Race to the Top Fund, 59688-59834 [E9-27426]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 18, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59688-59834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27426]



[[Page 59687]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II



Race to the Top Fund; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 18, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 59688]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2009-OESE-0006]
RIN 1810-AB07


Race to the Top Fund

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.395A.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) announces 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: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria are effective January 19, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Butler, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., room 3E108, Washington, DC 20202-
6400. Telephone: 202-205-3775 or by e-mail: racetothetop@ed.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Race to the Top Fund, a 
competitive grant program, is to encourage and reward States that are 
creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; 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; and implementing 
ambitious plans in four core education reform areas--
    (a) Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments 
that prepare students for success in college and the workplace;
    (b) Building data systems that measure student success and inform 
teachers and principals about how they can improve their practices;
    (c) Increasing teacher and principal effectiveness and achieving 
equity in their distribution; and
    (d) Turning around our lowest-achieving schools. Additional 
information on the Race to the Top program can be found at: https://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop.
    Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 
Division A, Section 14006, Public Law 111-5.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) for this program in the 
Federal Register on July 29, 2009 (74 FR 37804). That notice contained 
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
    There are a number of differences between the NPP and this notice 
of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere 
in this notice.
    Public Comment:
    In response to our invitation in the NPP, 1,161 parties submitted 
comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, nor 
do we address suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to 
make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not 
address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to 
the NPP.

Introduction

    The Race to the Top program, a $4.35 billion fund created under the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), is the largest 
competitive education grant program in U.S. history. The Race to the 
Top Fund (referred to in the ARRA as the State Incentive Grant Fund) is 
designed to provide incentives to States to implement large-scale, 
system-changing reforms that result in improved student achievement, 
narrowed achievement gaps, and increased graduation and college 
enrollment rates.
    The ARRA specifies that applications for Race to the Top funds must 
address the four assurance areas referenced in section 14006(a)(2): 
Enhancing standards and assessments, improving the collection and use 
of data, increasing teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in 
teacher distribution, and turning around struggling schools. The 
Department published the NPP to solicit public comment on the 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria that State 
applications will address in accordance with this statutory 
requirement.
    The NPP prompted an outpouring of public comments. Some 1,161 
commenters submitted thousands of unique comments, ranging from one 
paragraph to 67 pages. Parents submitted comments, as did professional 
associations. From the statehouse to the schoolhouse, scores of public 
officials and educators, governors, chief State school officers, 
teachers, and principals weighed in with suggestions and critiques. All 
told, individuals from all 50 States and the District of Columbia, 
including over 550 individuals and 200 organizations, commented on the 
NPP.
    The extensive and thoughtful public commentary on the NPP has been 
invaluable in helping the Department revise, improve, and clarify the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the 
Race to the Top program. A discussion of the most significant changes 
follows.

Major Changes in the Selection Criteria, Priorities, Requirements, and 
Definitions

State Success Factors

    Many of the commenters expressed concern that the NPP's 
encouragement of comprehensive and coherent statewide reform was 
undercut by the need for State applicants to organize their plans 
around each of the four reform assurances, one at a time. In response 
to this concern, the Department has reorganized a number of the 
criteria, moving key criteria from the Overall section to a new section 
at the beginning of the selection criteria called State Success 
Factors. This new section provides States with the opportunity to start 
their proposals with clear statements of their coherent, coordinated, 
statewide reform agendas.
    As several commenters noted, States face at least three overarching 
issues critical to their success in implementing their Race to the Top 
plans--the need for a coherent reform agenda, the capacity to lead 
LEAs, and the ability to improve outcomes. In this notice, these three 
issues are reflected in the State Success Factors as follows: Criterion 
(A)(1) pertains to a State's ability to articulate a comprehensive and 
coherent education reform agenda, and to engage its local educational 
agencies (LEAs) in strongly committing to and participating in that 
agenda; criterion (A)(2) relates to a State's capacity to implement its 
proposed plans through strong leadership, successfully supporting its 
LEAs in improving student outcomes, administering a grant of this 
magnitude efficiently, and organizing its financial resources to 
optimize impact; and finally, criterion (A)(3) asks States to 
demonstrate their ability to significantly improve education outcomes 
for students across the State.
    More specifically, criterion (A)(1)(i) is a new criterion that asks 
States to set forth a comprehensive and coherent reform agenda that 
clearly articulates their goals for implementing reform in

[[Page 59689]]

the four education areas described in the ARRA and improving student 
outcomes statewide, establishes a clear and credible path to achieving 
these goals, and is consistent with the specific reform plans that the 
State has proposed throughout its application.
    Under criterion (A)(1)(ii) (proposed criterion (E)(3)(iv)), States 
will demonstrate the participation and commitment of their LEAs. First, 
as described in criterion (A)(1)(ii)(a), the strength of LEAs' 
commitments to their State's plans will be evaluated based on the terms 
and conditions in a State's binding agreements with its LEAs. (To 
support States' efforts, the Department has drafted a model Memorandum 
of Understanding (MOU) and included it in Appendix D of this notice.) 
Criterion (A)(1)(ii)(b) has been added to make it clear that the 
commitment of participating LEAs will also be judged, in part, based on 
LEAs' agreements to implement all or significant portions of the work 
outlined in the State's plan. Criterion (A)(1)(ii)(c) clarifies that 
the extent of an LEA's leadership support for participating in the 
State's Race to the Top plans will be assessed by how many signatures 
are on the binding agreement between the State and the LEA, from among 
(if applicable) the superintendent, the president of the local school 
board, and the local teachers' union leader, or their equivalents 
(provided that there is at least one authorized LEA signatory on the 
agreement). For all of these criteria, States will be asked to provide 
as evidence examples of their participating LEA agreements as well as 
tables that summarize which portions of the State plans LEAs are 
committing to implement and how extensive the LEAs' leadership support 
is.
    Criterion (A)(1)(iii) (adapted from proposed criteria (E)(3)(iv) 
and (E)(4)) asks States to describe how the engagement of those LEAs 
that are participating in the State's Race to the Top plans will 
translate into broad statewide impact on student outcomes, including 
increasing achievement and decreasing achievement gaps for (at a 
minimum) reading/language arts and mathematics on the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and on the assessments 
required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
amended (ESEA); and increasing high school graduation rates, college 
enrollment rates, and college credit accumulation.
    Criterion (A)(2) asks States to describe their capacity to 
implement, scale up, and sustain their proposed plans. Criterion 
(A)(2)(i) (adapted from proposed criterion (E)(5)) concerns States' 
capacity to implement their plans. Criterion (A)(2)(i)(a) asks States 
to demonstrate that they have strong leadership and dedicated teams to 
implement their statewide education reform plans; and criterion 
(A)(2)(i)(b) (proposed (E)(5)(ii)) encourages States to describe the 
activities they will undertake in supporting participating LEAs in 
successfully implementing their plans. Criterion (A)(2)(i)(c) (proposed 
criterion (E)(5)(i)) asks States about the effectiveness and efficiency 
of their operations and processes for implementing a Race to the Top 
grant. Criterion (A)(2)(i)(d) (proposed (E)(5)(v)) further clarifies 
that States will be evaluated based on how they plan to use the funds 
for this grant, as described in their budgets and accompanying budget 
narratives, to accomplish their plans and meet their performance 
targets. Proposed criterion (E)(5)(iv), regarding collaboration between 
States, is not included in this final notice.
    In criterion (A)(2)(ii) (proposed (E)(3)(i) and (E)(3)(ii)), States 
demonstrate that they have a plan to use the support from a broad group 
of stakeholders to better implement their reform plans. Criterion 
(A)(2)(ii)(a) concerns enlisting the support of teachers and principals 
as key stakeholders. Criterion (A)(2)(ii)(b) asks States to describe 
the strength of statements and actions of support from other critical 
stakeholders, and examples of these are listed. Proposed criterion 
(E)(3)(iii), regarding the support of grant-making foundations and 
other funding sources, is not included in this final notice.
    Criterion (A)(3) addresses the extent to which the State has 
demonstrated significant progress in raising achievement and closing 
gaps. Criterion (A)(3)(i) (proposed criteria (E)(1)(i) and (E)(1)(ii)) 
provides for the evaluation of States based on whether they have made 
progress in each of the four education reform areas over the past 
several years and used ARRA and other Federal and State funding to 
pursue such reforms.
    Criterion (A)(3)(ii) (proposed criterion (E)(1)(iv)) addresses 
States' track records of increasing student achievement, decreasing 
achievement gaps, and increasing graduation rates. When evaluating 
these student academic outcomes, reviewers will examine student 
assessment results in reading/language arts and mathematics, both on 
the NAEP and on the assessments required under the ESEA; progress will 
be considered for each subgroup as well as for the ``all students'' 
group.

Standards and Assessments

    In response to comments indicating that some States would have 
difficulty meeting a June 2010 deadline for adopting a new set of 
common, kindergarten-to-grade-12 (K-12) standards, this notice extends 
the deadline for adopting standards as far as possible, while still 
allowing the Department to comply with the statutory requirement to 
obligate all Race to the Top funds by September 30, 2010. As set forth 
in criterion (B)(1)(ii), the new deadline for adopting a set of common 
K-12 standards is August 2, 2010. States that cannot adopt a common set 
of K-12 standards by this date will be evaluated based on the extent to 
which they demonstrate commitment and progress toward adoption of such 
standards by a later date in 2010 (see criterion (B)(1) and Appendix 
B). Evidence supporting the State's adoption claims will include a 
description of the legal process in the State for adopting standards, 
and the State's plan, current progress against that plan, and timeframe 
for adoption.
    For criteria (B)(1) and (B)(2) (proposed criteria (A)(1) and 
(A)(2), respectively), regarding the development and adoption of 
common, high-quality standards and assessments, the term ``significant 
number of States'' has been further explained in the scoring rubric 
that will be used by reviewers to judge the Race to the Top 
applications (see Appendix B). The rubric clarifies that, on this 
aspect of the criterion, a State will earn ``high'' points if its 
consortium includes a majority of the States in the country; it will 
earn ``medium'' or ``low'' points if its consortium includes one-half 
or fewer of the States in the country.
    Further, for criterion (B)(2), concerning the development and 
implementation of common, high-quality assessments, States will be 
asked to present, as evidence, copies of their Memoranda of Agreement 
showing that the State is part of a consortium that intends to develop 
high-quality assessments aligned with the consortium's common set of 
standards. This is similar to the evidence required for criterion 
(B)(1) concerning the development and adoption of common standards.
    Finally, this notice clarifies the language in criterion (B)(3) 
(proposed criterion (A)(3)) regarding the transition to enhanced 
standards and high-quality assessments; the criterion now lists a 
number of activities in which States or LEAs might engage as they work 
to translate the standards and assessments into classroom practice.

[[Page 59690]]

Data Systems to Support Instruction

    The data systems selection criteria in the Race to the Top 
competition involve two types of data systems--statewide longitudinal 
data systems and instructional improvement systems. While numerous 
comments addressed the Department's emphasis on statewide longitudinal 
data systems in the NPP, the Department intends to give equal priority 
in this program to using instructional data as a critical tool for 
teachers, principals, and administrators to identify student needs, 
fill curriculum gaps, and target professional development. The final 
selection criteria, therefore, place significant emphasis on using data 
to inform professional development and fostering a culture of 
continuous improvement in schools and LEAs.
    More specifically, the final notice contains new language in 
criterion (C)(3)(i) (proposed (B)(3)(i)) that clarifies that this 
criterion concerns local instructional improvement systems, not 
statewide longitudinal data systems, and further clarifies the LEA's 
role in the acquisition, adoption, and use of local instructional 
improvement systems.
    New criterion (C)(3)(ii) was added to encourage LEAs and States to 
provide effective professional development on using data from these 
systems to support continuous instructional improvement.

Great Teachers and Leaders

    The teachers and leaders criteria are built on two core principles 
that remain consistent with the NPP--that teacher and principal quality 
matters, and that effective teachers and principals are those whose 
students grow academically. Thus, this notice continues to include 
criteria directed at improving teacher and principal effectiveness and 
at ensuring that highly effective teachers and principals are serving 
in the high-poverty, high-minority schools where their talents are 
needed the most. In addition, this notice continues to define effective 
teachers and principals as those whose students make significant 
academic growth. While the final notice reaffirms these core 
principles, it also includes a number of changes to the criteria and 
related definitions based on public input.
    The Department received over 400 comments in this reform area, many 
of which provided helpful suggestions that informed our revisions. One 
commenter suggested that the greatest contribution that the Race to the 
Top program could make would be to encourage the development of 
outstanding models for teacher and principal evaluation systems, now 
widely described as flawed and superficial. Based on this and similar 
comments, the Department has revised criterion (D)(2), now titled 
Improving Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Based on Performance, to 
encourage the design of high-quality evaluation systems, and to promote 
their use for feedback, professional improvement, and decision-making.
    The Department concurs with the many commenters who cautioned that 
teacher and principal ``effectiveness'' should not be based solely on 
student test scores. In this notice, ``effectiveness'' is defined as 
based on input from multiple measures, provided that student growth is 
a significant factor. In addition, this notice re-emphasizes that it is 
student growth--not raw student achievement data or proficiency 
levels--that is the ``significant factor'' to be considered in 
evaluating effectiveness.
    Finally, this notice expands and improves the four selection 
criteria that deal with teacher and principal professional development 
(criteria (B)(3), (C)(3)(ii), (D)(2)(iv)(a), and (D)(5)). It clarifies 
that professional collaboration and planning time, individualized 
professional development plans, training and support in the analysis 
and use of data, classroom observations with immediate feedback, and 
other activities are critical to supporting the development of teachers 
and principals.
    Specifically, criterion (D)(1) (proposed (C)(1)), concerning high-
quality pathways for aspiring teachers and leaders, has been expanded. 
It now includes a new criterion (D)(1)(iii), under which States will be 
evaluated based on the extent to which they have in place a process for 
monitoring, evaluating, and identifying areas of teacher and principal 
shortage and for preparing teachers and principals to fill these areas 
of shortage.
    Criterion (D)(2) (proposed (C)(2)) has been revised to focus on the 
design and use of rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems 
that provide regular feedback on performance to teachers and 
principals. This criterion also has been changed to clarify that the 
LEAs, not the States, should implement the teacher and principal 
effectiveness reforms under this criterion, and that the role of the 
States is to support their participating LEAs in implementing these 
reforms.
    Criterion (D)(2)(ii) (proposed (C)(2)(b)) now emphasizes that these 
evaluation systems should differentiate effectiveness using multiple 
rating categories, and should be designed and developed with teacher 
and principal involvement. Criterion (D)(2)(iii) (proposed criteria 
(C)(2)(c) and (C)(2)(d)(i)) encourages such evaluations to be conducted 
annually and to include timely and constructive feedback, while 
criterion (D)(2)(iv) (proposed criterion (C)(2)(d)) addresses uses of 
evaluations to inform decision-making.
    Criteria (D)(2)(iv)(c) and (D)(2)(iv)(d) (proposed criterion 
(C)(2)(d)(iii)) separately address the use of these evaluation systems 
to inform decisions regarding whether to grant tenure and/or full 
certification to effective teachers and principals (in criterion 
(D)(2)(iv)(c)), and removing ineffective teachers and principals (in 
criterion (D)(2)(iv)(d)). In addition, the Department has clarified 
that these decisions should be made using rigorous standards and 
streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.
    Criterion (D)(3) (proposed (C)(3)) has been revised to clarify that 
the State's plan for the equitable distribution of effective teachers 
and principals should be informed by the State's prior actions and 
data, and should ensure that students in high-poverty as well as high-
minority schools have equitable access to highly effective teachers and 
principals--and are not served by ineffective ones at higher rates than 
are other students. The performance measures for this criterion now 
include, for comparison purposes, data on the presence of highly 
effective and ineffective teachers and principals in low-poverty and 
low-minority schools.
    Criterion (D)(4) concerns improving the effectiveness of teacher 
and principal preparation programs. Criterion (D)(4)(i) (proposed 
(C)(4)) was revised to specify that, when reporting the effectiveness 
of teacher and principal credentialing programs, States should report 
student growth as well as student achievement data; they should report 
the data for all in-State credentialing programs, regardless of the 
number of graduates; and they should publicly report data, not 
``findings.''
    Criterion (D)(4)(ii) has been added to encourage States to expand 
those preparation and credentialing options and programs that are 
successful at producing effective teachers and principals (both as 
defined in this notice).
    Criterion (D)(5) (proposed criterion (C)(5)) focuses on providing 
effective support to teachers and principals. Here, the Department has 
inserted a new paragraph, (D)(5)(i), to provide additional guidance on, 
and examples of, effective support. The Department has also removed the 
reference to using

[[Page 59691]]

``rapid-time'' student data to inform and guide the supports provided 
to teachers and principals.

Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools

    The Department made three noteworthy changes to the selection 
criteria on turning around the persistently lowest-achieving schools. 
First, this notice removes the restriction, proposed in the NPP, that 
permitted the ``transformation'' model to be used solely as a last 
resort. Instead, we simply specify that an LEA with more than nine 
persistently lowest-achieving schools may not use the transformation 
model for more than 50 percent of its schools.
    Second, the Department has fully aligned the school intervention 
requirements and definitions across Race to the Top, the State Fiscal 
Stabilization Fund, and the forthcoming Title I School Improvement 
Grants final notice. The Department's intention, in so doing, is to 
make it easier for States to develop consistent and coherent plans 
across these three programs.
    Third, the public comments suggested that there was confusion about 
the role of charter schools in the Department's reform agenda. Some 
commenters concluded that by placing the charter school criterion in 
the school turnaround section, the Department was advancing charter 
schools as the chief remedy for addressing the needs of the 
persistently lowest-achieving schools. While the Department believes 
that charter schools can be strong partners in school turnaround work, 
it does not believe that charter schools are the only or preferred 
solution to turning around struggling schools. In fact, it is the 
Department's belief that turning around the persistently lowest-
achieving schools is a core competency that every district needs to 
develop, and that closing bad schools and opening good ones is the job 
of school district leaders. Notwithstanding research showing that 
charter schools on average perform similarly to traditional public 
schools, a growing body of evidence suggests that high-quality charter 
schools can be powerful forces for increasing student achievement, 
closing achievement gaps, and spurring educational innovation. As a 
consequence, the selection criterion pertaining to charter schools 
(criterion (F)(2), proposed (D)(2)) has been shifted from the Turning 
Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools section to the General section, 
where it more appropriately reflects charter schools' broader role as a 
tool for school innovation and reform.
    Specifically, the following changes have been made to criterion 
(E)(2) (proposed criterion (D)(3)), regarding turning around the 
lowest-achieving schools. Criterion (E)(2)(i) (proposed (D)(3)(i)) has 
been changed to allow States, at their discretion, to use Race to the 
Top funds to turn around non-Title I eligible secondary schools that 
would be considered ``persistently lowest-achieving schools'' if they 
were eligible to receive Title I funds.
    Criterion (E)(2)(ii) (proposed criterion (D)(3)(ii)) has been 
changed by removing the clause that restricted the use of the 
``transformation'' model to situations where the other intervention 
models were not possible and by specifying that an LEA with more than 
nine persistently lowest-achieving schools may not use the 
transformation model for more than 50 percent of its schools. In 
addition, the four intervention models LEAs may use under this 
criterion are now described in detail in Appendix C, and these models 
have been made identical across the Race to the Top, State Fiscal 
Stabilization Fund, and Title I School Improvement Grants notices.
    Finally, the evidence collected for criterion (E)(2) will include 
the State's historic performance on school turnaround efforts, as 
evidenced by the total number of persistently lowest-achieving schools 
that States or LEAs attempted to turn around in the last five years, 
the approach used, and the results and lessons learned to date.

General

    The General section includes a number of other key reform 
conditions or plans.
    First, criterion (F)(1) concerns education funding across the 
State. Criterion (F)(1)(i) (proposed (E)(2)) addresses the State's 
efforts to maintain education funding between FY 2008 and FY 2009. New 
criterion (F)(1)(ii) has been added to reward States whose policies 
lead to equitable funding between high-need LEAs and other LEAs, and 
within LEAs, between high-poverty schools and other schools.
    As noted above, criterion (F)(2) regarding charter schools has been 
moved to the General section from the Turning Around the Lowest-
Achieving Schools section, where it was proposed criterion (D)(2). In 
this notice, the Department maintains its focus on high-quality charter 
schools as important tools for school reform.
    As was the case with the NPP, the final charter school criteria 
presented under (F)(2) encourage both unrestrictive charter school 
growth laws and strong charter school accountability. In support of 
charter school growth, the criteria also provide for the evaluation of 
States based on the extent to which they provide equitable funding for 
charter schools and offer them access to facilities. Criterion 
(F)(2)(ii) has also been revised to urge authorizers to encourage 
charter schools that serve student populations that are similar to 
local district student populations, especially relative to high-need 
students.
    In their comments, a number of States argued that they had laws--
other than charter school laws--that spurred school innovation. In 
response to these comments, the Department has added a new criterion, 
(F)(2)(v), that invites States to describe the extent to which they 
enable LEAs to operate innovative, autonomous public schools other than 
charter schools.
    It is the Department's hope that the Race to the Top competition 
gives States ample opportunity to explain and implement proven and 
promising ideas for bolstering student learning and educational 
attainment, and to do this in ways that work best in their local 
contexts. To ensure that the application reflects a broad range of 
effective State and local solutions, criterion (F)(3) (proposed 
criterion (E)(1)(iii)) asks States to describe laws, regulations, or 
policies (other than those asked about in other selection criteria) 
that have created conditions in the State that are conducive to 
education reform and improved student outcomes.

Priorities

    Many commenters offered suggestions about the proposed priorities, 
in particular the invitational and competitive preference priorities. A 
number of commenters urged the Department to increase the importance of 
each invitational priority by making it a competitive or absolute 
priority, while others wanted to add new priorities. Because of the 
Department's desire to give States latitude and flexibility in 
developing focused plans to best meet their students' needs, we are not 
changing any of the priorities from invitational to competitive or 
absolute. We did, however, add a new invitational priority and make 
some changes to the proposed priorities.
    Regarding the proposed absolute priority, which stated that States' 
applications must comprehensively and coherently address all of the 
four education reform areas specified in the ARRA, the Department has 
added the requirement that States must comprehensively and coherently 
address the new State Success Factors criteria as well.

[[Page 59692]]

    The final notice adds a new invitational priority 3, Innovations 
for Improving Early Learning Outcomes, expressing the Secretary's 
interest in applications that will improve early learning outcomes for 
high-need students who are young children.
    In invitational priority 4 (proposed priority 3), Expansion and 
Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems, programs such as at-
risk and dropout prevention programs, school climate and culture 
programs, and early learning programs have been added to the list of 
programs that a State may choose to integrate with its statewide 
longitudinal data system.
    In invitational priority 5 (proposed priority 4), P-20 
Coordination, Vertical and Horizontal Alignment, horizontal 
coordination of services was added as a critical component for 
supporting high-need students.
    In invitational priority 6 (proposed priority 5), School-level 
Conditions for Reform, Innovation, and Learning, new paragraph (vi) 
adds school climate and culture, and new paragraph (vii) adds family 
and community engagement to the list of school conditions conducive to 
reform and innovation.

Requirements

    The first eligibility requirement, requirement (a), has been 
changed to provide that a State must have both phases of its State 
Fiscal Stabilization Fund application approved by the Department prior 
to being awarded a Race to the Top grant. In the NPP, we proposed that 
a State would have to receive approval of its Stabilization Fund 
applications prior to December 31, 2009 (for Race to the Top Phase 1 
applicants) or prior to submitting a Race to the Top application (for 
Race to the Top Phase 2 applicants).
    The second eligibility requirement, requirement (b), was revised to 
clarify that the State must not have any legal, statutory, or 
regulatory barriers at the State level 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.
    In addition, several changes were made to the application 
requirements. The Department removed two proposed application 
requirements, application requirements (c) and (d), which would have 
required States to provide information about making education funding a 
priority and about stakeholder support. Note that the final notice 
retains the selection criteria that request this same information.
    Application requirement (c)(2) provides additional clarity about 
how to calculate the relative shares of the Race to the Top grant that 
participating LEAs will be eligible to receive.
    The Department has added a new application requirement, requirement 
(g), to clarify specific issues related to the term ``subgroup,'' to 
NAEP, and to the assessments required under the ESEA. In addition to 
requiring States to include, at a minimum, the listed student subgroups 
when reporting past outcomes and setting future targets, this 
application requirement includes statutory references. This addition 
eliminates the need for statutory references that define subgroups 
elsewhere in the notice, and they therefore have been removed.
    The program requirements have also changed. First, the Department 
has indicated its final approach to evaluation. The Institute of 
Education Sciences will conduct a series of national evaluations of 
Race to the Top State grantees as part of its evaluation of programs 
funded under the ARRA. States that are awarded Race to the Top grants 
will be required to participate in these evaluations and are welcome, 
but not required, to conduct their own independent, statewide 
evaluations as well.
    Finally, the program requirements have clarified that funds awarded 
under this competition may not be used to pay for costs related to 
statewide summative assessments.

Definitions

    The Department has revised the definition of alternative routes to 
certification to require that in addition to the other program 
characteristics listed, the program must be selective in accepting 
candidates. The revised definition also clarifies that such programs 
should include standard features of high-quality preparation programs 
and award the same level of certification that is awarded by 
traditional preparation programs.
    A new definition of college enrollment refers to the enrollment of 
students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR 
200.19(b)(1) and who enroll in an institution of higher education (as 
defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act, Public Law 105-244, 
20 U.S.C. 1001) within 16 months of graduation.
    The final notice revises the definitions of effective teacher, 
effective principal, highly effective teacher, and highly effective 
principal to require that multiple measures be used to evaluate 
effectiveness, and provides several examples of appropriate measures.
    The definition of formative assessment has been revised to clarify 
that formative assessments are assessment questions, tools and 
processes and to require that feedback from such assessments need only 
be timely rather than instant.
    Under a new definition of high-minority school, States are to 
define high-minority schools in their applications in a manner 
consistent with their Teacher Equity Plans.
    The definition of high-need LEA was changed to conform with the 
definition of this term used in section 14013 of the ARRA.
    The final notice adds and defines high-need students to mean 
students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special 
assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who 
attend high-minority schools (as defined in this notice), who are far 
below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high 
school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on 
time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been 
incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language 
learners.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term English language learner, as used in this notice, 
is synonymous with the term limited English proficient, as defined 
in section 9101 of the ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final notice adds a definition of high-performing charter 
school. This definition refers to a charter school that has been in 
operation for at least three consecutive years and has demonstrated 
overall success, including substantial progress in improving student 
achievement and having the management and leadership necessary to 
overcome initial start-up problems and establish a thriving, 
financially viable charter school.
    The definition of high-quality assessment has been revised to 
clarify that test design must, to the extent feasible, use universal 
design principles in development and administration, and incorporate 
technology where appropriate.
    The final notice also adds a definition of increased learning time, 
which refers to using a longer school day, week, or year schedule to 
significantly increase the total number of school hours to include 
additional time for (a) instruction in core academic subjects, 
including English; reading or language arts; mathematics; science; 
foreign languages; civics and government; economics; arts; history; and 
geography; (b) instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities 
that contribute to a well-rounded education, including, for

[[Page 59693]]

example, physical education, service learning, and experiential and 
work-based learning opportunities that are provided by partnering, as 
appropriate, with other organizations; and (c) teachers to collaborate, 
plan, and engage in professional development within and across grades 
and subjects.
    The final notice adds a definition of innovative, autonomous public 
schools to refer to open enrollment public schools that, in return for 
increased accountability for student achievement (as defined in this 
notice), have the flexibility and authority to define their 
instructional models and associated curriculum; select and replace 
staff; implement new structures and formats for the school day or year; 
and control their budgets.
    In the definition of instructional improvement systems, the 
Department now provides examples of related types of data that could be 
integrated into these systems.
    The final notice adds a definition of involved LEAs, which refers 
to LEAs that choose to work with the State to implement those specific 
portions of the State's plan that necessitate full or nearly full 
statewide implementation, such as transitioning to a common set of K-12 
standards, (as defined in this notice). Involved LEAs do not receive a 
share of the 50 percent of a State's grant award that it must subgrant 
to LEAs in accordance with section 14006(c) of the ARRA; however, 
States may provide other funding to involved LEAs under the State's 
Race to the Top grant in a manner that is consistent with the State's 
application.
    The final notice adds a definition of low-minority school, which is 
to be defined by the State in a manner consistent with the State's 
Teacher Equity Plan.
    A new definition of low-poverty school refers, consistent with 
section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA, to a school in the lowest 
quartile of schools in the State with respect to poverty level, using a 
measure of poverty determined by the State.
    The final notice adds a definition of participating LEAs, which 
refers to LEAs that choose to work with the State to implement all or 
significant portions of the State's Race to the Top plan, as specified 
in each LEA's agreement with the State. Each participating LEA that 
receives funding under Title I, Part A will receive a share of the 50 
percent of a State's grant award that the State must subgrant to LEAs, 
based on the LEA's relative share of Title I, Part A allocations in the 
most recent year (that is, 2009), in accordance with section 14006(c) 
of the ARRA. Any participating LEA that does not receive funding under 
Title I, Part A (as well as one that does) may receive funding from the 
State's other 50 percent of the grant award, in accordance with the 
State's plan.
    The term persistently lowest-performing schools has been changed to 
persistently lowest-achieving schools. The definition has been revised 
to include the lowest-achieving five percent criterion originally 
included in proposed criterion (D)(3) and to add high schools with 
graduation rates below 60 percent. The definition also provides that, 
in determining the lowest-achieving schools, a State must consider the 
academic achievement of the ``all students'' group for each school in 
terms of proficiency on the State's assessments required by the ESEA in 
reading/language arts and mathematics combined, and the lack of 
progress by that group on these assessments over a number of years.
    The definition of rapid-time, in reference to reporting and 
availability of data, has been changed to remove the specification of a 
turnaround time of 72 hours and to clarify that it refers to locally 
collected school- and LEA-level data.
    The definition of student achievement has been revised to include 
several examples of alternate measures of student learning and 
performance for non-tested grades and subjects. The final notice also 
clarifies that, for tested grades and subjects, student achievement can 
be measured using alternative measures of student learning and 
performance in addition to the State's assessments under the ESEA. 
Finally, the reference to Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals 
as a potential achievement measure has been removed.
    The definition of student growth was clarified to mean the change 
in student achievement (as defined in this notice) for an individual 
student between two or more points in time, rather than just between 
two points in time, as the NPP had proposed, and that a State may also 
include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across 
classrooms.
    In the following section, the Department has summarized and 
provided its responses to the comments received.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

General Comments on the Race to the Top Program

Reorganization of the Final Notice
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: The selection criteria in this notice are reordered. 
The most significant change is the addition of State Success Factors to 
the beginning of the selection criteria. State Success Factors criteria 
include some new criteria, as well as criteria that are adapted from 
proposed criteria from the overall selection criteria section proposed 
in the NPP. This reorganization will give States the opportunity to 
begin their proposals with clear statements of their coherent and 
coordinated statewide reform agendas. However, with this change, it was 
necessary to redesignate the remaining criteria. For example, in the 
NPP, the criteria related to standards and assessments were designated 
as ``A'' (e.g., (A)(1), (A)(2), etc.), but in this final notice have 
been re-designated as ``B'' (e.g., (B)(1), (B)(2), etc.). One way to 
indicate this change throughout the final notice is to include both 
references every time a criterion is used (e.g., revised criterion 
(B)(1) (proposed criterion (A)(1)). Given the length of this notice and 
the extensive references to criteria, we have opted to refer only to 
the revised designation in the discussion of the comments. For example, 
we refer to a criterion for standards and assessments as ``criterion 
(B)(1),'' rather than as ``revised criterion (B)(1) (proposed criterion 
(A)(1)).'' In a few instances, we refer to ``proposed criterion'' or 
``revised criterion'' for clarity but, generally, do not refer to each 
criterion with both its ``revised'' and ``proposed'' designation. We 
believe this format makes the document easier to read and understand. 
As a reminder to readers, we include both the final and proposed 
designations under the appropriate headings. Table 1 lists the final 
criteria and the corresponding proposed criteria. In Table 2, the 
columns are reversed to show the proposed criteria and the 
corresponding final criteria.
    There is a similar re-designation of the priorities. Specifically, 
we added a new invitational priority on innovations for improving early 
learning outcomes and designated it as priority 3. Subsequent 
priorities were re-numbered, and thus, proposed priorities 3, 4, and 5 
are now priorities 4, 5, and 6, respectively. As with the selection 
criteria, generally, we will refer only to the final designation for 
these priorities and will use headers, as appropriate, to remind the 
reader of the changes. Thus, for example, we will refer to the priority

[[Page 59694]]

on Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems, 
which was proposed priority 3 in the NPP, as priority 4. Table 3 
summarizes these changes.
    Changes: We have re-designated the selection criteria and proposed 
priorities 3, 4, and 5. We will refer to the selection criteria and 
priorities with their final designations throughout this notice and, in 
a few instances, will refer to proposed designations for clarity. Three 
tables have been added to show how the final selection criteria and 
priorities relate to the proposed criteria and priorities.

    Table 1--The Final Selection Criteria Compared With the Proposed
                           Selection Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Final notice                       Proposed notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. State Success Factors                (E)(1), (E)(3), (E)(4), (E)(5),
                                         and new
    A1. Articulating State's            (E)(3)(iv), new
     education reform agenda and
     LEAs' participation in it
    (A)(1)(i)                           New
    (A)(1)(ii)                          (E)(3)(iv)
    (A)(1)(ii)(a)                       (E)(3)(iv)
    (A)(1)(ii)(b)                       (E)(3)(iv)
    (A)(1)(ii)(c)                       (E)(3)(iv)
    (A)(1)(iii)(a)                      (E)(3)(iv) and (E)(4)(i)
    (A)(1)(iii)(b)                      (E)(3)(iv) and (E)(4)(ii)
    (A)(1)(iii)(c)                      (E)(3)(iv) and (E)(4)(iii)
    (A)(1)(iii)(d)                      (E)(3)(iv) and new
    A2. Building strong statewide       (E)(3)(i-ii), (E)(5), and new
     capacity to implement, scale
     up, and sustain proposed plans
    (A)(2)(i)(a)                        New
    (A)(2)(i)(b)                        (E)(5)(ii)
    (A)(2)(i)(c)                        (E)(5)(i)
    (A)(2)(i)(d)                        (E)(5)(v)
    (A)(2)(i)(e)                        (E)(5)(iii)
    (A)(2)(ii)(a)                       (E)(3)(i)
    (A)(2)(ii)(b)                       (E)(3)(i-ii)
    A3. Demonstrating significant       (E)(1) and (E)(4)
     progress in raising
     achievement and closing gaps
    (A)(3)(i)                           (E)(1)(i-ii)
    (A)(3)(ii)(a)                       (E)(1)(iv)
    (A)(3)(ii)(b)                       (E)(1)(iv)
    (A)(3)(ii)(c)                       (E)(1)(iv)
B. Standards and Assessments         A. Standards and Assessments
    B1. Developing and adopting         (A)(1)
     common standards
    (B)(1)(i)(a)                        (A)(1)(i) and (A)(1)(ii)
    (B)(1)(i)(b)                        (A)(1)(i) and (A)(1)(ii)
    (B)(1)(i)(c)                        (A)(1)(i) and (A)(1)(ii)
    (B)(1)(ii)(a)                       (A)(1)(i)
    (B)(1)(ii)(b)                       (A)(1)(ii)
    B2. Developing and implementing     (A)(2)
     common, high-quality
     assessments
    (B)(2)(a)                           (A)(2)
    (B)(2)(a)                           (A)(2)
    B3. Supporting the transition       (A)(3)
     to enhanced standards and high-
     quality assessments
C. Data Systems to Support           B. Data Systems to Support
 Instruction                          Instruction
    C1. Fully implementing a            (B)(1)
     statewide longitudinal data
     system
    C2. Accessing and using State       (B)(2)
     data
    C3. Using data to improve           (B)(3)
     instruction
    (C)(3)(i)                           (B)(3)(i)
    (C)(3)(ii)                          New
    (C)(3)(iii)                         (B)(3)(ii)
D. Great Teachers and Leaders        C. Great Teachers and Leaders
    D1. Providing high-quality          (C)(1)
     pathways for aspiring teachers
     and principals
    (D)(1)(i)                           (C)(1)
    (D)(1)(ii)                          (C)(1)
    (D)(1)(iii)                         New
    D2. Improving teacher and           (C)(2)
     principal effectiveness based
     on performance
    (D)(2)(i)                           (C)(2)(a)
    (D)(2)(ii)                          (C)(2)(b)
    (D)(2)(iii)                         (C)(2)(c) and (C)(2)(d)(i)
    (D)(2)(iv)                          (C)(2)(d)
    (D)(2)(iv)(a)                       (C)(2)(d)(i)
    (D)(2)(iv)(b)                       (C)(2)(d)(ii)
    (D)(2)(iv)(c)                       (C)(2)(d)(iii)
    (D)(2)(iv)(d)                       (C)(2)(d)(iii)
    D3. Ensuring equitable              (C)(3)
     distribution of effective
     teachers and principals

[[Page 59695]]

 
    (D)(3)(i)                           (C)(3)
    (D)(3)(ii)                          (C)(3)
    D4. Improving the effectiveness     (C)(4)
     of teacher and principal
     preparation programs
    (D)(4)(i)                           (C)(4)
    (D)(4)(ii)                          New
    D5. Providing effective support     (C)(5)
     to teachers and principals
    (D)(5)(i)                           (C)(5)
    (D)(5)(ii)                          (C)(5)
E. Turning Around the Lowest-        D. Turning Around Struggling
 Achieving Schools                    Schools
    E1. Intervening in the lowest-      (D)(1)
     achieving schools and LEAs
    E2. Turning around the lowest-      (D)(3)
     achieving schools
    (E)(2)(i)                           (D)(3)(i)
    (E)(2)(ii)                          (D)(3)(ii)
F. General Selection Criteria           (D)(2), (E)(1), (E)(2), and new
    F1. Making education funding a      (E)(2) and new
     priority
    (F)(1)(i)                           (E)(2)
    (F)(1)(ii)                          New
    F2. Ensuring successful             (D)(2)
     conditions for high-performing
     charter schools and other
     innovative schools
    (F)(2)(i)                           (D)(2)(i)
    (F)(2)(ii)                          (D)(2)(ii)
    (F)(2)(iii)                         (D)(2)(iii)
    (F)(2)(iv)                          (D)(2)(iv)
    (F)(2)(v)                           New
    F3. Demonstrating other             (E)(1)(iii)
     significant reform conditions
    Removed                             (E)(3)(iii)
    Removed                             (E)(5)(iv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2--The Proposed Selection Criteria Compared With the Final
                           Selection Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Proposed notice                        Final notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Standards and Assessments            B. Standards and Assessments
    (A)(1). Developing and adopting     (B)(1)
     common standards
    (A)(1)(i)                           (B)(1)(i), (B)(1)(ii)(a)
    (A)(1)(ii)                          (B)(1)(i), (B)(1)(ii)(b)
    (A)(2). Developing and              (B)(2)
     implementing common, high-
     quality assessments
    (A)(3). Supporting the              (B)(3)
     transition to enhanced
     standards and high-quality
     assessments
B. Data Systems to Support           C. Data Systems to Support
 Instruction                          Instruction
    (B)(1). Fully implementing a        (C)(1)
     statewide longitudinal data
     system
    (B)(2). Accessing and using         (C)(2)
     State data
    (B)(3). Using data to improve       (C)(3)(i), (C)(3)(iii)
     instruction
    (B)(3)(i)                           (C)(3)(i)
    (B)(3)(ii)                          (C)(3)(iii)
C. Great Teachers and Leaders        D. Great Teachers and Leaders
    (C)(1). Providing high-quality      (D)(1)(i-ii)
     pathways for aspiring teachers
     and principals
    (C)(2). Improving teacher and       (D)(2)
     principal effectiveness based
     on performance
    (C)(2)(a)                           (D)(2)(i)
    (C)(2)(b)                           (D)(2)(ii)
    (C)(2)(c)                           (D)(2)(iii)
    (C)(2)(d)(i)                        (D)(2)(iii), (D)(2)(iv)(a)
    (C)(2)(d)(ii)                       (D)(2)(iv)(b)
    (C)(2)(d)(iii)                      (D)(2)(iv)(c), (D)(2)(iv)(d)
    (C)(3). Ensuring equitable          (D)(3)(i), (D)(3)(ii)
     distribution of effective
     teachers and principals
    (C)(4). Reporting the               (D)(4)(i)
     effectiveness of teacher and
     principal preparation programs
    (C)(5). Providing effective         (D)(5)(i), (D)(5)(ii)
     support to teachers and
     principals
D. Turning Around Struggling         E. Turning Around the Lowest-
 Schools                              Achieving Schools
    (D)(1). Intervening in the          (E)(1)
     lowest-achieving schools and
     LEAs
    (D)(2). Increasing the supply       (F)(2)
     of high-quality charter
     schools
    (D)(2)(i)                           (F)(2)(i)
    (D)(2)(ii)                          (F)(2)(ii)
    (D)(2)(iii)                         (F)(2)(iii)
    (D)(2)(iv)                          (F)(2)(iv)
    (D)(3). Turning around the          (E)(2)
     lowest-achieving schools

[[Page 59696]]

 
    (D)(3)(i)                           (E)(2)(i)
    (D)(3)(ii)                          (E)(2)(ii)
E. Overall Selection Criteria        (A) State Success Factors and (F)
                                      General Selection Criteria
    (E)(1). Demonstrating               (A)(3)(i), (A)(3)(ii), (F)(3)
     significant progress
    (E)(1)(i)                           (A)(3)(i)
    (E)(1)(ii)                          (A)(3)(i)
    (E)(1)(iii)                         (F)(3)
    (E)(1)(iv)                          (A)(3)(ii)
    (E)(2). Making education            (F)(1)(i)
     funding a priority
    (E)(3). Enlisting statewide         (A)(1)(ii), (A)(1)(iii),
     support and commitment              (A)(2)(ii)
    (E)(3)(i)                           (A)(2)(ii)(a), (A)(2)(ii)(b)
    (E)(3)(ii)                          (A)(2)(ii)(b)
    (E)(3)(iii)                         Removed
    (E)(3)(iv)                          (A)(1)(ii), (A)(1)(iii)
    (E)(4). Raising achievement and     (A)(1)(iii)
     closing gaps
    (E)(4)(i)                           (A)(1)(iii)(a)
    (E)(4)(ii)                          (A)(1)(iii)(b)
    (E)(4)(iii)                         (A)(1)(iii)(c)
    (E)(5). Building strong             (A)(2)(i)(b-e)
     statewide capacity to
     implement, scale up, and
     sustain proposed plans
    (E)(5)(i)                           (A)(2)(i)(c)
    (E)(5)(ii)                          (A)(2)(i)(b)
    (E)(5)(iii)                         (A)(2)(i)(e)
    (E)(5)(iv)                          Removed
    (E)(5)(v)                           (A)(2)(i)(d)
    New                                 (A)(1)(i)
    New                                 (A)(1)(iii)(d)
    New                                 (A)(2)(i)(a)
    New                                 (C)(3)(ii)
    New                                 (D)(1)(iii)
    New                                 (D)(4)(ii)
    New                                 (F)(1)(ii)
    New                                 (F)(2)(v)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 3--The Final Priorities Compared With the Proposed Priorities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Final priorities                   Proposed priorities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority 1: Absolute Priority--      Priority 1: Absolute Priority.
 Comprehensive Approach to
 Education Reform.
Priority 2: Competitive Preference   Priority 2: Competitive Preference
 Priority--Emphasis on Science,       Priority.
 Technology, Engineering, and
 Mathematics (STEM).
Priority 3: Invitational Priority--  New.
 Innovations for Improving Early
 Learning Outcomes.
Priority 4: Invitational Priority--  Priority 3.
 Expansion and Adaptation of
 Statewide Longitudinal Data
 Systems.
Priority 5: Invitational Priority--  Priority 4.
 P-20 Coordination, Vertical and
 Horizontal Alignment.
Priority 6: Invitational Priority--  Priority 5.
 School-Level Conditions for
 Reform, Innovation, and Learning.
Priority 6, Paragraph vi.            New.
Priority 6, Paragraph vii.           New.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall Comments on the Race to the Top Program
    Comment: We received a number of comments that addressed issues 
related to the Race to the Top program in general, as well as comments 
that focused on a number of priorities and selection criteria.
    Discussion: We are addressing, in this section, general comments on 
the Race to the Top program, as well as comments that focused on 
multiple priorities and selection criteria. This allows us to group 
similar comments and be more responsive to the commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters supported our proposals in the NPP and our 
effort to leverage cutting-edge education reforms and innovation in a 
competitive Race to the Top program that will lay the foundation for 
significant improvement of America's education system. In particular, 
these commenters praised the Department's proposals for ``game-
changing'' reforms in the areas of improving teacher and principal 
effectiveness and turning around our lowest-achieving schools.
    Other commenters expressed their overall opposition to the Race to 
the Top program because of what they described as its ``one-size-fits-
all'' approach to education reform involving ``a top-down, narrow 
definition of innovation that has little research to support it.'' 
Another commenter stated that the Department is prescribing a national 
formula for education reform, which threatens to undermine the program. 
In particular, several

[[Page 59697]]

commenters objected to the proposed use of test scores as an accurate 
measure of student achievement and what they claimed were ``unproven'' 
interventions such as charter schools and linking teacher compensation 
to student achievement data. Many commenters asserted that the proposed 
program design would interfere with State and local prerogatives and 
responsibilities for public education. Other commenters noted that some 
of the interventions proposed in Race to the Top, such as increasing 
the number of high-quality charter schools, are not consistent with 
existing State laws and might not work as well in rural areas as in 
urban environments. One commenter stated that the NPP ignored the 
existing ESEA school improvement process and ``would simply layer 
another top-down accountability process on top of the current faulty 
one.'' Some of these commenters urged that the final notice instead 
encourage States to propose multiple innovative, research-based reform 
strategies and models tailored to their own unique local needs.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the expressions of support 
for its Race to the Top proposal as well as commenters' constructive 
suggestions. The Race to the Top program provides a flexible framework 
for comprehensive State and local innovation in the key reform areas 
identified in the ARRA. In fact, one of the key purposes of this 
program is to ask States for their best ideas about how to address the 
levers of change--the four assurances in the ARRA--to significantly 
improve student outcomes and advance the field of education reform.
    To create ``room'' for States to meet this goal, this final notice, 
consistent with the NPP, includes only one absolute priority and two 
eligibility requirements--none of which interferes with a State's 
flexibility to put forward its best ideas and practices for reform. The 
absolute priority focuses on comprehensiveness and coherence across the 
reform areas, and the eligibility requirements include (1) approved 
applications for funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Stabilization 
program, and (2) no legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the 
State level to linking data on student achievement or student growth to 
teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal 
evaluation. As we noted in the NPP, 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 are 
advanced by the Race to the Top program. We, therefore, believe 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. With regard to the 
second eligibility requirement, we believe that the capability to link 
student achievement to teachers and principals for the purposes of 
evaluation is fundamental to the 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. Furthermore, without the legal 
authority to use student achievement or student growth data for teacher 
and principal evaluations, States would not be able to execute reform 
plans related to several selection criteria in this notice.
    In addition, the proposed selection criteria were not designated as 
eligibility requirements; instead, they were proposed as recommended 
elements of a comprehensive State plan that would provide an individual 
State with the flexibility to emphasize its own priorities and craft a 
winning application. This flexible approach has been retained in this 
final notice. For instance, States need not address every selection 
criterion, so long as they comprehensively and coherently address all 
of the four education reform areas as well as the State Success Factors 
Criteria.
    Through this program, the Department will reward success in at 
least two ways: First, by giving States credit for having already put 
into place key conditions for reform, improving student achievement, 
and closing achievement gaps; and second, by encouraging States to 
build on their assets and successes. We believe that State plans that 
build on a foundation of successful existing practices will be more 
likely to succeed in improving student outcomes.
    It is important to note that the Race to the Top program is a 
voluntary competitive grant program. Consistent with section 14006(b) 
of the ARRA, we may use ``such other criteria as the Secretary 
determines appropriate'' in making Race to the Top awards; our 
intention is not to fund every State but to identify and reward the 
subset of States that demonstrate the greatest promise of making 
meaningful gains in developing standards and assessments, using data to 
drive improved student outcomes, improving teacher and principal 
effectiveness and achieving equity in the distribution of effective 
teachers and principals, and turning around struggling schools. 
Moreover, because the effects of the Race to the Top program might not 
be captured by existing State accountability systems, such as those 
created under the ESEA, this final notice retains the separate 
performance measures included in the NPP.
    In response to commenters' concerns pertaining to ``unproven'' 
interventions in the Race to the Top program, there is ample evidence, 
for example, that high-performing charter schools can significantly 
improve the achievement of high-need students. Likewise, the research 
supports that effective teachers and principals are essential to 
improving student achievement; accordin