approximately 502.25 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 applicants for Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants is an
estimated 2,009 hours (4 applicants times 502.25 hours equals 2,009
hours).
Burden Hour Estimates for High School Course Assessment Programs
Grants: We estimate 2 applicants for High School Course Assessment
Programs grants, and that each applicant would spend approximately
363.25 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 applicants for High School Course
Assessment Programs grants is an estimated 726.5 hours (2 applicants
times 363.25 hours equals 726.5 hours).
Total Cost Estimates: Across both grant categories, we estimate the
average total cost per hour of the staff who carry out this work to be
$30.00 an hour. The total estimated cost for all applicants under both
grant categories would be $82,065 ($30.00 times 2,735.5 (2,009 + 726.5)
hours equals $82,065).
IV. Application Review Information
A. Comprehensive Assessment Systems:
Selection Criteria: For the Comprehensive Assessment Systems
category, we are establishing the following selection criteria for the
FY 2010 grant competition only, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Eligible applicants may receive up to 200
total points based on the extent to which their applications address
these selection criteria. The number of points that may be awarded for
each criterion is indicated in parentheses next to the criterion.
(A)(1) Consortium Governance (up to 20 points). The extent to which
the consortium's proposed governance structure will enable the
successful design, development, and implementation of the proposed
assessment system. In determining the extent to which the consortium's
proposed governance structure will enable the successful design,
development, and implementation of the proposed assessment system, we
will consider--
(a) The consortium's vision, goals, role, and key deliverables
(e.g., assessment components, scoring and moderation system,
professional development activities), and the consistency of these with
the consortium's theory of action;
(b) The consortium's structure and operations, including--
(i) The organizational structure of the consortium and the
differentiated roles that a member State may hold (e.g., lead State,
governing State (as defined in this notice), advisory State);
(ii) For each differentiated role, the rights and responsibilities
(including the level of commitment to adopting and implementing the
assessment system) associated with the role;
(iii) The consortium's method and process (e.g., consensus,
majority) for making different types of decisions (e.g., policy,
operational);
(iv) The protocols by which the consortium will operate, including
the protocols for member States to change roles or leave the consortium
and for new member States to join the consortium;
(v) The consortium's plan, including the process and timeline, for
setting key policies and definitions for the proposed assessment
system, including a common set of college- and career-ready standards
(as defined in this notice), a common set of performance level
descriptors (as defined in this notice), a common set of achievement
standards (as defined in this notice), common assessment administration
procedures, common item release and test security policies, a common
definition of ``English learner,'' and a common set of policies and
procedures for accommodations (as defined in this notice) and student
participation; and
(vi) The consortium's plan for managing funds received under this
grant category;
[[Page 18181]]
(c) The terms and conditions of the Memoranda of Understanding or
other binding agreements executed by each member State, including--
(i) The consistency of the terms and conditions with the
consortium's governance structure and the State's role in the
consortium; and
(ii) The State's commitment to and plan for identifying any
existing barriers in State law, statute, regulation, or policy to
implementing the proposed assessment system and to addressing any such
barriers prior to full implementation of the summative assessment
components of the system; and
(d) The consortium's procurement process, and evidence of each
member State's commitment to that process.
(A)(2) Theory of Action (up to 5 points). The extent to which the
eligible applicant's theory of action is logical, coherent, and
credible, and will result in improved student academic outcomes. In
determining the extent to which the theory of action has these
attributes, we will consider the description of, and rationale for--
(a) Each component of the proposed assessment system and the
relationship of the component to other components in the system;
(b) How the assessment results produced by each component will be
used;
(c) How the assessments and assessment results will be incorporated
into a coherent educational system (i.e., a system that includes
standards, assessments, curriculum, instruction, and professional
development); and
(d) How the educational system as a whole will improve student
achievement and college- and career-readiness (as defined in this
notice).
(A)(3) Assessment System Design (up to 55 points). The extent to
which the design of the eligible applicant's proposed assessment system
is innovative, feasible, and consistent with the theory of action. In
determining the extent to which the design has these attributes, we
will consider--
(a) The number and types of components (e.g., through-course
summative assessments (as defined in this notice), end-of-year
summative assessments, formative assessments, interim assessments) in
mathematics and in English language arts in the assessment system;
(b) For the assessment system as a whole--
(i) How the assessment system will measure student knowledge and
skills against the full range of the college- and career-ready
standards, including the standards against which student achievement
has traditionally been difficult to measure; and provide an accurate
measure of student achievement, including for high- and low-performing
students, and an accurate measure of student growth over a full
academic year or course;
(ii) How the assessment system will produce the required student
performance data (i.e., student achievement data and student growth
data (both as defined in this notice) that can be used to determine
whether individual students are college- and career-ready (as defined
in this notice) or on track to being college- and career-ready (as
defined in this notice));
(iii) How the assessment system will be accessible to all students,
including English learners and students with disabilities, and include
appropriate accommodations (as defined in this notice) for students
with disabilities and English learners; and
(iv) How and when during the academic year different types of
student data will be available to inform and guide instruction,
interventions, and professional development; and
(c) For each component in mathematics and in English language arts
in the assessment system--
(i) The types of data produced by the component, including student
achievement data (as defined in this notice), student growth data (as
defined in this notice), and other data;
(ii) The uses of the data produced by the component, including
determining whether individual students are college- and career-ready
(as defined in this notice) or on track to being college- and career-
ready (as defined in this notice); informing determinations of school
effectiveness for the purposes of accountability under Title I of the
ESEA; informing determinations of individual principal and teacher
effectiveness for the purposes of evaluation; informing determinations
of principal and teacher professional development and support needs;
informing teaching, learning, and program improvement; and other uses;
(iii) The frequency and timing of administration of the component,
and the rationale for these;
(iv) The number and types of items (e.g., performance tasks,
selected responses, brief or extended constructed responses) and the
distribution of item types within the component, including the extent
to which the items will be varied and elicit complex student
demonstrations or applications of knowledge and skills (descriptions
should include a concrete example of each item type proposed); and the
rationale for using these item types and their distributions;
(v) The component's administration mode (e.g., paper-and-pencil,
computer-based, or other electronic device), and the rationale for the
mode;
(vi) The methods for scoring student performance on the component,
the estimated turnaround times for scoring, and the rationale for
these; and
(vii) The reports produced based on the component, and for each
report, its intended use, target audience (e.g., students, parents,
teachers, administrators, policymakers), and the key data it presents.
(A)(4) Assessment System Development (up to 35 points). The extent
to which the eligible applicant's plan for developing the proposed
assessment system will ensure that the assessment system is ready for
wide-scale administration in a manner that is timely, cost-effective,
and consistent with the proposed design and incorporates a process for
ongoing feedback and improvement. In determining the extent to which
the development plan has these attributes, we will consider--
(a) The approaches for developing assessment items (e.g., evidence
centered design, universal design for learning \15\) and the rationale
for using those approaches; the development phases and processes to be
implemented consistent with the approaches; and the types of personnel
involved in each development phase and process (e.g., practitioners,
content experts, assessment experts, experts in assessing English
learners, experts in assessing students with disabilities,
psychometricians, cognitive scientists, IHE representatives, career and
technical education experts);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Universal design for learning'' is used as that term is
defined in section 103(24) of the HEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) The approach and strategy for designing and developing
accommodations (as defined in this notice), accommodation policies, and
methods for standardizing the use of those accommodations for--
(i) English learners; and
(ii) Students with disabilities;
(c) The approach and strategy for ensuring scalable, accurate, and
consistent scoring of items, including the approach and moderation
system (as defined in this notice) for any human-scored items that are
part of the summative assessment components and the extent to which
teachers are trained and involved in the scoring of assessments;
(d) The approach and strategy for developing the reporting system;
and
(e) The overall approach to quality control; and the strategy for
field testing
[[Page 18182]]
assessment items, accommodations, scoring systems, and reporting
systems, including, with respect to assessment items and
accommodations, the use of representative sampling of all types of
student populations, taking into particular account high- and low-
performing students and different types of English learners and
students with disabilities.
(A)(5) Research and Evaluation (up to 30 points). The extent to
which the eligible applicant's research and evaluation plan will ensure
that the assessments developed are valid, reliable, and fair for their
intended purposes and for all student subgroups. In determining the
extent to which the research and evaluation plan has these attributes,
we will consider--
(a) The plan for identifying and employing psychometric techniques
suitable to verify, as appropriate to each assessment component, its
construct, consequential, and predictive validity; external validity;
reliability; fairness; precision across the full performance continuum;
and comparability within and across grade levels; and
(b) The plan for determining whether the assessments are being
implemented as designed and the theory of action is being realized,
including whether the intended effects on individuals and institutions
are being achieved.
(A)(6) Professional Capacity and Outreach (up to 15 points). The
extent to which the eligible applicant's plan for implementing the
proposed assessment system is feasible, cost-effective, and consistent
with the theory of action. In determining the extent to which the
implementation plan has these attributes, we will consider--
(a) The plan for supporting teachers and administrators in
implementing the assessment system and for developing, in an ongoing
manner, the professional capacity to use the assessments and results to
inform and improve instructional practice; and
(b) The strategy and plan for informing the public and key
stakeholders (including legislators and policymakers) in each member
State about the assessment system and for building support for the
system from the public and those stakeholders.
(A)(7) Technology Approach (up to 10 points). The extent to which
the eligible applicant is using technology effectively to improve the
quality, accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency of the
proposed assessment system. In determining the extent to which the
eligible applicant is using technology effectively, we will consider--
(a) The description of, and rationale for--
(i) The ways in which technology will be used in assessment design,
development, administration, scoring, and reporting;
(ii) The types of technology to be used (including whether the
technology is existing and commercially-available or is being newly
developed); and
(iii) How other States or organizations can re-use in a cost-
effective manner any technology platforms and technology components
developed under this grant; and
(b) How technology-related implementation or deployment barriers
will be addressed (e.g., issues relating to local access to Internet-
based assessments).
(A)(8) Project Management (up to 30 points). The extent to which
the eligible applicant's project management plan will result in
implementation of the proposed assessment system on time, within
budget, and in a manner that is financially sustainable over time. In
determining the extent to which the project management plan has these
attributes, we will consider--
(a) The quality, qualifications, and role of the project management
partner, as evidenced by its mission, date of founding, size,
experience (including past success in implementing similar projects),
and key personnel assigned to this project (including their names,
curricula vitae, roles, percent of time dedicated to this project, and
experience in managing similar projects);
(b) The project workplan and timeline, including, for each key
deliverable (e.g., assessment component, scoring and moderation system,
professional development activities), the major milestones, deadlines,
and entities responsible for execution; and the approach to
identifying, managing, and mitigating risks associated with the
project;
(c) The extent to which the eligible applicant's budget--
(i) Clearly identifies Level 1 budget modules (as defined in this
notice) and any Level 2 budget modules (as defined in this notice);
(ii) Is adequate to support the development of an assessment system
that meets the requirements of the absolute priority; and
(iii) Includes costs that are reasonable in relation to the
objectives, design, and significance of the proposed project and the
number of students to be served; and
(d) For each member State, the estimated costs for the ongoing
administration, maintenance, and enhancement of operational assessments
in the proposed assessment system and a plan for how the State will
fund the assessment system over time (including by allocating to the
assessment system funds for existing State or local assessments that
will be replaced by assessments in the system).
B. High School Course Assessment Programs:
Selection Criteria: For the High School Course Assessment Programs
category, we are establishing the following selection criteria for the
FY 2010 grant competition only, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Eligible applicants may receive up to 200
total points based on the extent to which their applications address
these selection criteria. The total number of points that may be
awarded for each criterion and the number of points that may be awarded
for each factor within a criterion are indicated in parentheses next to
the criterion or factor.
(B)(1) Consortium Governance (up to 30 points). The extent to which
the consortium's proposed governance structure will enable the
successful design, development, and implementation of the proposed high
school course assessment program. In determining the extent to which
the consortium's proposed governance structure will enable the
successful design, development, and implementation of the proposed
assessment program, we will consider--
(a) The consortium's vision, goals, role, and key deliverables
(e.g., assessments, scoring and moderation system, certification
system, professional development activities), and the consistency of
these with the consortium's theory of action;
(b) The consortium's structure and operations, including--
(i) The organizational structure of the consortium and the
differentiated roles that a member State may hold (e.g., lead State,
governing State (as defined in this notice), advisory State);
(ii) For each differentiated role, the rights and responsibilities
(including the level of commitment to adopting and implementing the
assessment program) associated with the role;
(iii) The consortium's method and process (e.g., consensus,
majority) for making different types of decisions (e.g., policy,
operational);
(iv) The protocols by which the consortium will operate, including
the protocols for member States to change roles or leave the consortium
and for new member States to join the consortium;
(v) The key policies and definitions to which all member States
will adhere, the rationale for choosing these policies and definitions,
and the consortium's
[[Page 18183]]
plan (including the process and timeline) for developing them; and
(vi) The consortium's plan for managing funds received under this
grant category;
(c) The terms and conditions of the Memoranda of Understanding or
other binding agreements executed by each member State, including the
consistency of the terms and conditions with the consortium's
governance structure and the State's role in the consortium; and
(d) The consortium's procurement process, and evidence of each
member State's commitment to that process.
(B)(2) Theory of Action (up to 5 points). The extent to which the
eligible applicant's theory of action is logical, coherent, and
credible, and will result in improved academic outcomes for high school
students across the States in the consortium. In determining the extent
to which the theory of action has these attributes, we will consider
the description of and rationale for--
(a) How the proposed high school course assessment program will be
incorporated into a coherent high school educational system (i.e., a
system that includes standards, assessments, curriculum, instruction,
and professional development);
(b) How the assessment program's rigor will be demonstrated and
maintained over time;
(c) How the assessment program will cover diverse course offerings
that provide a variety of pathways to students; and
(d) How the assessment program will be implemented at a scale that,
across the States in the consortium, increases access to rigorous
courses for students who have not typically had such access, and
broadly improves student achievement and college and career readiness
(as defined in this notice).
(B)(3) Course Assessment Program Design and Development (up to 60
points). The extent to which the design and development of the eligible
applicant's proposed high school assessment program is feasible,
scalable, and consistent with the theory of action. In determining the
extent to which the design has these attributes, we will consider--
(a) The high school courses for which the consortium will implement
assessments; the rationale for selecting those courses, including a
need to increase access to rigorous courses for students who have not
typically had such access; and the processes by which new high school
course assessments will be added to the assessment program over time
and existing course assessments will be updated and refreshed;
(b) How the assessments will measure student knowledge and skills
against standards from a common set of college- and career-ready
standards (as defined in this notice) in subjects for which such a set
of standards exists, or otherwise against State or other rigorous
standards;
(c) How the consortium will certify the rigor of each assessment in
the assessment program, whether the assessment is new or adapted; and
how the consortium will maintain consistent and high levels of rigor
over time; and
(d) The general design and development approach for course
assessments, including--
(i) The number and types of components (e.g., mid-term tests,
through-course summative assessments (as defined in this notice), end-
of-course assessments) in a high school course assessment;
(ii) The extent to which, and, where applicable, the approach for
ensuring that, assessment items will be varied and elicit complex
student demonstrations or applications of knowledge and skills;
(iii) How the assessments will produce student achievement data (as
defined in this notice) and student growth data (as defined in this
notice);
(iv) The approach and strategy for ensuring scalable, accurate, and
consistent scoring of assessments, and the extent to which teachers are
trained and involved in the scoring of assessments; and
(v) How the course assessments will be accessible to the broadest
possible range of students, including English learners and students
with disabilities, and include appropriate accommodations (as defined
in this notice) for students with disabilities and English learners.
(B)(4) Research and Evaluation (up to 25 points). The extent to
which the eligible applicant's research and evaluation plan will ensure
that the assessments developed are valid, reliable, and fair for their
intended purposes and for all students. In determining the extent to
which the research and evaluation plan has these attributes, we will
consider--
(a) The plan for verifying validity, reliability, and fairness; and
(b) The plan for determining whether the assessments are being
implemented as designed and the theory of action is being realized,
including whether the intended effects on students and schools are
being achieved.
(B)(5) Course Assessment Program Implementation (up to 45 points).
The extent to which the eligible applicant's plan for implementing the
proposed high school course assessment program will result in increased
student enrollment in courses in the assessment program (and therefore
improved student academic outcomes) in each member State. In
determining the extent to which the implementation plan has these
attributes, we will consider--
(a) The approach to be used in each member State for promoting
participation in the high school course assessment program by high
schools, by teachers, and by students (e.g., voluntary participation,
mandatory participation, incentive programs); the plan for implementing
the approach, including goals, major activities, timelines, and
entities responsible for execution; and the expected participation
levels in each member State and across the consortium overall,
including--
(i) The number and percentage of high schools expected to implement
at least one of the assessments in the high school course assessment
program in each of five consecutive years beginning with the 2013-2014
school year;
(ii) For each assessment in the assessment program, the number and
percentage of high schools expected to implement the assessment in each
of five consecutive years beginning with the 2013-2014 school year; and
(iii) The unduplicated number and percentage of high school
students expected to take at least one assessment in the assessment
program in each of five consecutive years beginning with the 2013-2014
school year; and
(b) The plan for supporting teachers and administrators in
implementing the high school course assessment program and for
developing, in an ongoing manner, the professional capacity to use the
assessments and results to inform and improve instructional practice.
(B)(6) Project Management (up to 35 points). The extent to which
the eligible applicant's project management plan will result in
implementation of the proposed high school course assessment program on
time, within budget, and in a manner that is financially sustainable
over time. In determining the extent to which the project management
plan has these attributes, we will consider--
(a) The quality, qualifications, and role of the project management
partner, as evidenced by its mission, date of founding, size,
experience (including past success in implementing similar projects),
and key personnel assigned to this project (including their names,
curricula vitae, roles, percent of time dedicated to this project, and
experience in managing similar projects);
(b) The project workplan and timeline, including, for each key
[[Page 18184]]
deliverable (e.g., assessments, scoring and moderation system,
certification system, professional development activities), the major
milestones, deadlines, and entities responsible for execution;
(c) The extent to which the eligible applicant's budget--
(i) Is adequate to support the development of a high school
assessment program that meets the requirements of the absolute
priority;
(ii) Includes costs that are reasonable in relation to the
objectives, design, and significance of the proposed project and the
number of students to be served; and
(d) For each member State, the estimated costs for the ongoing
administration, maintenance, and enhancement of operational assessments
in the proposed assessment program and a plan for how the State will
fund the assessment program over time (including by allocating to the
assessment program funds for existing State or local assessments that
will be replaced by assessments in the program).
C. Review and Selection Process: The Department will screen
applications that are received in accordance with the requirements in
this notice and determine which applications will be reviewed for
funding based on whether the applicant has met the eligibility
requirements for the grant category and has requested a budget amount
that does not exceed the maximum amount for the grant category as
discussed in the Award Information section of this notice (section II).
Applications from applicants that do not meet the eligibility
requirements for the grant category or that request a budget amount
that exceeds the maximum amount for the grant category will not be
reviewed for funding. Reviewers \16\ will then review and score
applications using the competitive preference priorities, selection
criteria and points included in this notice, and determine whether
applications meet the Absolute Priority for the grant category.
Applications that do not meet the Absolute Priority will not be
considered for funding. The reviewers' scores will be averaged for each
application that meets the Absolute Priority for the grant category,
and those applications will be rank ordered in each grant category.
After the review process is complete, the Secretary will select,
consistent with 34 CFR 75.217, the grantees for each grant category
after considering the rank order of applications, the funding
available, and any other relevant information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Department intends to use a panel of expert,
independent reviewers who have been chosen from a pool of qualified
assessment and management experts. The Department will thoroughly
screen all reviewers for conflicts of interest in order to ensure a
fair and competitive review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Award Administration Information
A. Award Notices: If an application is successful, the Department
will notify the applicant's U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and
send the applicant a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may also notify
the applicant informally.
If an application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we
will notify the applicant.
B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy requirements in the application
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable
Regulations in section I of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations in section I of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates the approved application as part of the applicant's
binding commitments under the grant.
C. Reporting: Grantees (i.e., applicants that receive an award)
under this program must submit an annual performance report that
provides the most current performance and financial expenditure
information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The
Secretary may require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR
75.720(c). At the end of the project period, grantees must also submit
a final performance report, including financial information, as
directed by the Secretary.
Grantees under this program must also meet the reporting
requirements that apply to all programs funded under the ARRA.
Specifically, grantees must submit reports, within 10 days after the
end of each calendar quarter, that contain the information required
under section 1512(c) of the ARRA in accordance with any guidance
issued by the Office of Management and Budget or the Department (ARRA
Division A, Section 1512(c)).
In addition, for each year of the program, grantees must comply
with the requirements of ARRA Division A, Section 14008, and other
performance reporting that the Department may require.
The Department will monitor grantees' progress in meeting project
goals, objectives, timelines, and budget requirements; and may require
grantees to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Department.
D. Performance Measures: We are establishing the following
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) performance
measures for the Race to the Top Assessment Program:
Comprehensive Assessment Systems Grants
The performance measures for Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grants are:
1. Number of States that have formally adopted a common set of
college- and career-ready standards in mathematics and English language
arts;
2. Number of States that have fully implemented the summative
assessment components of the assessment systems;
3. Number of IHEs that are working with grantees to design and
develop the final high school summative assessments in mathematics and
English language arts;
4. Number of IHEs that have implemented policies that exempt from
remedial courses and place into credit-bearing college courses students
who meet the achievement standard for the final high school summative
assessments in mathematics and English language arts and any other
placement requirements; and
5. Percentage of direct matriculation students (as defined in this
notice) in public IHEs who are enrolled in IHEs that are working with
grantees to design and develop the final high school summative
assessments in mathematics and English language arts and/or have
implemented policies that exempt from remedial courses and place into
credit-bearing college courses students who meet the achievement
standard for the final high school summative assessments in mathematics
and English language arts.
High School Course Assessment Programs Grants
The performance measures for High School Course Assessment Programs
grants are:
1. Number of courses for which assessments have been developed
under the high school assessment programs;
2. Number of States implementing the high school course assessment
programs;
3. Percentage of LEAs in each State implementing at least one
assessment in the high school course assessment programs;
4. Percentage of high schools in each State implementing at least
one assessment in the high school course assessment programs;
5. For each assessment in the high school course assessment
programs,
[[Page 18185]]
percentage of high schools in each State implementing the assessment;
6. Percentage of students in each State taking at least one
assessment in the high school course assessment programs; and
7. Percentage of high schools in each State that incorporate
courses in the high school course assessment programs into requirements
for high school diplomas or certificates.
VI. Agency Contacts
For Further Information Contact: James Butler, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3C108, Washington, DC 20202-
6400. Telephone: (202) 453-7246 or by e-mail:
racetothetop.assessment@ed.gov.
If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
VII. Other Information
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document and a copy of the application package 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 in section VI of this notice.
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.
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: April 6, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2010-8176 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P