Race to the Top Fund, 37804-37837 [E9-17909]
Download as PDF
37804
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0006]
RIN 1810–AB07
Race to the Top Fund
Department of Education.
Notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 84.395A.
The Secretary of Education
(Secretary) proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for the Race to the Top Fund.
The Secretary may use these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in any year in which this
program is in effect.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before August 28, 2009. We
encourage you to submit comments well
in advance of this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by e-mail. Please
submit your comments only one time in
order to ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies. In addition, please
include the Docket ID and the term
‘‘Race to the Top’’ at the top of your
comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov to submit
your comments electronically.
Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing
agency documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket, is
available on the site under ‘‘How To Use
This Site.’’ A direct link to the docket
page is also available at https://
www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop.
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, address them to Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education
(Attention: Race to the Top Fund
Comments), U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Room 3W329, Washington, DC 20202.
• Privacy Note: The Department’s
policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those
comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery)
is to make these submissions available
for public viewing in their entirety on
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
information that they wish to make
publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth
Yeh, U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6W219,
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
202–205–3775 or by e-mail:
racetothetop@ed.gov. Note that we will
not accept comments by e-mail.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at
1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we
urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement,
definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses. We encourage
you to submit comments in advance of
the date by which they must be
received.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we
could reduce potential costs or increase
potential benefits while preserving the
effective and efficient administration of
the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect
the comments in person, in Room
3W329, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern time,
Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The Race to the
Top Fund, authorized under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides
approximately $4.3 billion for
competitive grants to States to
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
encourage and reward States that are
creating the conditions for education
innovation and reform; implementing
ambitious plans in the four education
reform areas described in the ARRA;
and achieving significant improvement
in student outcomes, including making
substantial gains in student
achievement, closing achievement gaps,
improving high school graduation rates,
and ensuring student preparation for
success in college and careers.
Program Authority: American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A,
Section 14006, Public Law 111–5.
Background for Proposed Priorities,
Requirements, Definitions, and
Selection Criteria
The Statutory Context
On February 17, 2009, President
Obama signed into law the ARRA,
historic legislation designed to stimulate
the economy, support job creation, and
invest in critical sectors, including
education. The ARRA lays the
foundation for education reform by
supporting investments in innovative
strategies that are most likely to lead to
improved results for students, long-term
gains in school and school system
capacity, and increased productivity
and effectiveness.
The ARRA provides $4.3 billion for
the Race to the Top Fund (referred to in
the statute as the State Incentive Grant
Fund). This is a competitive grant
program designed to encourage and
reward States that are implementing
significant education reforms across
four ‘‘assurance’’ areas. Specifically,
section 14006(a)(2) of the ARRA
requires States to have made significant
progress in the following four education
reform areas in order to receive a grant:
implementing standards and
assessments, improving teacher
effectiveness and achieving equity in
teacher distribution, improving
collection and use of data, and
supporting struggling schools. In
addition, as required by section
14006(c) of the ARRA, States that
receive a Race to the Top grant must use
at least 50 percent of the award to
provide subgrants to local educational
agencies (LEAs), including public
charter schools identified as LEAs under
State law, based upon LEAs’ relative
shares of funding under Part A of Title
I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA). LEAs that choose to participate
in their State’s Race to the Top proposal
must agree to fully implement the
State’s proposed plan and to use their
funding under this grant in support of
that plan.
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
The ARRA also requires that the
Governor apply on behalf of a State
seeking a Race to the Top grant, and
section 14005(c) of the ARRA
specifically requires that a Race to the
Top application:
• Describe the status of the State’s
progress in each of the four education
reform areas, and the strategies the State
is employing to help ensure that
students in the subgroups described in
section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA
(i.e., economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, students with
disabilities, and students with limited
English proficiency) who have not met
the State’s proficiency targets continue
making progress toward meeting the
State’s student academic achievement
standards;
• Describe the achievement and
graduation rates (as described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(vi) of the ESEA and as
clarified in 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)) of
public elementary and secondary school
students in the State, and the strategies
the State is employing to help ensure
that all subgroups of students identified
in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the
ESEA continue making progress toward
meeting the State’s student academic
achievement standards;
• Describe how the State would use
its grant funding to improve student
academic achievement in the State,
including how it will allocate the funds
to give priority to high-need LEAs (as
defined in this notice); and
• Include a plan for evaluating the
State’s progress in closing achievement
gaps.
In this notice, we propose additional
specific priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria
regarding the applications that
individual States submit for
approximately $4 billion of Race to the
Top funds. At a later date, we may
announce a separate Race to the Top
Standards and Assessment competition,
for approximately $350 million, to
support the development of assessments
by consortia of States.
Structure of Race to the Top
Race to the Top will reward States for
having created the conditions for reform
(as measured through the State Reform
Conditions Criteria proposed in this
notice) and for increasing student
achievement. Race to the Top will also
provide incentives for States to develop
and implement comprehensive reform
strategies that are integrated across the
four ARRA education reform areas and
lead to improved student outcomes (as
measured through the Reform Plan
Criteria proposed herein). The
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Department expects successful
applicants to clear a high bar on both
State Reform Conditions and Reform
Plan Criteria. Proposed State Reform
Conditions and Reform Plan Criteria are
described in detail in the Proposed
Selection Criteria section of this notice.
To ensure that the State’s Race to the
Top plans (which the State will describe
in its application in response to the
Reform Plan Criteria) are
comprehensive, coherent, and
measurable, we propose that States
describe their approaches and, where
appropriate, set annual targets for each
of the Reform Plan Criteria.
Note: The proposed annual targets are set
forth in the Appendix to this notice. These
targets are specific to Race to the Top, and
they are in addition to, not a replacement for,
the existing annual requirements under the
ESEA.) The annual targets should be
achievable but sufficiently ambitious to
support a successful Race to the Top grant
application.
Under the statute, at least 50 percent
of the funds under a State’s Race to the
Top grant must be provided to LEAs
based on LEAs’ relative shares of
funding under part A of Title I of the
ESEA. The remaining funds are
available to the State for State-level
activities and for disbursements to LEAs
and other eligible entities under such
formulas, competitive processes, or
other mechanisms as the State may
propose in its plan. We propose that a
State incorporate into its plan the
activities that LEAs will undertake to
advance the four education reform
areas.
Timing of Applications and Awards
The Department plans to make Race
to the Top grants in two phases. States
that are ready to apply may do so in
Phase 1, which will open in late
calendar year 2009. States that need
more time—for example, to engage in
planning with and secure commitments
from superintendents, school boards,
principals, teachers, union leaders, and
community supporters, or others—may
apply in Phase 2, which will open in
late Spring of calendar year 2010. States
that apply in Phase 1 but are not
awarded grants may reapply for funding
in Phase 2, together with States that are
applying for the first time in Phase 2.
Phase 1 grantees may not apply for
additional funding in Phase 2. We will
announce specific deadlines for both
Phase 1 and Phase 2 in subsequent
notice(s) inviting applications for funds
under this program.
I. Proposed Priorities
Background: The Secretary proposes
five priorities for the Race to the Top
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
37805
competition. We are proposing to
designate Proposed Priority 1 as an
absolute priority, Proposed Priority 2 as
a competitive preference priority, and
Proposed Priorities 3 through 5 as
invitational priorities. We may choose,
in the notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria, to change the designation of any
of these priorities to absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational
priorities, or to include the substance of
these priorities in the selection criteria.
Under an absolute priority, as
specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we
would consider only applications that
meet the priority. Under a competitive
preference priority, we would give
competitive preference to an application
by (1) awarding additional points,
depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an
application that meets the priority over
an application of comparable merit that
does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)). With an invitational
priority, we would signal our interest in
receiving applications that meet the
priority; however, consistent with 34
CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not give an
application that meets an invitational
priority preference over other
applications.
Proposed Priority 1: Absolute Priority—
Comprehensive Approach to the Four
Education Reform Areas
To meet this priority, the State’s
application must comprehensively
address each of the four education
reform areas specified in the ARRA to
demonstrate that the State and its
participating LEAs are taking a systemic
approach to education reform. The
State’s application must describe how
the State and participating LEAs intend
to use Race to the Top and other funds
to implement comprehensive and
coherent policies and practices in the
four education reform areas, and how
these are designed to increase student
achievement, reduce the achievement
gap across student subgroups (as
described in section 303(b)(2)(G) of the
National Assessment of Educational
Progress Authorization Act (NAEP) 1),
and increase the rates at which students
1 This statute, rather than relevant sections of the
ESEA, is referenced because it provides the most
recent listing of NAEP subgroups. We propose using
the NAEP to monitor overall increases in student
achievement and decreases in the achievement gap
over the course of this grant because the NAEP
provides a way to report consistently across Race
to the Top grantees as well as within a State over
time as the State transitions from its current
assessments to the high-quality assessments (as
defined in this notice).
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37806
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
graduate from high school prepared for
college and careers.
Proposed Priority 2: Competitive
Preference Priority—Emphasis on
Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM)
To meet this priority, the State’s
application must describe plans to
address the need to (i) offer a rigorous
course of study in mathematics,
sciences, technology, and engineering;
(ii) cooperate with industry experts,
museums, universities, research centers,
or other STEM-capable community
partners to prepare and assist teachers
in integrating STEM content across
grades and disciplines, in promoting
effective and relevant instruction, and
in offering applied learning
opportunities for students; and (iii)
prepare more students for advanced
study and careers in the sciences,
technology, engineering, and
mathematics, including addressing the
needs of underrepresented groups and
of women and girls in the areas of
science, technology, engineering and
mathematics.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Proposed Priorities 3 Through 5:
Proposed Priority 3—Invitational
Priority— Expansion and Adaptation of
Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
The Secretary is particularly
interested in applications in which the
State plans to expand statewide
longitudinal data systems to include or
integrate data from special education
programs, limited English proficiency
programs, early childhood programs,
human resources, finance, health,
postsecondary, and other relevant areas,
with the purpose of allowing important
questions related to policy or practice to
be asked and answered.
The Secretary is also particularly
interested in applications in which
States propose working together to
adapt one State’s statewide longitudinal
data system so that it may be used, in
whole or in part, by other State(s), rather
than having each State build or continue
building such system(s) independently.
Proposed Priority 4—Invitational
Priority—P–20 Coordination and
Vertical Alignment
The Secretary is particularly
interested in applications in which the
State plans to address how early
childhood programs, K–12 schools,
postsecondary institutions, and
workforce organizations will coordinate
to improve all parts of the education
system and create a more seamless P–20
route for students. Vertical alignment
across P–20 is particularly critical at
each point where a transition occurs
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:41 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
(e.g., between early childhood and K–
12, or between K–12 and post
secondary) to ensure that students
exiting one level are prepared for
success, without remediation, in the
next.
Proposed Priority 5—Invitational
Priority—School-Level Conditions for
Reform and Innovation
The Secretary is particularly
interested in applications in which the
State’s participating LEAs provide
schools, where appropriate, with
flexibilities and autonomies conducive
to reform and innovation, such as—
(i) Selecting staff;
(ii) Implementing new structures and
formats for the school day or year that
expand learning time;
(iii) Placing budgets under the
schools’ control;
(iv) Awarding credit to students based
on student performance instead of
instructional time; and
(v) Providing comprehensive services
to high-need students (e.g., through
local partnerships, internal staffing, and
contracts with outside providers).
II. Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following
requirements for this program. We may
apply these requirements in any year in
which this program is in effect.
A. Eligibility Requirements
Background: We are proposing two
eligibility requirements for Race to the
Top applicants. First, we propose that a
State must have an approved
application under both Phase 1 and
Phase 2 of the State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund (Stabilization) program of the
ARRA in order to be eligible to receive
an award from the Race to the Top
competition. Section 14005(d) of the
ARRA requires a State that receives
funds under the Stabilization program
to provide assurances in the same four
education reform areas that will be
advanced by the Race to the Top grant.
We therefore believe that it would be
inconsistent to award a Race to the Top
grant, which requires a determination
that a State has made significant
progress in the four education reform
areas, to a State that has not met
requirements for receiving funds under
the Stabilization program.
Second, we propose that to be eligible
under this program, a State must not
have any legal, statutory, or regulatory
barriers to linking student achievement
or student growth data to teachers for
the purpose of teacher and principal
evaluation. Research indicates that
teacher quality is a critical contributor
to student learning and that there is
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
dramatic variation in teacher quality.2
Yet it is difficult to predict teacher
quality based on the qualifications that
teachers bring to the job. Indeed,
measures such as certification, master’s
degrees, and years of teaching
experience have limited predictive
power on this point.3 Therefore, one of
the most effective ways to accurately
assess teacher quality is to measure the
growth in achievement of a teacher’s
students;4 5 and by aggregating the
performance of students across teachers
within a school, to assess principal
quality. Current law in a number of
States presents an obstacle to efforts to
improve teacher quality by prohibiting
data regarding student achievement
from being tied to teachers for the
purposes of evaluation. This capability
is fundamental to Race to the Top
reforms and to the requirement in
section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA that
States take actions to improve teacher
effectiveness. Without this legal
authority, States would not be able to
execute reform plans relating to several
selection criteria in this notice (see
Selection Criteria (C)(2) through (C)(5)),
because these plans must require LEAs
and schools to determine which
2 See, e.g. Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and
Douglas O. Staiger (2006), ‘‘What Does Certification
Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence
from New York City,’’ NBER Working Paper No.
12155; Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and
John F. Kain (2005), ‘‘Teachers, Schools, and
Academic Achievement,’’ Econometrica, 73(2),
417–458; Rockoff, Jonah. E. (2004), ‘‘The Impact of
Individual Teachers on Students’ Achievement:
Evidence from Panel Data,’’ American Economic
Review 94(2), 247–52; Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (2004), ‘‘Teachers
Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining
Effective Teachers’’, p. 3; Leithwood, Kenneth,
Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla
Wahlstrom (2004), ‘‘How Leadership Influences
Student Learning,’’ Wallace Foundation Learning
from Leadership Project; Aaronson, Daniel, Lisa
Barrow, and William Sander (2003), ‘‘Teacher and
Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High
Schools,’’ Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Working
Paper 2002–28.
3 Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005). Kane,
Rockoff, and Staiger (2006). Aaronson, Barrow, and
Sander (2003).
4 For example, Rockoff et al. find that even using
a detailed data set on incoming teacher
characteristics allows them to predict only about 12
percent of the variance of the expected distribution
of teacher effectiveness. Jonah E. Rockoff, Brian A.
Jacob, Thomas J. Kane, and Douglas O. Staiger
(2008), ‘‘Can You Recognize an Effective Teacher
When You Recruit One?’’ NBER Working Paper No.
14485. Similarly, Goldhaber et al. show that the
variance in student achievement due to
unobservable teacher variables is 40 times greater
than the variance due to observable teacher
variables. Dan Goldhaber, Dominic Brewer, and
Deborah J. Anderson (1999), ‘‘A three-way error
components analysis of educational
productivity,’’ Education Economics 7 (3): 199–208.
5 Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006). Aaronson,
Barrow, and Sander (2003).
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
teachers and principals are effective
using student achievement data.
Proposed Eligibility Requirements: We
propose the following requirements that
a State must meet in order to be eligible
to receive funds under this program.
(a) In order for the State to be eligible
for the Race to the Top Phase 1
competition, the State’s applications for
funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of
the Stabilization program must be
approved by the Department by
December 31, 2009. In order for the
State to be eligible for the Race to the
Top Phase 2 competition, the State’s
application for funding under Phase 1
and Phase 2 of the Stabilization program
must be approved by the Department
prior to the State submitting its Race to
the Top Phase 2 application.
(b) The State does not have any legal,
statutory, or regulatory barriers to
linking data on student achievement (as
defined in this notice) or student growth
(as defined in this notice) to teachers
and principals for the purpose of
teacher and principal evaluation.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
B. Application Requirements
Background: Section 14005(c) of the
ARRA requires that certain information
(as discussed earlier in this notice) be
included in States’ Race to the Top
applications. Consistent with those
requirements and the need for
additional information that will ensure
a fair and accurate peer review of the
grant applications, we propose the
following requirements for the
application a State would submit to the
Department for funding under this
program.
The Department recognizes that
requests for data and information
should reflect an integrated and
coordinated approach among the
various ARRA programs, particularly
the State Fiscal Stabilization, Race to
the Top, School Improvement Grants,
and Statewide Longitudinal Data
Systems grant programs. Accordingly,
the Department will continue to
evaluate our requests for data and
information under this program in
context with the other ARRA programs.
Proposed Application Requirements
(a) The State’s application must be
signed by the Governor, the State’s chief
school officer, and the president of the
State board of education.
(b) The State must describe the
progress it has made to date in each of
the four education reform areas,
including how the State has used ARRA
and other Federal and State funding
over the last several years to pursue
reforms in these areas (as described in
Overall Selection Criterion (E)(1)).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
(c) The State must provide financial
data to show whether and to what
extent the percentage of the total
revenues available to the State (as
defined in this notice) that were used to
support elementary, secondary, and
public higher education for FY 2009
increased, decreased, or remained the
same compared to FY 2008 (as
described in Overall Selection Criterion
(E)(2)).
(d) The State must describe its
statewide support from stakeholders
and LEAs, including public charter
schools identified as LEAs under State
law (as described in Overall Selection
Criterion (E)(3)).
(e) The State must include a budget
that details how it will use grant funds
and other resources to meet targets and
perform related functions, including
how it will use funds awarded under
this program to—
(1) Achieve its targets for improving
student achievement and graduation
rates and for closing achievement gaps
(as described in Overall Selection
Criterion (E)(4)); and
(2) Give priority to high-need LEAs
(as defined in this notice), in addition
to providing 50 percent of the grant to
participating LEAs based on their
relative shares of funding under part A
of Title I of the ESEA as required under
section 14006(c) of the ARRA.
(f) The State must provide, for each
State Reform Conditions Criterion
(listed later in this notice), a description
of the State’s current status in meeting
that Criterion, and at a minimum, the
information requested as supporting
evidence for the Criterion. The
Appendix to this notice contains a table
listing the proposed evidence.
(g) The State must provide, for each
Reform Plan Criterion (listed later in
this notice) a detailed plan for use of
grant funds that includes, but need not
be limited to—
(1) The key activities to be
undertaken;
(2) The goals and rationale for the
activities, which may include but need
not be limited to evidence of the past
effectiveness of those activities, as
documented in research or through the
effective implementation of an activity
in one or more States, LEAs, or schools
(which may include charter schools);
(3) The timeline for implementing the
activities;
(4) The party or parties responsible for
implementing the activities;
(5) The resources the State will use to
support the activities (e.g., funding,
personnel, systems);
(6) The State’s annual targets, where
applicable, with respect to the
performance measures aligned to the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
37807
Criterion for the four school years
beginning with the 2010–2011 school
year. The Appendix to this notice
contains a table listing the proposed
performance measures. Where plans are
proposed for reform efforts not covered
by a performance measure specified by
the Department, States are encouraged
to propose performance measures and
annual targets for those efforts; and
(7) The information requested as
supporting evidence, if any (as
described in the Appendix), for the
Criterion, together with any additional
information the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers.
(h) The State must submit a
certification from the State Attorney
General, or other chief State legal
officer, that the State’s description of,
and statements and conclusions
concerning, State law (for example, with
respect to the Eligibility Requirement
regarding teacher effectiveness or any of
the applicable Selection Criteria) in its
application are complete, accurate, and
constitute a reasonable interpretation of
State law.
C. Annual Report and Performance
Measures
The Secretary proposes core
performance measures for evaluating the
performance of States receiving funds
under this program. See the Appendix
to this notice for the proposed
performance measures.
In addition, a State receiving funds
under this program must submit to the
Department an annual report which may
include, in addition to the standard
elements, a description of the State’s
and its LEAs’ progress to date on their
goals, timelines, and budgets, as well as
actual performance compared to the
annual targets the State established in
its application with respect to each
performance measure.
Further, a State receiving funds under
this program and its participating LEA
are accountable for meeting the goals,
timelines, budget, and annual targets
established in the application; adhering
to an annual fund drawdown schedule
that is tied to meeting these goals,
timelines, budget, and annual targets;
and fulfilling and maintaining all other
conditions for the conduct of the
project.
The Department will monitor a State’s
and its participating LEAs’ progress in
meeting its goals, timelines, budget, and
annual targets and in fulfilling other
applicable requirements. To support a
collaborative process between the State
and the Department, the Department
may require that applicants who are
selected to receive an award enter into
a written performance or cooperative
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37808
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
agreement with the Department. If the
Department determines that a State is
not meeting its goals, timelines, budget,
or annual targets or is not fulfilling
other applicable requirements, the
Department will take appropriate action,
which could include a collaborative
process between the Department and the
State, or enforcement measures with
respect to this grant such as placing the
State in high-risk status, putting the
State on reimbursement payment status,
or delaying or withholding funds.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
D. Other Program Requirements
We propose the following additional
requirements for States receiving funds
under this program:
(a) The State and its participating
LEAs must use funds under this
program to participate in a national
evaluation of the program, if the
Department chooses to conduct one. In
addition, the Department is seeking
comment on whether a State should,
instead of or in addition to a national
evaluation, be required to conduct its
own evaluation of its program activities
using funds under this program. The
Department will announce in the notice
inviting applications the evaluation
approach(es) that will be required.
(b) The State must participate in all
applicable technical assistance activities
that may be conducted by the
Department or its designees.
(c) The State must make freely
available all of the outputs (e.g.,
materials, tools, processes, systems) that
it or its designated partners produce
related to its grant, including by posting
the outputs on any Web site identified
or sponsored by the Department.
III. Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following
criteria for reviewing applications
submitted under this program. We may
apply one or more of these criteria in
any year in which this program is in
effect. In the notice inviting
applications, the application package, or
both, we will announce the maximum
number of points assigned to each
criterion.
As discussed elsewhere in this notice,
we propose using two types of selection
criteria—State Reform Conditions
Criteria and Reform Plan Criteria—to
rate a State’s application for Race to the
Top funds. State Reform Conditions
Criteria will be used to assess a State’s
past progress and its success in creating
conditions for reform in specific areas
related to the four ARRA education
reform areas. The Reform Plan Criteria
will be used to assess States’ plans for
future efforts in the four ARRA
education reform areas.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
In the Appendix, we list both the
minimum evidence, if any, that the
State must provide to assist the
Department and peer reviewers in
determining whether a State’s
application meets each Criterion, and
the performance measures, if any, for
each Reform Plan Criterion. States may
submit additional information if they
deem it to be relevant and useful. In
addition, States that have submitted the
requested information to the
Department for other programs are
welcome to indicate that they would
like a specific previous submission to be
used as evidence, or they may provide
an updated submission.
For each Reform Plan Criterion, peer
reviewers will also consider the extent
to which States, where applicable, set
ambitious yet achievable annual targets
against the performance measure, to
support the State’s plan. Grantees will
report their progress with respect to
these performance measures and annual
targets as part of their annual reports.
Proposed Selection Criteria
A. Standards and Assessments
Note: Under this reform area, we are
proposing several Criteria that will be
different for applications submitted under
Phase 1 and Phase 2. Where the Criteria are
different, we have so indicated.
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(A)(1) Developing and adopting
common standards: 6
(i) For Phase 1 applications: The
extent to which the State has
demonstrated commitment to improving
the quality of its standards by
participating in a consortium of States
that is working toward jointly
developing and adopting, by June 2010,
a common set of K–12 standards (as
defined in this notice) that are
internationally benchmarked and that
build toward college and career
readiness by the time of high school
graduation, and the extent to which this
consortium includes a significant
number of States.
(ii) For Phase 2 applications: Whether
the State has demonstrated commitment
to improving the quality of its standards
by adopting, as part of a multi-State
consortium, a common set of K–12
standards (as defined in this notice) that
are internationally benchmarked and
that build toward college and career
readiness by the time of high school
6 A State’s responses to proposed Indicator (c)(2)
and Descriptor (c)(1) in its Stabilization program
Phase 2 application may contain information
responsive, in part, to this State Reform Conditions
Criterion, to which the State may refer and
incorporate in its Race to the Top application.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
graduation, and the extent to which this
consortium includes a significant
number of States.
(A)(2) Developing and implementing
common, high-quality assessments: 7
Whether the State has demonstrated a
commitment to improving the quality of
its assessments by participating in a
consortium of States that is working
toward jointly developing and
implementing common, high-quality
assessments (as defined in this notice)
aligned with the consortium’s common
set of K–12 standards (as defined in this
notice) that are internationally
benchmarked and that build toward
college and career readiness by the time
of high school graduation, and the
extent to which this consortium
includes a significant number of States.
Reform Plan Criteria
(A)(3) Supporting transition to
enhanced standards and high-quality
assessments: 8 The extent to which the
State, in collaboration with its
participating LEAs, has a high-quality
plan for supporting a statewide
transition to and implementation of (a)
internationally benchmarked K–12
standards that build toward college and
career readiness by the time of high
school graduation, and (b) high-quality
assessments (as defined in this notice)
tied to these standards. State or LEA
activities might include: Aligning high
school exit criteria and college entrance
requirements with the new assessments;
developing, disseminating, and
implementing curricular frameworks
and materials, formative and interim
assessments (as defined in this notice),
and professional development materials;
and engaging in other strategies that
translate the standards and information
from assessments into classroom
practice.
B. Data Systems to Support Instruction
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(B)(1) Fully implementing a statewide
longitudinal data system: 9 The extent to
7 A State’s responses to proposed Indicator (c)(2)
and Descriptor (c)(1) in its Stabilization program
Phase 2 application may contain information
responsive, in part, to this State Reform Conditions
Criterion, to which the State may refer and
incorporate in its Race to the Top application.
8 A State’s responses to proposed Indicators
(c)(1)–(c)(13) and Descriptor (c)(1) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application may
contain information related to this Reform Plan
Criterion, to which the State can refer and build
upon in its Race to the Top application.
9 The State’s responses to proposed Indicator
(b)(1) and requirements II.c.1.A and II.c.1.B.(i–iii) in
its Stabilization program Phase 2 application may
contain information responsive, in part, to this State
Reform Conditions Criterion, to which the State can
refer and build upon in its Race to the Top
application.
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
which the State has a statewide
longitudinal data system that includes
all of the elements specified in section
6401(e)(2)(D) of the America
COMPETES Act (as defined in this
notice).
to certification (as defined in this
notice) for teachers and principals,
particularly routes that allow for
providers in addition to institutions of
higher education; and the extent to
which these routes are in use.
Reform Plan Criteria
(B)(2) Accessing and using State
data: 10 The extent to which the State
has a high-quality plan to ensure that
data from the State’s statewide
longitudinal data system are accessible
to, and used to inform and engage, as
appropriate, key stakeholders (e.g.,
parents, students, teachers, principals,
LEA leaders, community members,
unions, researchers, and policymakers);
that the data support decision-makers in
the continuous improvement of
instruction, operations, management,
and resource allocation; and that they
comply with the applicable
requirements of the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
(B)(3) Using data to improve
instruction: 11 The extent to which the
State, in collaboration with its
participating LEAs, has a high-quality
plan to—
(i) Increase the use of instructional
improvement systems (as defined in this
notice) that provide teachers, principals,
and administrators with the information
they need to inform and improve their
instructional practices, decisionmaking, and overall effectiveness; and
(ii) Make these data, together with
statewide longitudinal data system data,
available and accessible to researchers
so that they have detailed information
with which to evaluate the effectiveness
of instructional materials, strategies, and
approaches for educating different types
of students (e.g., students with
disabilities, limited English proficient
students, students whose achievement
is well below or above grade level), in
a manner that complies with the
applicable requirements of FERPA.
Reform Plan Criteria
(C)(2) Differentiating teacher and
principal effectiveness based on
performance: 12 The extent to which the
State, in collaboration with its
participating LEAs, has a high-quality
plan and ambitious yet achievable
annual targets to (a) Determine an
approach to measuring student growth
(as defined in this notice); (b) employ
rigorous, transparent, and equitable
processes for differentiating the
effectiveness of teachers and principals
using multiple rating categories that
take into account data on student
growth (as defined in this notice) as a
significant factor; (c) provide to each
teacher and principal his or her own
data and rating; and (d) use this
information when making decisions
regarding—
(i) Evaluating annually and
developing teachers and principals,
including by providing timely and
constructive feedback and targeted
professional development;
(ii) Compensating and promoting
teachers and principals, including by
providing opportunities for teachers and
principals who are highly effective (as
defined in this notice) to obtain
additional compensation and
responsibilities; and
(iii) Granting tenure to and dismissing
teachers and principals based on
rigorous and transparent procedures for
awarding tenure (where applicable) and
for removing tenured and untenured
teachers and principals after they have
had ample opportunities to improve but
have not done so.
(C)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution
of effective teachers and principals: 13
The extent to which the State has a
high-quality plan and ambitious yet
achievable annual targets to increase the
number and percentage of highly
effective teachers and principals (as
defined in this notice) in high-poverty
schools (as defined in this notice), and
to increase the number and percentage
of effective teachers (as defined in this
C. Great Teachers and Leaders
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(C)(1) Providing alternative pathways
for aspiring teachers and principals:
The extent to which the State has in
place legal, statutory, or regulatory
provisions that allow alternative routes
10 A State’s responses to proposed Indicator (b)(2)
and requirements II.c.2.A and II.c.2.B(i–iii) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application may
contain information related to this Reform Plan
Criterion, to which the State can refer and build
upon in its Race to the Top application.
11 A State’s responses to proposed Indicator (b)(2)
and requirements II.c.2.A and II.c.2.B(i–iii) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application may
contain information related to this Reform Plan
Criteria, to which the State can refer and build upon
in its Race to the Top application.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
12 A State’s responses to proposed Indicators
(a)(2) and (a)(5) and Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) in
its Stabilization program Phase 2 application may
contain information related to this Reform Plan
Criterion, to which the State can refer and build
upon in its Race to the Top application.
13 A State’s response to proposed Indicator (a)(1)
in its Stabilization program Phase 2 application
may contain information related to this Reform Plan
Criterion, to which the State can refer and build
upon in its Race to the Top application.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
37809
notice) teaching hard-to-staff subjects
including mathematics, science, special
education, English language proficiency,
and other hard-to-staff subjects
identified by the State or LEA. Plans
may include, but are not limited to, the
implementation of incentives and
strategies in areas such as recruitment,
compensation, career development, and
human resources practices and
processes.
(C)(4) Reporting the effectiveness of
teacher and principal preparation
programs: The extent to which the State
has a high-quality plan and ambitious
yet achievable annual targets to link a
student’s achievement data to the
student’s teachers and principals, to
link this information to the programs
where each of those teachers and
principals was prepared for
credentialing, and to publicly report the
findings for each credentialing program
that has twenty or more graduates
annually.
(C)(5) Providing effective support to
teachers and principals: The extent to
which the State, in collaboration with
its participating LEAs, has a highquality plan to use rapid-time (as
defined in this notice) student data to
inform and guide the support provided
to teachers and principals (e.g.,
professional development, time for
common planning and collaboration) in
order to improve the overall
effectiveness of instruction; and to
continuously measure and improve both
the effectiveness and efficiency of those
supports.
D. Turning Around Struggling Schools
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(D)(1) Intervening in the lowestperforming schools and LEAs: The
extent to which the State has the legal,
statutory, or regulatory authority to
intervene directly in the State’s
persistently lowest-performing schools
(as defined in this notice) and in LEAs
that are in improvement and corrective
action status.
(D)(2) Increasing the supply of highquality charter schools: 14
(i) The extent to which the State has
a charter school law that does not
prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing
the number of charter schools in the
State (as measured by the percentage of
total schools in the State that are
allowed to be charter schools) or
otherwise restrict student enrollment in
charter schools.
14 A State’s responses to proposed Indicator (d)(6)
in its Stabilization program Phase 2 application
may contain information related to this Reform Plan
Criterion, to which the State can refer and build
upon in its Race to the Top application.
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37810
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
(ii) The extent to which the State has
statutes and guidelines regarding how
charter school authorizers approve,
monitor, hold accountable, reauthorize,
and close charter schools, including the
extent to which such statutes or
guidelines require that student
academic achievement be a factor in
such activities and decisions, and the
extent to which charter school
authorizers in the State have closed or
not renewed ineffective charter schools.
(iii) The extent to which the State’s
charter schools receive equitable
funding, compared to traditional public
schools, and a commensurate share of
local, State, and Federal program and
revenue sources.
(iv) The extent to which the State
provides charter schools with facilities
funding (for leasing facilities,
purchasing facilities, or making tenant
improvements), assistance with
facilities acquisition, access to public
facilities, the ability to share in bonds
and mill levies, or other supports; and
the extent to which the State does not
impose any facility-related requirements
on charter schools that are stricter than
those applied to traditional public
schools.
Reform Plan Criteria
(D)(3) Turning around struggling
schools: 15 The extent to which the State
has a high-quality plan and ambitious
yet achievable annual targets to (i)
identify at least the lowest-achieving
five percent of the persistently lowestperforming schools (as defined in this
notice) or the lowest-achieving five
schools, whichever is larger; and (ii)
support its LEAs in turning around
these schools by—
• Putting in place new leadership and
a majority of new staff, new governance,
and improved instructional programs,
and providing the school with
flexibilities such as the ability to select
staff, control its budget, and expand
student learning time; or
• Converting them to charter schools
or contracting with an education
management organization (EMO); or
• Closing the school and placing the
school’s students in high-performing
schools; or
• To the extent that these strategies
are not possible, implementing a school
transformation model that includes:
Hiring a new principal, measuring
teacher and principal effectiveness (as
defined in this notice), rewarding
effective teachers and principals (as
15 A State’s responses to proposed Indicators
(d)(3)–(d)(5) in its Stabilization program Phase 2
application may contain information related to this
Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer
and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
defined in this notice), and improving
strategies for recruitment, retention, and
professional development;
implementing comprehensive
instructional reform, including an
improved instructional program and
differentiated instruction; and extending
learning time and community-oriented
supports, including more time for
students to learn and for teachers to
collaborate, more time for enrichment
activities, and on-going mechanisms for
family and community engagement.
E. Overall Selection Criteria
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(E)(1) Demonstrating significant
progress: The extent to which the State
has, over the past several years—
(i) Made progress to date in each of
the four education reform areas;
(ii) Used ARRA and other Federal and
State funding to pursue reforms in these
areas;
(iii) Created, through law or policy,
conditions favorable to education
reform and innovation;
(iv) Increased student achievement
and decreased the achievement gap, as
reported on the NAEP since 2003; and
increased graduation rates.
(E)(2) Making education funding a
priority: The extent to which the
percentage of the total revenues
available to the State (as defined in this
notice) that were used to support
elementary, secondary, and public
higher education for FY 2009 was
greater than or equal to the percentage
of the total revenues available to the
State (as defined in this notice) that
were used to support elementary,
secondary, and public higher education
for FY 2008.
(E)(3) Enlisting statewide support and
commitment: The extent to which the
State has demonstrated commitment,
support, and/or funding from the
following key stakeholders:
(i) The State’s teachers’ union(s) and
charter school authorizers;
(ii) Other State and local leaders (e.g.,
business, community, civil rights, and
education association leaders);
(iii) Grant-making foundations and
other funding sources; and
(iv) LEAs, including public charter
schools identified as LEAs under State
law, with special emphasis on the
following: High-need LEAs (as defined
in this notice); participation by LEAs,
schools, students, and students in
poverty; and the strength of the
Memoranda of Understanding between
LEAs and the State, which must at a
minimum be signed by the LEA
superintendent (or equivalent), the
president of the local school board (if
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
relevant), and the local teachers’ union
leader (if relevant).
Reform Plan Criteria
(E)(4) Raising achievement and
closing gaps:
(i) Achievement gains: The extent to
which the State has set ambitious yet
achievable targets for increasing its
students’ achievement results overall
and by student subgroup (as described
in section 303(b)(2)(G) of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act) in reading and
mathematics, as reported by the NAEP;
annual targets using other assessments
may be submitted as well.
(ii) Gap closing: The extent to which
the State has set ambitious yet
achievable targets for decreasing the
reading and mathematics achievement
gaps between subgroups (as described in
section 303(b)(2)(G) of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act), as reported, at a
minimum, by the NAEP; annual targets
using other assessments may be
submitted as well.
(iii) Graduation rate: 16 The extent to
which the State has ambitious yet
achievable annual targets for increasing
graduation rates (as defined in this
notice) overall and by student subgroup
(consistent with section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA).
(E)(5) Building strong statewide
capacity to implement, scale, and
sustain proposed plans: The extent to
which the State has a high-quality
overall plan that demonstrates how it
has, and will continue to build, the
capacity to—
(i) Effectively and efficiently oversee
the grant, including administering and
disbursing funds, and, if necessary,
taking appropriate enforcement actions
to ensure that participating LEAs
comply with the State’s plan and
program requirements;
(ii) Support the success of
participating LEAs, ensure the
dissemination of effective practices, and
hold participating LEAs accountable for
progress;
(iii) Use the economic, political, and
human capital resources of the State to
continue the reforms funded under the
grant after the period of funding has
ended;
(iv) Collaborate with other States on
key elements of or activities in the
State’s application; and
(v) Coordinate, reallocate, or
repurpose education funds from other
16 A State’s responses to proposed Indicator
(c)(11) in its Stabilization program Phase 2
application may contain information related to this
Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer
and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
sources to align with the State’s Race to
the Top goals, as outlined in its plans.
IV. Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following
definitions for terms not defined in the
ARRA (or, by reference, in the ESEA).
We may apply these definitions in any
year in which this program is in effect.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Proposed Definitions
Alternative certification routes means
pathways to certification that are
authorized under the State’s laws or
regulations that allow the establishment
and operation of teacher and
administrator preparation programs in
the State that have the following
characteristics: (a) Can be provided by
various types of qualified providers,
including both institutions of higher
education and other providers; (b)
provide a clinical/student teaching
experience; (c) significantly limit the
amount of coursework required or have
options to test-out of courses; and (d)
award the level of certification that
permits a candidate who successfully
completes the program to teach or lead
in public schools within the State.
Common set of K–12 standards means
a set of content standards that define
what students must know and be able to
do, and that are identical across all
States in a consortium. Notwithstanding
this, a State may supplement the
common standards with additional
standards, provided that the additional
standards do not exceed 15 percent of
the State’s total standards for that
content area.
Effective principal means a principal
whose students, overall and for each
subgroup (described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA),
demonstrate acceptable rates (e.g., at
least one grade level in an academic
year) of student growth (as defined in
this notice). States may supplement this
definition as they see fit so long as
principal effectiveness is judged, in
significant measure, by student growth
(as defined in this notice).
Effective teacher means a teacher
whose students achieve acceptable rates
(e.g., at least one grade level in an
academic year) of student growth (as
defined in this notice). States may
supplement this definition as they see
fit so long as teacher effectiveness is
judged, in significant measure, by
student growth (as defined in this
notice).
Formative assessment means an
assessment process that is embedded in
instruction and is used by teachers and
students to provide instant feedback on
student understanding and to adjust
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
ongoing teaching and learning
accordingly.
Graduation rate means the four-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate as
defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i). A
State may also use, as a supplement to
this rate, extended adjusted cohort
graduation rates (consistent with 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(v)) that are approved by the
Secretary.
Highly effective principal means a
principal whose students, overall and
for each subgroup (described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA),
demonstrate high rates (e.g., more than
one grade level in an academic year) of
student growth (as defined in this
notice). States may supplement this
definition as they see fit so long as
principal effectiveness is judged, in
significant measure, by student growth
(as defined in this notice).
Highly effective teacher means a
teacher whose students achieve high
rates (e.g., more than one grade level in
an academic year) of student growth (as
defined in this notice). States may
supplement this definition as they see
fit so long as teacher effectiveness is
judged, in significant measure, by
student growth (as defined in this
notice).
High-need LEA means an LEA with
one or more high-poverty schools (as
defined in this notice).
High-poverty school means, consistent
with section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the
ESEA, a school in the highest quartile of
schools in the State with respect to
poverty level, using a measure of
poverty determined by the State.
High-quality assessment means an
assessment designed to measure a
student’s understanding of, and ability
to apply, critical concepts through the
use of a variety of item types, formats,
and administration conditions (e.g.,
open-ended responses, performancebased tasks, use of technology). Such
assessments are structured to enable
measurement of student achievement
(as defined in this notice) and student
growth (as defined in this notice); are of
high technical quality (e.g., are valid,
reliable, and aligned to standards); and
include the assessment of students with
disabilities and limited English
proficient students.
Instructional improvement systems
means tools that provide teachers,
principals, and administrators with
meaningful support for a cycle of
continuous instructional improvement,
including activities such as:
instructional planning; gathering
information (e.g., through formative
assessments (as defined in this notice),
interim assessments (as defined in this
notice), and looking at student work);
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
37811
analyzing information with the support
of rapid-time (as defined in this notice)
reporting; using this information to
inform decisions on appropriate next
steps; and evaluating the effectiveness
of the actions taken.
Interim assessment means an
assessment given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the
school year, and designed to evaluate
students’ knowledge and skills relative
to a specific set of academic standards,
and the results of which can be
aggregated (e.g., by course, grade level,
school, or LEA) in order to inform
teachers and administrators at the
student, classroom, school, and LEA
levels.
Persistently lowest-performing schools
means Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring in the
State and the secondary schools (both
middle and high schools) in the State
that are equally as low-achieving as
these Title I schools and are eligible for,
but do not receive, Title I funds. When
considering which schools are the
lowest-achieving, the State must
consider both the absolute performance
of schools on the State assessments in
reading/language arts and mathematics
and whether schools have made
progress on those assessments.
Rapid-time, in reference to reporting
and availability of school- and LEAlevel data, means that data is available
quickly enough to inform current
lessons, instruction, and related
supports; in most cases, this will be
within 72 hours of an assessment or
data gathering in classrooms, schools,
and LEAs.
Student achievement means, at a
minimum—
(a) For tested grades and subjects: A
student’s score on the State’s assessment
under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA;
and
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects:
An alternative measure of student
performance (e.g., student performance
on interim assessments (as defined in
this notice), rates at which students are
on track to graduate from high school,
percentage of students enrolled in
Advanced Placement courses who take
Advanced Placement exams, rates at
which students meet goals in
individualized education programs,
student scores on end-of-course exams).
Student growth means the change in
achievement data for an individual
student between two points in time.
Growth may be measured by a variety of
approaches, but any approach used
must be statistically rigorous and based
on student achievement (as defined in
this notice) data, and may also include
other measures of student learning in
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37812
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
order to increase the construct validity
and generalizability of the information.
Total revenues available to the State
means either (a) projected or actual total
State revenues for education and other
purposes for the relevant year; or (b)
projected or actual total State
appropriations for education and other
purposes for the relevant year.
America COMPETES Act elements (as
specified in section 6401(e)(2)(D))
means: (1) A unique statewide student
identifier that does not permit a student
to be individually identified by users of
the system; (2) student-level enrollment,
demographic, and program participation
information; (3) student-level
information about the points at which
students exit, transfer in, transfer out,
drop out, or complete P–16 education
programs; (4) the capacity to
communicate with higher education
data systems; (5) a State data audit
system assessing data quality, validity,
and reliability; (6) yearly test records of
individual students with respect to
assessments under section 1111(b) of
the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); (7)
information on students not tested by
grade and subject; (8) a teacher
identifier system with the ability to
match teachers to students; (9) studentlevel transcript information, including
information on courses completed and
grades earned; (10) student-level college
readiness test scores; (11) information
regarding the extent to which students
transition successfully from secondary
school to postsecondary education,
including whether students enroll in
remedial coursework; and (12) other
information determined necessary to
address alignment and adequate
preparation for success in
postsecondary education.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Final Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priorities,
requirements definitions, and selection
criteria, in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering
responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department.
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and
therefore subject to the requirements of
the Executive Order and subject to
review by OMB. Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 defines a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an
action likely to result in a rule that may
(1) have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local or Tribal governments, or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule); (2) create serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights
and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive order.
Pursuant to the Executive order, it has
been determined that this regulatory
action will have an annual effect on the
economy of more than $100 million
because the amount of government
transfers provided through the Race to
the Top Fund will exceed that amount.
Therefore, this action is ‘‘economically
significant’’ and subject to OMB review
under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive
order.
The potential costs associated with
this proposed regulatory action are
those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering this program effectively
and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and
benefits—both quantitative and
qualitative—of this proposed regulatory
action, we have determined that the
benefits of the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this
proposed regulatory action does not
unduly interfere with State, local, and
Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are needed to implement the
Race to the Top program. The Secretary
does not believe that the statute, by
itself, provides a sufficient level of
detail to ensure that Race to the Top
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
truly serves as a mechanism for driving
significant education reform in the
States. The authorizing language is very
brief, and we believe the Congress likely
expected the Secretary to augment this
language, through rulemaking, in order
to give greater meaning to the statutory
provisions. Additionally, the statute
expressly provides the Secretary the
authority to require States to include in
their application such information as
the Secretary may reasonably require
and to determine which States receive
grants on the basis of other criteria as
the Secretary determines appropriate.
In the absence of specific selection
criteria for Race to the Top grants, the
Department would use the general
selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of
the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in selecting
States to receive grants. The Secretary
does not believe the use of those general
criteria would be appropriate for the
Race to the Top competitions, because
they do not focus on the educational
reforms that States must be
implementing in order to receive a Race
to the Top grant, on the specific uses of
funds under Race to the Top, or on the
plans that the Secretary believes States
should develop for their Race to the Top
grants.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department considered a variety
of possible priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria before
deciding to propose those included in
this notice. The proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are those that best embody the
Secretary’s concept of how the Race to
the Top program should operate. The
proposals would provide States (and
their LEAs) receiving Race to the Top
grants with broad flexibility in the
expenditure of those grants, while
creating clear criteria for the selection of
applications and providing greater
clarity (than is provided in the
legislation itself) on what must be
included in a State application and
what progress States would have to
make in the four education reform areas
in order to receive a grant. The Secretary
believes that the proposals, thus,
appropriately balance a limited degree
of Federal prescription with broad
flexibility in State and local
implementation. We seek public
comment on whether we have achieved
the optimal balance.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria will
not impose significant costs on States,
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
or on the LEAs and other entities that
will receive assistance through the Race
to the Top Fund. As discussed
elsewhere, the proposals are intended to
create a framework for the award of
approximately $4 billion in support of
State and local efforts to implement
critical educational reforms and to
making substantial gains in student
achievement, closing achievement gaps,
improving high school graduation rates,
and ensuring student preparation for
success in college and careers. Without
promulgation of priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for the Race to the Top
competitions, the Department would not
have clear and defensible criteria for
making very large grants to States.
The Department believes that the
costs imposed on States by the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria will be limited to the
paperwork burden discussed elsewhere
in this notice. The benefits conveyed on
a State through its receipt of a grant will
greatly exceed those costs. In addition,
even States that apply but are
unsuccessful in the competitions may
derive benefits, as the process of
working with LEAs and other
stakeholders on the State application
may help accelerate the pace of
education reforms in the State.
Accounting Statement
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table, we
have prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the
provisions of this proposed regulatory
action. This table provides our best
estimate of the Federal payments to be
made to States under this program as a
result of this proposed regulatory action.
Expenditures are classified as transfers
to States.
definitions, and criteria regarding the
applications that individual States
submit for approximately $4 billion of
Race to the Top funds. At a later date,
we may announce a separate Race to the
Top Standards and Assessment
competition, for approximately $350
million, to support the development of
assessments by consortia of States.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The application requirements and
selection criteria proposed in this notice
will require the collection of
information that is subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). It is
our plan to offer a comment period for
the information collection at the time of
the notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria. At that time, the Department
will submit the information collection
to OMB for its review and provide the
specific burden hours associated with
each of the requirements and selection
criteria for comment. However, because
it is likely that the information
collection will be reviewed under
emergency OMB processing, the
Department encourages the public to
comment on the estimates we are
providing for the burden hours
associated with the requirements and
selection criteria proposed in this
notice.
Proposed Application Requirements
There are eight application
requirements that the Department
proposes States must meet when
submitting their applications. These are:
(a) The State’s application must be
signed by the Governor, the State’s chief
school officer, and the president of the
State board of education.
(b) The State must describe the
progress it has made to date in each of
the four education reform areas,
including how the State has used ARRA
and other Federal and State funding
TABLE—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT over the last several years to pursue
CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EX- reforms in these areas (as described in
PENDITURES
Overall Selection Criterion (E)(1)).
(c) The State must provide financial
Transfers
data to show whether and to what
Category
(in millions)
extent the percentage of the total
revenues available to the State (as
Annual Monetized
$3,956.
defined in this notice) that were used to
Transfers.
support elementary, secondary, and
From Whom to Whom Federal Government
to States.
public higher education for FY 2009
increased, decreased, or remained the
As previously explained, ARRA
same compared to FY 2008 (as
provides approximately $4.3 billion for
described in Overall Selection Criterion
the Race to the Top Fund (referred to in (E)(2)).
the statute as State Incentive Grants). In
(d) The State must describe its
this notice, we propose additional
statewide support from stakeholders
specific priorities, requirements,
and LEAs, including public charter
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:41 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
37813
schools identified as LEAs under State
law (as described in Overall Selection
Criterion (E)(3)).
(e) The State must include a budget
that details how it will use grant funds
and other resources to meet targets and
perform related functions, including
how it will use funds awarded under
this program to—
(1) Achieve its targets for improving
student achievement and graduation
rates and for closing achievement gaps
(as described in Overall Selection
Criterion (E)(4)); and
(2) Give priority to high-need LEAs
(as defined in this notice), in addition
to providing 50 percent of the grant to
participating LEAs based on their
relative shares of funding under part A
of Title I of the ESEA as required under
section 14006(c) of the ARRA.
(f) The State must provide, for each
State Reform Conditions Criterion
(listed earlier in this notice), a
description of the State’s current status
in meeting that Criterion, and at a
minimum, the information requested as
supporting evidence for the Criterion.
The Appendix to this notice contains a
table listing the proposed evidence.
(g) The State must provide, for each
Reform Plan Criterion (listed earlier in
this notice) a detailed plan for use of
grant funds that includes, but need not
be limited to the activities to be
undertaken, the goals and rationale for
the activities, the timeline for
implementation, the party responsible
for implementing the activities, the
resources the State will use to support
the activities, the State’s annual targets,
if applicable, for the performance
measures aligned to the Criterion, and
the evidence requested in support of
that Criterion (if any). (See the
‘‘Proposed Application Requirements’’
section for a detailed description of
these proposed requirements.)
(h) The State must submit a
certification from the State Attorney
General, or other chief State legal
officer, that the State’s description of,
and statements and conclusions
concerning, State law (for example, with
respect to the Eligibility Requirement
regarding teacher effectiveness or any of
the applicable Selection Criteria) in its
application are complete, accurate, and
constitute a reasonable interpretation of
State law.
Proposed Selection Criteria
There are 19 selection criteria that the
Department proposes States may
address when submitting their
applications. These are—
(A)(1) Developing and adopting common
standards;
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37814
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
(A)(2) Developing and implementing
common, high-quality assessments;
(A)(3) Supporting transition to enhanced
standards and high-quality assessments;
(B)(1) Fully implementing a statewide
longitudinal data system;
(B)(2) Accessing and using State data;
(B)(3) Using data to improve instruction;
(C)(1) Providing alternative pathways for
aspiring teachers and principals;
(C)(2) Differentiating teacher and principal
effectiveness based on performance;
(C)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of
effective teachers and principals;
(C)(4) Reporting the effectiveness of teacher
and principal preparation programs;
(C)(5) Providing effective support to
teachers and principals;
(D)(1) Intervening in the lowest-performing
schools and LEAs;
(D)(2) Increasing the supply of high-quality
charter schools;
(D)(3) Turning around struggling schools;
(E)(1) Demonstrating significant progress;
(E)(2) Making education funding a priority;
(E)(3) Enlisting statewide support and
commitment;
(E)(4) Raising achievement and closing
gaps; and
(E)(5) Building strong statewide capacity to
implement, scale, and sustain proposed
plans.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
(Please see the ‘‘Proposed Selection
Criteria’’ section for detailed
descriptions.)
We estimate that each SEA would
spend approximately 642 hours of staff
time to address the application
requirements and criteria, prepare the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
application, and obtain necessary
clearances. The total number of hours
for all 52 SEAs is an estimated 33,384
hours (52 SEAs (the 50 States plus the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico)
times 642 hours equals 33,384 hours.)
We estimate the average total cost per
hour of the State-level staff who carry
out this work to be $30.00 an hour. The
total estimated cost for all States would
be $1,001,520 ($30.00 × 33,384 hours =
$1,001,520).
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this
proposed regulatory action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Secretary makes this certification
because the only entities eligible to
apply for grants are States, and States
are not small entities.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
Part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or computer diskette)
on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
You can view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the
following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: July 22, 2009.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37815
EN29JY09.015
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.016
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37816
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37817
EN29JY09.017
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.018
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37818
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37819
EN29JY09.019
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.020
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37820
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37821
EN29JY09.021
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.022
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37822
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37823
EN29JY09.023
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.024
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37824
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37825
EN29JY09.025
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.026
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37826
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37827
EN29JY09.027
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.028
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37828
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37829
EN29JY09.029
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.030
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37830
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37831
EN29JY09.031
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.032
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37832
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37833
EN29JY09.033
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.034
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37834
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
37835
EN29JY09.035
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
20:41 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
EN29JY09.036
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
37836
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices
[FR Doc. E9–17909 Filed 7–24–09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–C
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0007]
RIN 1810–AB04
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
Program
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Numbers: 84.394 (Education
Stabilization Fund) and 84.397
(Government Services Fund).
Department of Education.
Notice of proposed
requirements, definitions, and approval
criteria.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Secretary of Education
(Secretary) proposes requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria for the
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
(Stabilization) program. The Secretary
may use one or more of these
requirements, definitions, and approval
criteria in awarding funds under this
program in fiscal year (FY) 2010. The
requirements, definitions, and approval
criteria proposed in this notice are
based on the assurances regarding
education reform that grantees are
required to provide in exchange for
receiving funds under the Stabilization
program. We take this action to specify
the data and information that grantees
must collect and report with respect to
those assurances and to help ensure
grantees’ ability to collect and report the
required data and information.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before August 28, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by e-mail. Please
submit your comments only one time in
order to ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies. In addition, please
include the Docket ID and the term
‘‘State Fiscal Stabilization Fund’’ at the
top of your comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov to submit
your comments electronically.
Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing
agency documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket, is
available on the site under ‘‘How To Use
This Site.’’
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
requirements, definitions, and approval
criteria, address them to Office of
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:41 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Elementary and Secondary Education
(Attention: State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund Comments), U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Room 3E108, Washington, DC 20202–
6200.
• Privacy Note: The Department’s
policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those
comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery)
is to make these submissions available
for public viewing in their entirety on
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:
//www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only
information that they wish to make
publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Butler. Telephone: (202) 260–
2274 or by e-mail:
phase2comments@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at
1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final requirements, definitions,
and approval criteria, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific proposed
requirements, definitions, and approval
criteria that each comment addresses.
We invite you also to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
these proposed requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we
could reduce potential costs or increase
potential benefits while preserving the
effective and efficient administration of
this program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect
the public comments in person in Room
3E108, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington,
DC, time, Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
37837
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund program provides
approximately $48.6 billion in formula
grants to States to help stabilize State
and local budgets in order to minimize
and avoid reductions in education and
other essential services, in exchange for
a State’s commitment to advance
essential education reform in key areas.
Program Authority: American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Division A, Title XIV—State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund, Public Law 111–5.
Proposed Requirements
Note: The proposed requirements are listed
following the background for this section.
Background: Section 14005(d) of
Division A of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
requires a State receiving funds under
the Stabilization program to provide
assurances in four key areas of
education reform: (a) Achieving equity
in teacher distribution, (b) improving
collection and use of data, (c) standards
and assessments, and (d) supporting
struggling schools. For each area of
reform, the ARRA prescribes specific
action(s) that the State must assure that
it will implement. In addition, section
14005(a) of the ARRA requires a State
that receives funds under the
Stabilization program to submit an
application to the Department
containing such information as the
Secretary may reasonably require. In
this notice, we propose specific data
and information requirements (the
assurance indicators and descriptors)
that a State receiving funds under the
Stabilization program must meet with
respect to the statutory assurances. We
also propose specific requirements for a
plan that a State must submit (the State
plan), as part of its application for the
second phase 1 of funding under the
Stabilization program, describing its
ability to collect and report the required
1 The Department is awarding Stabilization
program funds in two phases. In the first phase, the
Department is awarding 67 percent of a State’s
Education Stabilization Fund allocation, unless the
State can demonstrate that additional funds are
required to restore fiscal year 2009 State support for
education, in which case the Department will
award the State up to 90 percent of that allocation.
In addition, the Department will award 100 percent
of each State’s Government Services Fund
allocation in Phase I. The Department will award
the remainder of a State’s Education Stabilization
Fund allocation in the second phase. A table listing
the allocations to States under the Stabilization
program is available at: https://www.ed.gov/
programs/
statestabilization/funding.html.
E:\FR\FM\29JYN2.SGM
29JYN2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37804-37837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17909]
[[Page 37803]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Race to the Top Fund; State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program;
Institute of Education Sciences; Overview Information; Grant Program
for Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems; Notice Inviting Applications
for New Awards Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 /
Notices
[[Page 37804]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2009-OESE-0006]
RIN 1810-AB07
Race to the Top Fund
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.395A.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the Race to the
Top Fund. The Secretary may use these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in any year in which this program
is in effect.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 28, 2009. We
encourage you to submit comments well in advance of this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. In
addition, please include the Docket ID and the term ``Race to the Top''
at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``How To Use This Site.'' A direct link to the docket
page is also available at https://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, address them to
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (Attention: Race to the
Top Fund Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Room 3W329, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments
received from members of the public (including those comments submitted
by mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these
submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Yeh, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6W219, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: 202-205-3775 or by e-mail: racetothetop@ed.gov. Note that we
will not accept comments by e-mail.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses. We encourage you to submit comments in advance
of the date by which they must be received.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person, in Room 3W329, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The Race to the Top Fund, authorized under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides
approximately $4.3 billion for competitive grants to States to
encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for
education innovation and reform; implementing ambitious plans in the
four education reform areas described in the ARRA; and achieving
significant improvement in student outcomes, including making
substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps,
improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring student
preparation for success in college and careers.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, Division A, Section 14006, Public Law 111-5.
Background for Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and
Selection Criteria
The Statutory Context
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the ARRA,
historic legislation designed to stimulate the economy, support job
creation, and invest in critical sectors, including education. The ARRA
lays the foundation for education reform by supporting investments in
innovative strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results
for students, long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and
increased productivity and effectiveness.
The ARRA provides $4.3 billion for the Race to the Top Fund
(referred to in the statute as the State Incentive Grant Fund). This is
a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward States
that are implementing significant education reforms across four
``assurance'' areas. Specifically, section 14006(a)(2) of the ARRA
requires States to have made significant progress in the following four
education reform areas in order to receive a grant: implementing
standards and assessments, improving teacher effectiveness and
achieving equity in teacher distribution, improving collection and use
of data, and supporting struggling schools. In addition, as required by
section 14006(c) of the ARRA, States that receive a Race to the Top
grant must use at least 50 percent of the award to provide subgrants to
local educational agencies (LEAs), including public charter schools
identified as LEAs under State law, based upon LEAs' relative shares of
funding under Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). LEAs that choose to
participate in their State's Race to the Top proposal must agree to
fully implement the State's proposed plan and to use their funding
under this grant in support of that plan.
[[Page 37805]]
The ARRA also requires that the Governor apply on behalf of a State
seeking a Race to the Top grant, and section 14005(c) of the ARRA
specifically requires that a Race to the Top application:
Describe the status of the State's progress in each of the
four education reform areas, and the strategies the State is employing
to help ensure that students in the subgroups described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (i.e., economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with
disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency) who have
not met the State's proficiency targets continue making progress toward
meeting the State's student academic achievement standards;
Describe the achievement and graduation rates (as
described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vi) of the ESEA and as clarified in
34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)) of public elementary and secondary school students
in the State, and the strategies the State is employing to help ensure
that all subgroups of students identified in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA continue making progress toward
meeting the State's student academic achievement standards;
Describe how the State would use its grant funding to
improve student academic achievement in the State, including how it
will allocate the funds to give priority to high-need LEAs (as defined
in this notice); and
Include a plan for evaluating the State's progress in
closing achievement gaps.
In this notice, we propose additional specific priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria regarding the
applications that individual States submit for approximately $4 billion
of Race to the Top funds. At a later date, we may announce a separate
Race to the Top Standards and Assessment competition, for approximately
$350 million, to support the development of assessments by consortia of
States.
Structure of Race to the Top
Race to the Top will reward States for having created the
conditions for reform (as measured through the State Reform Conditions
Criteria proposed in this notice) and for increasing student
achievement. Race to the Top will also provide incentives for States to
develop and implement comprehensive reform strategies that are
integrated across the four ARRA education reform areas and lead to
improved student outcomes (as measured through the Reform Plan Criteria
proposed herein). The Department expects successful applicants to clear
a high bar on both State Reform Conditions and Reform Plan Criteria.
Proposed State Reform Conditions and Reform Plan Criteria are described
in detail in the Proposed Selection Criteria section of this notice.
To ensure that the State's Race to the Top plans (which the State
will describe in its application in response to the Reform Plan
Criteria) are comprehensive, coherent, and measurable, we propose that
States describe their approaches and, where appropriate, set annual
targets for each of the Reform Plan Criteria.
Note: The proposed annual targets are set forth in the Appendix
to this notice. These targets are specific to Race to the Top, and
they are in addition to, not a replacement for, the existing annual
requirements under the ESEA.) The annual targets should be
achievable but sufficiently ambitious to support a successful Race
to the Top grant application.
Under the statute, at least 50 percent of the funds under a State's
Race to the Top grant must be provided to LEAs based on LEAs' relative
shares of funding under part A of Title I of the ESEA. The remaining
funds are available to the State for State-level activities and for
disbursements to LEAs and other eligible entities under such formulas,
competitive processes, or other mechanisms as the State may propose in
its plan. We propose that a State incorporate into its plan the
activities that LEAs will undertake to advance the four education
reform areas.
Timing of Applications and Awards
The Department plans to make Race to the Top grants in two phases.
States that are ready to apply may do so in Phase 1, which will open in
late calendar year 2009. States that need more time--for example, to
engage in planning with and secure commitments from superintendents,
school boards, principals, teachers, union leaders, and community
supporters, or others--may apply in Phase 2, which will open in late
Spring of calendar year 2010. States that apply in Phase 1 but are not
awarded grants may reapply for funding in Phase 2, together with States
that are applying for the first time in Phase 2. Phase 1 grantees may
not apply for additional funding in Phase 2. We will announce specific
deadlines for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 in subsequent notice(s) inviting
applications for funds under this program.
I. Proposed Priorities
Background: The Secretary proposes five priorities for the Race to
the Top competition. We are proposing to designate Proposed Priority 1
as an absolute priority, Proposed Priority 2 as a competitive
preference priority, and Proposed Priorities 3 through 5 as
invitational priorities. We may choose, in the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, to
change the designation of any of these priorities to absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational priorities, or to include the
substance of these priorities in the selection criteria.
Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we
would consider only applications that meet the priority. Under a
competitive preference priority, we would give competitive preference
to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the
extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the
priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). With an invitational priority, we
would signal our interest in receiving applications that meet the
priority; however, consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not
give an application that meets an invitational priority preference over
other applications.
Proposed Priority 1: Absolute Priority--Comprehensive Approach to the
Four Education Reform Areas
To meet this priority, the State's application must comprehensively
address each of the four education reform areas specified in the ARRA
to demonstrate that the State and its participating LEAs are taking a
systemic approach to education reform. The State's application must
describe how the State and participating LEAs intend to use Race to the
Top and other funds to implement comprehensive and coherent policies
and practices in the four education reform areas, and how these are
designed to increase student achievement, reduce the achievement gap
across student subgroups (as described in section 303(b)(2)(G) of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (NAEP)
\1\), and increase the rates at which students
[[Page 37806]]
graduate from high school prepared for college and careers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This statute, rather than relevant sections of the ESEA, is
referenced because it provides the most recent listing of NAEP
subgroups. We propose using the NAEP to monitor overall increases in
student achievement and decreases in the achievement gap over the
course of this grant because the NAEP provides a way to report
consistently across Race to the Top grantees as well as within a
State over time as the State transitions from its current
assessments to the high-quality assessments (as defined in this
notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priority 2: Competitive Preference Priority--Emphasis on
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
To meet this priority, the State's application must describe plans
to address the need to (i) offer a rigorous course of study in
mathematics, sciences, technology, and engineering; (ii) cooperate with
industry experts, museums, universities, research centers, or other
STEM-capable community partners to prepare and assist teachers in
integrating STEM content across grades and disciplines, in promoting
effective and relevant instruction, and in offering applied learning
opportunities for students; and (iii) prepare more students for
advanced study and careers in the sciences, technology, engineering,
and mathematics, including addressing the needs of underrepresented
groups and of women and girls in the areas of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics.
Proposed Priorities 3 Through 5: Proposed Priority 3--Invitational
Priority-- Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data
Systems
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which
the State plans to expand statewide longitudinal data systems to
include or integrate data from special education programs, limited
English proficiency programs, early childhood programs, human
resources, finance, health, postsecondary, and other relevant areas,
with the purpose of allowing important questions related to policy or
practice to be asked and answered.
The Secretary is also particularly interested in applications in
which States propose working together to adapt one State's statewide
longitudinal data system so that it may be used, in whole or in part,
by other State(s), rather than having each State build or continue
building such system(s) independently.
Proposed Priority 4--Invitational Priority--P-20 Coordination and
Vertical Alignment
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which
the State plans to address how early childhood programs, K-12 schools,
postsecondary institutions, and workforce organizations will coordinate
to improve all parts of the education system and create a more seamless
P-20 route for students. Vertical alignment across P-20 is particularly
critical at each point where a transition occurs (e.g., between early
childhood and K-12, or between K-12 and post secondary) to ensure that
students exiting one level are prepared for success, without
remediation, in the next.
Proposed Priority 5--Invitational Priority--School-Level Conditions for
Reform and Innovation
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which
the State's participating LEAs provide schools, where appropriate, with
flexibilities and autonomies conducive to reform and innovation, such
as--
(i) Selecting staff;
(ii) Implementing new structures and formats for the school day or
year that expand learning time;
(iii) Placing budgets under the schools' control;
(iv) Awarding credit to students based on student performance
instead of instructional time; and
(v) Providing comprehensive services to high-need students (e.g.,
through local partnerships, internal staffing, and contracts with
outside providers).
II. Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following requirements for this program.
We may apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in
effect.
A. Eligibility Requirements
Background: We are proposing two eligibility requirements for Race
to the Top applicants. First, we propose that a State must have an
approved application under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund (Stabilization) program of the ARRA in order to be
eligible to receive an award from the Race to the Top competition.
Section 14005(d) of the ARRA requires a State that receives funds under
the Stabilization program to provide assurances in the same four
education reform areas that will be advanced by the Race to the Top
grant. We therefore believe that it would be inconsistent to award a
Race to the Top grant, which requires a determination that a State has
made significant progress in the four education reform areas, to a
State that has not met requirements for receiving funds under the
Stabilization program.
Second, we propose that to be eligible under this program, a State
must not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers to linking
student achievement or student growth data to teachers for the purpose
of teacher and principal evaluation. Research indicates that teacher
quality is a critical contributor to student learning and that there is
dramatic variation in teacher quality.\2\ Yet it is difficult to
predict teacher quality based on the qualifications that teachers bring
to the job. Indeed, measures such as certification, master's degrees,
and years of teaching experience have limited predictive power on this
point.\3\ Therefore, one of the most effective ways to accurately
assess teacher quality is to measure the growth in achievement of a
teacher's students;\4\ \5\ and by aggregating the performance of
students across teachers within a school, to assess principal quality.
Current law in a number of States presents an obstacle to efforts to
improve teacher quality by prohibiting data regarding student
achievement from being tied to teachers for the purposes of evaluation.
This capability is fundamental to Race to the Top reforms and to the
requirement in section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA that States take actions
to improve teacher effectiveness. Without this legal authority, States
would not be able to execute reform plans relating to several selection
criteria in this notice (see Selection Criteria (C)(2) through (C)(5)),
because these plans must require LEAs and schools to determine which
[[Page 37807]]
teachers and principals are effective using student achievement data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g. Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and Douglas O.
Staiger (2006), ``What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher
Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City,'' NBER Working Paper No.
12155; Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain (2005),
``Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,'' Econometrica,
73(2), 417-458; Rockoff, Jonah. E. (2004), ``The Impact of
Individual Teachers on Students' Achievement: Evidence from Panel
Data,'' American Economic Review 94(2), 247-52; Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (2004), ``Teachers Matter:
Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers'', p. 3;
Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla
Wahlstrom (2004), ``How Leadership Influences Student Learning,''
Wallace Foundation Learning from Leadership Project; Aaronson,
Daniel, Lisa Barrow, and William Sander (2003), ``Teacher and
Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools,'' Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago Working Paper 2002-28.
\3\ Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005). Kane, Rockoff, and
Staiger (2006). Aaronson, Barrow, and Sander (2003).
\4\ For example, Rockoff et al. find that even using a detailed
data set on incoming teacher characteristics allows them to predict
only about 12 percent of the variance of the expected distribution
of teacher effectiveness. Jonah E. Rockoff, Brian A. Jacob, Thomas
J. Kane, and Douglas O. Staiger (2008), ``Can You Recognize an
Effective Teacher When You Recruit One?'' NBER Working Paper No.
14485. Similarly, Goldhaber et al. show that the variance in student
achievement due to unobservable teacher variables is 40 times
greater than the variance due to observable teacher variables. Dan
Goldhaber, Dominic Brewer, and Deborah J. Anderson (1999), ``A
three-way error components analysis of educational productivity,''
Education Economics 7 (3): 199-208.
\5\ Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006). Aaronson, Barrow, and
Sander (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Eligibility Requirements: We propose the following
requirements that a State must meet in order to be eligible to receive
funds under this program.
(a) In order for the State to be eligible for the Race to the Top
Phase 1 competition, the State's applications for funding under Phase 1
and Phase 2 of the Stabilization program must be approved by the
Department by December 31, 2009. In order for the State to be eligible
for the Race to the Top Phase 2 competition, the State's application
for funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Stabilization program must
be approved by the Department prior to the State submitting its Race to
the Top Phase 2 application.
(b) The State does not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory
barriers to linking data on student achievement (as defined in this
notice) or student growth (as defined in this notice) to teachers and
principals for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation.
B. Application Requirements
Background: Section 14005(c) of the ARRA requires that certain
information (as discussed earlier in this notice) be included in
States' Race to the Top applications. Consistent with those
requirements and the need for additional information that will ensure a
fair and accurate peer review of the grant applications, we propose the
following requirements for the application a State would submit to the
Department for funding under this program.
The Department recognizes that requests for data and information
should reflect an integrated and coordinated approach among the various
ARRA programs, particularly the State Fiscal Stabilization, Race to the
Top, School Improvement Grants, and Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
grant programs. Accordingly, the Department will continue to evaluate
our requests for data and information under this program in context
with the other ARRA programs.
Proposed Application Requirements
(a) The State's application must be signed by the Governor, the
State's chief school officer, and the president of the State board of
education.
(b) The State must describe the progress it has made to date in
each of the four education reform areas, including how the State has
used ARRA and other Federal and State funding over the last several
years to pursue reforms in these areas (as described in Overall
Selection Criterion (E)(1)).
(c) The State must provide financial data to show whether and to
what extent the percentage of the total revenues available to the State
(as defined in this notice) that were used to support elementary,
secondary, and public higher education for FY 2009 increased,
decreased, or remained the same compared to FY 2008 (as described in
Overall Selection Criterion (E)(2)).
(d) The State must describe its statewide support from stakeholders
and LEAs, including public charter schools identified as LEAs under
State law (as described in Overall Selection Criterion (E)(3)).
(e) The State must include a budget that details how it will use
grant funds and other resources to meet targets and perform related
functions, including how it will use funds awarded under this program
to--
(1) Achieve its targets for improving student achievement and
graduation rates and for closing achievement gaps (as described in
Overall Selection Criterion (E)(4)); and
(2) Give priority to high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice), in
addition to providing 50 percent of the grant to participating LEAs
based on their relative shares of funding under part A of Title I of
the ESEA as required under section 14006(c) of the ARRA.
(f) The State must provide, for each State Reform Conditions
Criterion (listed later in this notice), a description of the State's
current status in meeting that Criterion, and at a minimum, the
information requested as supporting evidence for the Criterion. The
Appendix to this notice contains a table listing the proposed evidence.
(g) The State must provide, for each Reform Plan Criterion (listed
later in this notice) a detailed plan for use of grant funds that
includes, but need not be limited to--
(1) The key activities to be undertaken;
(2) The goals and rationale for the activities, which may include
but need not be limited to evidence of the past effectiveness of those
activities, as documented in research or through the effective
implementation of an activity in one or more States, LEAs, or schools
(which may include charter schools);
(3) The timeline for implementing the activities;
(4) The party or parties responsible for implementing the
activities;
(5) The resources the State will use to support the activities
(e.g., funding, personnel, systems);
(6) The State's annual targets, where applicable, with respect to
the performance measures aligned to the Criterion for the four school
years beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. The Appendix to this
notice contains a table listing the proposed performance measures.
Where plans are proposed for reform efforts not covered by a
performance measure specified by the Department, States are encouraged
to propose performance measures and annual targets for those efforts;
and
(7) The information requested as supporting evidence, if any (as
described in the Appendix), for the Criterion, together with any
additional information the State believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
(h) The State must submit a certification from the State Attorney
General, or other chief State legal officer, that the State's
description of, and statements and conclusions concerning, State law
(for example, with respect to the Eligibility Requirement regarding
teacher effectiveness or any of the applicable Selection Criteria) in
its application are complete, accurate, and constitute a reasonable
interpretation of State law.
C. Annual Report and Performance Measures
The Secretary proposes core performance measures for evaluating the
performance of States receiving funds under this program. See the
Appendix to this notice for the proposed performance measures.
In addition, a State receiving funds under this program must submit
to the Department an annual report which may include, in addition to
the standard elements, a description of the State's and its LEAs'
progress to date on their goals, timelines, and budgets, as well as
actual performance compared to the annual targets the State established
in its application with respect to each performance measure.
Further, a State receiving funds under this program and its
participating LEA are accountable for meeting the goals, timelines,
budget, and annual targets established in the application; adhering to
an annual fund drawdown schedule that is tied to meeting these goals,
timelines, budget, and annual targets; and fulfilling and maintaining
all other conditions for the conduct of the project.
The Department will monitor a State's and its participating LEAs'
progress in meeting its goals, timelines, budget, and annual targets
and in fulfilling other applicable requirements. To support a
collaborative process between the State and the Department, the
Department may require that applicants who are selected to receive an
award enter into a written performance or cooperative
[[Page 37808]]
agreement with the Department. If the Department determines that a
State is not meeting its goals, timelines, budget, or annual targets or
is not fulfilling other applicable requirements, the Department will
take appropriate action, which could include a collaborative process
between the Department and the State, or enforcement measures with
respect to this grant such as placing the State in high-risk status,
putting the State on reimbursement payment status, or delaying or
withholding funds.
D. Other Program Requirements
We propose the following additional requirements for States
receiving funds under this program:
(a) The State and its participating LEAs must use funds under this
program to participate in a national evaluation of the program, if the
Department chooses to conduct one. In addition, the Department is
seeking comment on whether a State should, instead of or in addition to
a national evaluation, be required to conduct its own evaluation of its
program activities using funds under this program. The Department will
announce in the notice inviting applications the evaluation
approach(es) that will be required.
(b) The State must participate in all applicable technical
assistance activities that may be conducted by the Department or its
designees.
(c) The State must make freely available all of the outputs (e.g.,
materials, tools, processes, systems) that it or its designated
partners produce related to its grant, including by posting the outputs
on any Web site identified or sponsored by the Department.
III. Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following criteria for reviewing
applications submitted under this program. We may apply one or more of
these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. In the
notice inviting applications, the application package, or both, we will
announce the maximum number of points assigned to each criterion.
As discussed elsewhere in this notice, we propose using two types
of selection criteria--State Reform Conditions Criteria and Reform Plan
Criteria--to rate a State's application for Race to the Top funds.
State Reform Conditions Criteria will be used to assess a State's past
progress and its success in creating conditions for reform in specific
areas related to the four ARRA education reform areas. The Reform Plan
Criteria will be used to assess States' plans for future efforts in the
four ARRA education reform areas.
In the Appendix, we list both the minimum evidence, if any, that
the State must provide to assist the Department and peer reviewers in
determining whether a State's application meets each Criterion, and the
performance measures, if any, for each Reform Plan Criterion. States
may submit additional information if they deem it to be relevant and
useful. In addition, States that have submitted the requested
information to the Department for other programs are welcome to
indicate that they would like a specific previous submission to be used
as evidence, or they may provide an updated submission.
For each Reform Plan Criterion, peer reviewers will also consider
the extent to which States, where applicable, set ambitious yet
achievable annual targets against the performance measure, to support
the State's plan. Grantees will report their progress with respect to
these performance measures and annual targets as part of their annual
reports.
Proposed Selection Criteria
A. Standards and Assessments
Note: Under this reform area, we are proposing several Criteria
that will be different for applications submitted under Phase 1 and
Phase 2. Where the Criteria are different, we have so indicated.
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(A)(1) Developing and adopting common standards: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (c)(2) and
Descriptor (c)(1) in its Stabilization program Phase 2 application
may contain information responsive, in part, to this State Reform
Conditions Criterion, to which the State may refer and incorporate
in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) For Phase 1 applications: The extent to which the State has
demonstrated commitment to improving the quality of its standards by
participating in a consortium of States that is working toward jointly
developing and adopting, by June 2010, a common set of K-12 standards
(as defined in this notice) that are internationally benchmarked and
that build toward college and career readiness by the time of high
school graduation, and the extent to which this consortium includes a
significant number of States.
(ii) For Phase 2 applications: Whether the State has demonstrated
commitment to improving the quality of its standards by adopting, as
part of a multi-State consortium, a common set of K-12 standards (as
defined in this notice) that are internationally benchmarked and that
build toward college and career readiness by the time of high school
graduation, and the extent to which this consortium includes a
significant number of States.
(A)(2) Developing and implementing common, high-quality
assessments: \7\ Whether the State has demonstrated a commitment to
improving the quality of its assessments by participating in a
consortium of States that is working toward jointly developing and
implementing common, high-quality assessments (as defined in this
notice) aligned with the consortium's common set of K-12 standards (as
defined in this notice) that are internationally benchmarked and that
build toward college and career readiness by the time of high school
graduation, and the extent to which this consortium includes a
significant number of States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (c)(2) and
Descriptor (c)(1) in its Stabilization program Phase 2 application
may contain information responsive, in part, to this State Reform
Conditions Criterion, to which the State may refer and incorporate
in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reform Plan Criteria
(A)(3) Supporting transition to enhanced standards and high-quality
assessments: \8\ The extent to which the State, in collaboration with
its participating LEAs, has a high-quality plan for supporting a
statewide transition to and implementation of (a) internationally
benchmarked K-12 standards that build toward college and career
readiness by the time of high school graduation, and (b) high-quality
assessments (as defined in this notice) tied to these standards. State
or LEA activities might include: Aligning high school exit criteria and
college entrance requirements with the new assessments; developing,
disseminating, and implementing curricular frameworks and materials,
formative and interim assessments (as defined in this notice), and
professional development materials; and engaging in other strategies
that translate the standards and information from assessments into
classroom practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A State's responses to proposed Indicators (c)(1)-(c)(13)
and Descriptor (c)(1) in its Stabilization program Phase 2
application may contain information related to this Reform Plan
Criterion, to which the State can refer and build upon in its Race
to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Data Systems to Support Instruction
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(B)(1) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system: \9\
The extent to
[[Page 37809]]
which the State has a statewide longitudinal data system that includes
all of the elements specified in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America
COMPETES Act (as defined in this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The State's responses to proposed Indicator (b)(1) and
requirements II.c.1.A and II.c.1.B.(i-iii) in its Stabilization
program Phase 2 application may contain information responsive, in
part, to this State Reform Conditions Criterion, to which the State
can refer and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reform Plan Criteria
(B)(2) Accessing and using State data: \10\ The extent to which the
State has a high-quality plan to ensure that data from the State's
statewide longitudinal data system are accessible to, and used to
inform and engage, as appropriate, key stakeholders (e.g., parents,
students, teachers, principals, LEA leaders, community members, unions,
researchers, and policymakers); that the data support decision-makers
in the continuous improvement of instruction, operations, management,
and resource allocation; and that they comply with the applicable
requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (b)(2) and
requirements II.c.2.A and II.c.2.B(i-iii) in its Stabilization
program Phase 2 application may contain information related to this
Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer and build upon
in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)(3) Using data to improve instruction: \11\ The extent to which
the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs, has a high-
quality plan to--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (b)(2) and
requirements II.c.2.A and II.c.2.B(i-iii) in its Stabilization
program Phase 2 application may contain information related to this
Reform Plan Criteria, to which the State can refer and build upon in
its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Increase the use of instructional improvement systems (as
defined in this notice) that provide teachers, principals, and
administrators with the information they need to inform and improve
their instructional practices, decision-making, and overall
effectiveness; and
(ii) Make these data, together with statewide longitudinal data
system data, available and accessible to researchers so that they have
detailed information with which to evaluate the effectiveness of
instructional materials, strategies, and approaches for educating
different types of students (e.g., students with disabilities, limited
English proficient students, students whose achievement is well below
or above grade level), in a manner that complies with the applicable
requirements of FERPA.
C. Great Teachers and Leaders
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(C)(1) Providing alternative pathways for aspiring teachers and
principals: The extent to which the State has in place legal,
statutory, or regulatory provisions that allow alternative routes to
certification (as defined in this notice) for teachers and principals,
particularly routes that allow for providers in addition to
institutions of higher education; and the extent to which these routes
are in use.
Reform Plan Criteria
(C)(2) Differentiating teacher and principal effectiveness based on
performance: \12\ The extent to which the State, in collaboration with
its participating LEAs, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet
achievable annual targets to (a) Determine an approach to measuring
student growth (as defined in this notice); (b) employ rigorous,
transparent, and equitable processes for differentiating the
effectiveness of teachers and principals using multiple rating
categories that take into account data on student growth (as defined in
this notice) as a significant factor; (c) provide to each teacher and
principal his or her own data and rating; and (d) use this information
when making decisions regarding--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A State's responses to proposed Indicators (a)(2) and
(a)(5) and Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) in its Stabilization
program Phase 2 application may contain information related to this
Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer and build upon
in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Evaluating annually and developing teachers and principals,
including by providing timely and constructive feedback and targeted
professional development;
(ii) Compensating and promoting teachers and principals, including
by providing opportunities for teachers and principals who are highly
effective (as defined in this notice) to obtain additional compensation
and responsibilities; and
(iii) Granting tenure to and dismissing teachers and principals
based on rigorous and transparent procedures for awarding tenure (where
applicable) and for removing tenured and untenured teachers and
principals after they have had ample opportunities to improve but have
not done so.
(C)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and
principals: \13\ The extent to which the State has a high-quality plan
and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to increase the number and
percentage of highly effective teachers and principals (as defined in
this notice) in high-poverty schools (as defined in this notice), and
to increase the number and percentage of effective teachers (as defined
in this notice) teaching hard-to-staff subjects including mathematics,
science, special education, English language proficiency, and other
hard-to-staff subjects identified by the State or LEA. Plans may
include, but are not limited to, the implementation of incentives and
strategies in areas such as recruitment, compensation, career
development, and human resources practices and processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A State's response to proposed Indicator (a)(1) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application may contain information
related to this Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer
and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)(4) Reporting the effectiveness of teacher and principal
preparation programs: The extent to which the State has a high-quality
plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to link a student's
achievement data to the student's teachers and principals, to link this
information to the programs where each of those teachers and principals
was prepared for credentialing, and to publicly report the findings for
each credentialing program that has twenty or more graduates annually.
(C)(5) Providing effective support to teachers and principals: The
extent to which the State, in collaboration with its participating
LEAs, has a high-quality plan to use rapid-time (as defined in this
notice) student data to inform and guide the support provided to
teachers and principals (e.g., professional development, time for
common planning and collaboration) in order to improve the overall
effectiveness of instruction; and to continuously measure and improve
both the effectiveness and efficiency of those supports.
D. Turning Around Struggling Schools
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(D)(1) Intervening in the lowest-performing schools and LEAs: The
extent to which the State has the legal, statutory, or regulatory
authority to intervene directly in the State's persistently lowest-
performing schools (as defined in this notice) and in LEAs that are in
improvement and corrective action status.
(D)(2) Increasing the supply of high-quality charter schools: \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (d)(6) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application may contain information
related to this Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer
and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The extent to which the State has a charter school law that
does not prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number of
charter schools in the State (as measured by the percentage of total
schools in the State that are allowed to be charter schools) or
otherwise restrict student enrollment in charter schools.
[[Page 37810]]
(ii) The extent to which the State has statutes and guidelines
regarding how charter school authorizers approve, monitor, hold
accountable, reauthorize, and close charter schools, including the
extent to which such statutes or guidelines require that student
academic achievement be a factor in such activities and decisions, and
the extent to which charter school authorizers in the State have closed
or not renewed ineffective charter schools.
(iii) The extent to which the State's charter schools receive
equitable funding, compared to traditional public schools, and a
commensurate share of local, State, and Federal program and revenue
sources.
(iv) The extent to which the State provides charter schools with
facilities funding (for leasing facilities, purchasing facilities, or
making tenant improvements), assistance with facilities acquisition,
access to public facilities, the ability to share in bonds and mill
levies, or other supports; and the extent to which the State does not
impose any facility-related requirements on charter schools that are
stricter than those applied to traditional public schools.
Reform Plan Criteria
(D)(3) Turning around struggling schools: \15\ The extent to which
the State has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual
targets to (i) identify at least the lowest-achieving five percent of
the persistently lowest-performing schools (as defined in this notice)
or the lowest-achieving five schools, whichever is larger; and (ii)
support its LEAs in turning around these schools by--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A State's responses to proposed Indicators (d)(3)-(d)(5) in
its Stabilization program Phase 2 application may contain
information related to this Reform Plan Criterion, to which the
State can refer and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putting in place new leadership and a majority of new
staff, new governance, and improved instructional programs, and
providing the school with flexibilities such as the ability to select
staff, control its budget, and expand student learning time; or
Converting them to charter schools or contracting with an
education management organization (EMO); or
Closing the school and placing the school's students in
high-performing schools; or
To the extent that these strategies are not possible,
implementing a school transformation model that includes: Hiring a new
principal, measuring teacher and principal effectiveness (as defined in
this notice), rewarding effective teachers and principals (as defined
in this notice), and improving strategies for recruitment, retention,
and professional development; implementing comprehensive instructional
reform, including an improved instructional program and differentiated
instruction; and extending learning time and community-oriented
supports, including more time for students to learn and for teachers to
collaborate, more time for enrichment activities, and on-going
mechanisms for family and community engagement.
E. Overall Selection Criteria
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(E)(1) Demonstrating significant progress: The extent to which the
State has, over the past several years--
(i) Made progress to date in each of the four education reform
areas;
(ii) Used ARRA and other Federal and State funding to pursue
reforms in these areas;
(iii) Created, through law or policy, conditions favorable to
education reform and innovation;
(iv) Increased student achievement and decreased the achievement
gap, as reported on the NAEP since 2003; and increased graduation
rates.
(E)(2) Making education funding a priority: The extent to which the
percentage of the total revenues available to the State (as defined in
this notice) that were used to support elementary, secondary, and
public higher education for FY 2009 was greater than or equal to the
percentage of the total revenues available to the State (as defined in
this notice) that were used to support elementary, secondary, and
public higher education for FY 2008.
(E)(3) Enlisting statewide support and commitment: The extent to
which the State has demonstrated commitment, support, and/or funding
from the following key stakeholders:
(i) The State's teachers' union(s) and charter school authorizers;
(ii) Other State and local leaders (e.g., business, community,
civil rights, and education association leaders);
(iii) Grant-making foundations and other funding sources; and
(iv) LEAs, including public charter schools identified as LEAs
under State law, with special emphasis on the following: High-need LEAs
(as defined in this notice); participation by LEAs, schools, students,
and students in poverty; and the strength of the Memoranda of
Understanding between LEAs and the State, which must at a minimum be
signed by the LEA superintendent (or equivalent), the president of the
local school board (if relevant), and the local teachers' union leader
(if relevant).
Reform Plan Criteria
(E)(4) Raising achievement and closing gaps:
(i) Achievement gains: The extent to which the State has set
ambitious yet achievable targets for increasing its students'
achievement results overall and by student subgroup (as described in
section 303(b)(2)(G) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act) in reading and mathematics, as reported by the NAEP;
annual targets using other assessments may be submitted as well.
(ii) Gap closing: The extent to which the State has set ambitious
yet achievable targets for decreasing the reading and mathematics
achievement gaps between subgroups (as described in section
303(b)(2)(G) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act), as reported, at a minimum, by the NAEP; annual
targets using other assessments may be submitted as well.
(iii) Graduation rate: \16\ The extent to which the State has
ambitious yet achievable annual targets for increasing graduation rates
(as defined in this notice) overall and by student subgroup (consistent
with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A State's responses to proposed Indicator (c)(11) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application may contain information
related to this Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer
and build upon in its Race to the Top application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E)(5) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale, and
sustain proposed plans: The extent to which the State has a high-
quality overall plan that demonstrates how it has, and will continue to
build, the capacity to--
(i) Effectively and efficiently oversee the grant, including
administering and disbursing funds, and, if necessary, taking
appropriate enforcement actions to ensure that participating LEAs
comply with the State's plan and program requirements;
(ii) Support the success of participating LEAs, ensure the
dissemination of effective practices, and hold participating LEAs
accountable for progress;
(iii) Use the economic, political, and human capital resources of
the State to continue the reforms funded under the grant after the
period of funding has ended;
(iv) Collaborate with other States on key elements of or activities
in the State's application; and
(v) Coordinate, reallocate, or repurpose education funds from other
[[Page 37811]]
sources to align with the State's Race to the Top goals, as outlined in
its plans.
IV. Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following definitions for terms not
defined in the ARRA (or, by reference, in the ESEA). We may apply these
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
Proposed Definitions
Alternative certification routes means pathways to certification
that are authorized under the State's laws or regulations that allow
the establishment and operation of teacher and administrator
preparation programs in the State that have the following
characteristics: (a) Can be provided by various types of qualified
providers, including both institutions of higher education and other
providers; (b) provide a clinical/student teaching experience; (c)
significantly limit the amount of coursework required or have options
to test-out of courses; and (d) award the level of certification that
permits a candidate who successfully completes the program to teach or
lead in public schools within the State.
Common set of K-12 standards means a set of content standards that
define what students must know and be able to do, and that are
identical across all States in a consortium. Notwithstanding this, a
State may supplement the common standards with additional standards,
provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the
State's total standards for that content area.
Effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and
for each subgroup (described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the
ESEA), demonstrate acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in
an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice). States
may supplement this definition as they see fit so long as principal
effectiveness is judged, in significant measure, by student growth (as
defined in this notice).
Effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve acceptable
rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student
growth (as defined in this notice). States may supplement this
definition as they see fit so long as teacher effectiveness is judged,
in significant measure, by student growth (as defined in this notice).
Formative assessment means an assessment process that is embedded
in instruction and is used by teachers and students to provide instant
feedback on student understanding and to adjust ongoing teaching and
learning accordingly.
Graduation rate means the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
as defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i). A State may also use, as a
supplement to this rate, extended adjusted cohort graduation rates
(consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v)) that are approved by the
Secretary.
Highly effective principal means a principal whose students,
overall and for each subgroup (described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), demonstrate high rates (e.g., more
than one grade level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined
in this notice). States may supplement this definition as they see fit
so long as principal effectiveness is judged, in significant measure,
by student growth (as defined in this notice).
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., more than one grade level in an academic year) of
student growth (as defined in this notice). States may supplement this
definition as they see fit so long as teacher effectiveness is judged,
in significant measure, by student growth (as defined in this notice).
High-need LEA means an LEA with one or more high-poverty schools
(as defined in this notice).
High-poverty school means, consistent with section
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA, a school in the highest quartile of
schools in the State with respect to poverty level, using a measure of
poverty determined by the State.
High-quality assessment means an assessment designed to measure a
student's understanding of, and ability to apply, critical concepts
through the use of a variety of item types, formats, and administration
conditions (e.g., open-ended responses, performance-based tasks, use of
technology). Such assessments are structured to enable measurement of
student achievement (as defined in this notice) and student growth (as
defined in this notice); are of high technical quality (e.g., are
valid, reliable, and aligned to standards); and include the assessment
of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students.
Instructional improvement systems means tools that provide
teachers, principals, and administrators with meaningful support for a
cycle of continuous instructional improvement, including activities
such as: instructional planning; gathering information (e.g., through
formative assessments (as defined in this notice), interim assessments
(as defined in this notice), and looking at student work); analyzing
information with the support of rapid-time (as defined in this notice)
reporting; using this information to inform decisions on appropriate
next steps; and evaluating the effectiveness of the actions taken.
Interim assessment means an assessment given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the school year, and designed to
evaluate students' knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of
academic standards, and the results of which can be aggregated (e.g.,
by course, grade level, school, or LEA) in order to inform teachers and
administrators at the student, classroom, school, and LEA levels.
Persistently lowest-performing schools means Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State and the
secondary schools (both middle and high schools) in the State that are
equally as low-achieving as these Title I schools and are eligible for,
but do not receive, Title I funds. When considering which schools are
the lowest-achieving, the State must consider both the absolute
performance of schools on the State assessments in reading/language
arts and mathematics and whether schools have made progress on those
assessments.
Rapid-time, in reference to reporting and availability of school-
and LEA-level data, means that data is available quickly enough to
inform current lessons, instruction, and related supports; in most
cases, this will be within 72 hours of an assessment or data gathering
in classrooms, schools, and LEAs.
Student achievement means, at a minimum--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: A student's score on the
State's assessment under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; and
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: An alternative measure of
student performance (e.g., student performance on interim assessments
(as defined in this notice), rates at which students are on track to
graduate from high school, percentage of students enrolled in Advanced
Placement courses who take Advanced Placement exams, rates at which
students meet goals in individualized education programs, student
scores on end-of-course exams).
Student growth means the change in achievement data for an
individual student between two points in time. Growth may be measured
by a variety of approaches, but any approach used must be statistically
rigorous and based on student achievement (as defined in this notice)
data, and may also include other measures of student learning in
[[Page 37812]]
order to increase the construct validity and generalizability of the
information.
Total revenues available to the State means either (a) projected or
actual total State revenues for education and other purposes for the
relevant year; or (b) projected or actual total State appropriations
for education and other purposes for the relevant year.
America COMPETES Act elements (as specified in section
6401(e)(2)(D)) means: (1) A unique statewide student identifier that
does not permit a student to be individually identified by users of the
system; (2) student-level enrollment, demographic, and program
participation information; (3) student-level information about the
points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or
complete P-16 education programs; (4) the capacity to communicate with
higher education data systems; (5) a State data audit system assessing
data quality, validity, and reliability; (6) yearly test records of
individual students with respect to assessments under section 1111(b)
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); (7) information on students not tested
by grade and subject; (8) a teacher identifier system with the ability
to match teachers to students; (9) student-level transcript
information, including information on courses completed and grades
earned; (10) student-level college readiness test scores; (11)
information regarding the extent to which students transition
successfully from secondary school to postsecondary education,
including whether students enroll in